Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, January 23, 1995 TAG: 9501240031
SECTION: EDITIONAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: EDWARD T. WALTERS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
The consequences, of course, of such fiscal policies can be dealt with later - much later, perhaps even generations later.
The one exception in Virginia to the current mode is Del. Lacey Putney of Bedford with his proposal to raise the sales tax to fund Gov. George Allen's proposed prison-building program. Such behavior may explain why Putney campaigns as an independent.
Moving from political to economic and business circles, however, one finds there is a sotto voce receptivity to heretical arguments about a present and pressing need for additional, rather than less, state funding for certain programs. This dissenting view is not really all that surprising, for these individuals are fully aware that the first priority of business is to protect one's assets. They also realize that the same principle applies to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Unfortunately this "protection" of our common assets, just like the national defense, requires both manpower and dollars.
What are these assets that are so important for both today and tomorrow and that are equally desired by and beneficial for both industry and individual?
Like any infrastructure, but more than just roads and sewers, these assets are critical for both economic and social development. Virginia's environment, its beauty, its natural resources, its rich history and tradition, its intellectual resources - these are assets that are important for all Virginians and potential Virginians. These are the assets that have made Virginia distinctive. These are also assets that are so often fragile. These are assets that can easily be lost. These are assets that, once lost, are difficult - if not impossible - to replace.
Even in the best of financial and fiscal times, it is tough to obtain adequate funding for programs designed to capitalize on or develop or maintain many of these assets. Museums, libraries, research centers - these worthwhile endeavors in difficult budgetary times come to be labeled as luxuries. And perceived luxuries don't get funded .
Clean water and air usually are considered necessities rather than luxuries by most people. Nevertheless Virginia's environment is also, more often than not, a low-priority budget item in Richmond these days.
For one example, there is the Kim-Stan landfill in Alleghany County. Kim-Stan, the infamous interstate garbage dump, became the ward of the commonwealth in 1990 after the attorney general and the courts finally acted to close the noxious facility.
The dump trucks have gone; there is a thin veneer of soil covering the garbage; but mysterious effluents continue to ooze into the nearby stream that carries these pollutants to the James River and, eventually, to Richmond. A study made to find the answer to the Kim-Stan "problem" estimated that about $10 million will be needed to do the job. Strenuous efforts by local legislators Bo Trumbo and Creigh Deeds during the past two years to obtain that funding have yielded nothing. The prognosis for any dollars this year or next is equally dismal.
While undoubtedly the most notorious, Kim-Stan is but one of an estimated 2,000 abandoned and potentially dangerous waste sites in the state.
Virginia's soil and water conservation districts are another example of financial duress. Unpaid local elected officials and a handful of staff people man these organizations that have been entrusted since the 1930s with the responsibility for keeping the state's soil on the land instead of in the streams. Their duties increased dramatically in recent years with the arrival of the Chesapeake Bay Program and mandated erosion-control programs for builders.
Efforts to promote greater professionalism within the conservation districts to meet their growing responsibilities are presently stymied by inadequate budgets. Becoming aware of this problem, the General Assembly last year set up a special subcommittee to find a "reliable" source of funding for this program. The gesture was noble but the timing was not propitious. The prospects for finding dependable financial support are bleak.
A third example relates to wildlife, specifically the black bear population in Virginia. To continue a comprehensive study of the bear, its numbers and its prospects, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries has had to pass the hat. The department solicited and got contributions from the bear hunters with one hand and the Sierra Club with the other hand. While the balance of donors may be admirable, the need to obtain outside help to carry out basic research does not bode well either for the future independence or the effectiveness of the agency.
Not all states have these funding problems. The Show-Me state, for one, could indeed show the Old Dominion how to resolve some of these issues. Missouri has a dedicated source of funding for conservation needs, piped in directly from a portion of the state sales tax. Three percent of its sales tax is applied to general revenue needs; 1 percent is for education; one-eighth of 1 percent is for fish, forestry, and wildlife programs; and one-tenth of 1 percent is divided between parks/recreation and "conservation" (including support for conservation districts).
While the funding is automatic, the spending of the accrued income is controlled by the state legislature. The imposition of this conservation tax was voted upon and approved as an amendment to the state constitution by the Missouri electorate in 1984.
A similar scheme has been suggested for Virginia. Polls consistently have shown that a majority of Virginians are willing to contribute more if necessary to protect the state's natural resources. So it may well be that: If the umbrella of conservation were big enough and broad enough to include fish and wildlife, forests, parks and recreation, historic preservation, soil and water, natural science museums and environmental education (programs like Explore Park); and if the sportsmen, anglers, outdoorsmen, hikers, farmers, educators, preservationists, environmentalists and conservationists were united in support of the proposal, the voters of Virginia (if given the chance) might take it upon themselves to demand that a portion of an increased sales tax be used exclusively for the protection of the commonwealth's invaluable basic assets.
An additional benefit of such a program is that more general-revenue dollars would be freed for other, more politically popular spending priorities. Also, political leaders could not be accused of breaking their sacred vows never to raise taxes. For, in reality, it would be the electorate - with their votes and with their taxes - who would be creating what truly could be called a Fund for the Future of Virginia.
Edward T. Walters is a Bath County farmer and the public member of a joint legislative subcommittee studying sources of funding for conservation districts.
by CNB