A review of 2007 reveals a typical year in Connecticut’s quest for healthful air, sewage-free rivers, conservation of farms, fields and forests, and a sustainable future. In other words, results were mixed. But some clear facts can be distilled.

Connecticut continues to collect dividends from its stock of pollution control regulations:

• The air throughout most of the year was the best it has been in decades. This success was tempered, however, by a greater number of summer days when ground-level ozone and fine particles violated the standards set to protect human health.

• The amount of nitrogen discharged into Long Island Sound – the biggest cause of low oxygen levels in the depths – showed continued headway toward short and long term reduction goals. This progress is the result of regulations, an innovative nitrogen credit trading program, and significant investments of state and local tax dollars. The anticipated improvement in oxygen levels has not fully materialized, though one can see subtle improvements within the monitoring data.

• Thirty bald eagles nested in the state, a number barely imaginable fifteen years ago. Success has been the result of many factors but would not have been possible without regulations that prohibited the use of the insecticide DDT and similar toxic compounds.

Campaigns that require substantial capital funds are lagging:

• To meet its goal of conserving 21% of the state’s landscape by 2023, Connecticut must secure more than 11,000 acres per year. In 2005 and 2006, the combined efforts of cities, towns, nonprofit land conservation organizations and the state preserved about 6,000 acres per year, and in 2007 only about 3,000 acres.

• Farmland preservation has been on the uptick but still is not at the pace necessary to meet the state’s goal. If the preservation goal is not reached by 2050, it likely never will be.

• About eighty miles of rivers continue to receive overflows of raw sewage when it rains, the result of cities having been built with combined sanitary and storm sewers. Separation of the sewers will take many years, even if the state’s Clean Water Fund is funded adequately and continually.

• In March 2008, the Council estimated the total capital cost of meeting Connecticut’s environmental goals. Its special report, Dreams Deferred, puts the annual need at about 340 million dollars per year from a combination of funds.

Progress is hard to find in most Leading Environmental Indicators, which are indicators that track current activities that in turn are expected to affect tomorrow’s environment. Despite ambitious goals and substantial effort, Connecticut residents keep driving more miles every year and are not on track to meet goals for recycling or greenhouse gas emissions. Compliance with environmental regulations rarely rises above 90 percent. Without a turnaround in these leading indicators, achievement of Connecticut’s goals will become increasingly difficult.

New This Year:  Arrowheads

Above each environmental indicator on the pages that follow, readers will find an arrow that illustrates improvement (arrowhead up) or decline (arrowhead down) in environmental conditions.  There are several variations of the arrow symbols, which are explained below.

	The data for 2007 show a positive change from 2006.  The one-year change is not always consistent with the long-term trend, which is displayed on the graph.
	The same as above, but the most recent year for which data are available is earlier than 2007.
	The data for 2007 show a negative change from 2006.  The one-year change is not always consistent with the long-term trend, which is displayed on the graph.
	The same as above, but the most recent year for which data are available is earlier than 2007.
	The data for 2007 (or the latest year available) show a very small change, positive or negative, from the previous year.
	Connecticut is not on track to meet its long-term goal.  This symbol is used for those indicators that, except in the most unusual circumstances, always will show some progress.  (“Preserved Land” is one example.)  It would be misleading to label the one-year change as “improved” if the progress is not sufficient to get the state to its goal by the established target date.