BILL PERKINS

SENATOR, 30
TH
DISTRICT

COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS

Ranking Member
Corporations, Authorities and
Commissions
NYC Education Subcommittee
MEMBER

Civil Service and Pensions
Codes/ Finance
Judiciary/Labor
Rules
Transportation













ALBANY OFFICE
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE BUILDING
ROOM 517
ALBANY, NY 12247
(P) 518-455-2441
(F) 518-426-6809

DISTRICT OFFICE
ACP STATE OFFICE BUILDING
163 W. 125TH STREET, 9TH FL.
NEW YORK, NY 10027
(P) 212-222-7315
(F) 212-678-0001

E-MAIL
PERKINS@NYSENATE.GOV
July 15
th
, 2014

The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo
Governor of New York State
The New York State Capitol | Executive Chamber
Albany, New York 12224

RE: Open Letter Concerning The Prospective Use Of Clean Water State Revolving Fund Money
To Fund Construction Of The New NY Bridge

Dear Governor Cuomo,

I write to you with respect to your proposal to direct $511 Million from the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF)under the auspices of the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
(EFC) to the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA) for major construction costs associated
with the New NY Bridge (NNYB) Project. In short, for an entire catalogue of reasonsboth based in
law and public policyincluding the fact that this proposal has been undertaken in direct
contravention of multiple statutes, both Federal and State, I am respectfully requesting that you
withdraw the plan from consideration at the Public Authorities Control Board (PACB, Item 14-EF-626)
meeting tomorrow.

At this stage, there is an entire host of outstanding questions and legal concerns surrounding this
project that have not been answered to the satisfaction of anyone, including oversight and expert
bodies such as: the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Citizens Advisory
Committee of the New York-New Jersey Harbor & Estuary Program and the Westchester Municipal
Officials Association, not to mention members of the State Legislature and the New York City Council.

I support your overall vision for a New NY Bridge that enhances our standing with respect to economic
development, transportation infrastructure and recreational and community building opportunities.
However, the fact that you and your agents at the Thruway Authority have still not released a full
financing planand instead are relying on a secret piecemeal fiduciary strategy in this massive public
undertakingraises concerns of great magnitude for me. Fortunately, in the instant matter of the
prospective EFC loan, the facts are clear and lead to a unilateral conclusionI strongly and strenuously
oppose this project for the following reasons, which include, without limitation:



This proposal is violative and/or totally incompatible with the following multiple sections of law and
related regulations: (1) Sections 603, 605 and 606 of the Federal Clean Water Act; (2) Various EPA
regulations governing the Clean Water Act (CWA), including 40 C.F.R. 35.3150(b)(1)(ii) and 40 C.F.R.
35.3150(a)concerning proper notification and public comment and review requirements; (3) The
Amended and Restated Operating Agreement between EPA and EFC for the Organization and
Administration of the New York State Revolving Loan Fund; (4) Multiple provisions of the New York
State Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), including Sections 17-0303 and 17-1901 relative to project
eligibility; and (5) Section 51(3) of the Public Authorities Law, which requires demonstration of
commitments of funds sufficient to finance the acquisition and construction of projects.

This proposal simply does not meet the test, enumerated in both Federal and State Law to be a project
eligible for assistance. It is therefore an unauthorized and entirely inappropriate use of CWSRF
funding.

The process that gave rise to this proposal was conducted in secret and not one single opportunity has
been given for public comment on a project that seeks to spend a half-billion dollarsthis is in
contravention of Federal Regulations and entirely anathema to the notion of open and transparent
government.

This proposal is entirely without precedent as CWSRF funds have always been exclusively used by
municipalities and local water districts for infrastructure projects, sewer upgrades, wastewater
treatment facilities and habitat restoration. Bridge construction is simply not an authorized or
contemplated usage.

If somehow approved, this project will set an explosively dangerous precedent, to the extent that all
other infrastructure projects statewide will seek to turn this dedicated and focused funding source into
a construction slush fund to be raided at will.

The EPA has not approved this proposal and, in fact, has raised a litany of rigorous project eligibility
questions concerning the contemplated uses and what, if any actual nexus they have to water quality
and actual eligibility for CWSRF funding.

Further, the EPA is still in the midst of a review process and it would be inadvisable, if not improper, to
proceed forward with PACB action absent a final determination from the Agency. Unauthorized use of
funding that invites lawsuits or clawbacks would imperil future participation in the CWSRF Program
and forestall construction of this essential Bridge.

This proposal would substantially reduce the amount of CWSRF money that is available to New York
City, not only for this year but for the life of the loan30 yearsmeaning an entire generation of
projects may be forever sacrificed. This would be an untenable and disastrous outcome as our entire
State has over $36 Billion in unmet and unresolved municipal wastewater infrastructure needs that
must be resolved in the next two decades.



Sadly, this $511 Million CWSRF loan is really nothing more than a raid in the classic style of Rob
Peter, To Pay Paul with the caveat that Peters water will now be more polluted. Given all of the
foregoing, I am exceptionally concerned that this totally unconventional, unprecedented, inadvisable
and unauthorized transfer of CWSRF funds will have devastating and longstanding negative impacts on
our municipalities, our water quality, our environment and our collective quality of life.

Conclusively, as a matter of both law and public policy, I cannot support this proposal and, if fact
believe that it should be withdrawn or left to fail on its merits, or lack thereof. Furthermore, as
member of the Public Authorities Control Board, I feel duty-bound by Section 51(3) of the Public
Authorities Law to advocate against the passage of this proposal because it fails the statutory test by
being totally without commitments of funds sufficient to finance the acquisition and construction of
such project.

Again, I strongly urge you to remove Item 14-EF-626 from the PACB agenda tomorrow and instead
proactively engage members of the Legislature, municipal officials, advocates, concerned citizens and
the general community in a meaningful public dialogue about how best to fully fund the New NY
Bridge.

Respectfully Yours,

Bill Perkins
State Senator | 30
th
District