DAVID LOMBARDO: Welcome to this month's edition of "The Capitol Pressroom," where we'll highlight the benefits of home visits for new families, discuss the public health risks from the leftovers at waste treatment plants, and explore potential changes to the child welfare system here in New York.

All that and much more coming up next.

This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.

Support comes from O'Donnell and Associates, a public affairs firm providing strategic guidance to businesses and nonprofits on navigating government policy and regulatory issues.

More information is available at ODonnellSolutions.com.

Intelligence guided by experience.

♪ ♪ DAVID: I'm David Lombardo, and you're watching the "Capitol Press Room", a collection of interviews with political leaders, policymakers, advocates, and journalists covering all of it.

Up first, we're going to highlight an effort to promote more home visits to new families in New York as a means of helping to raise happy and healthy babies and avoiding interactions with child protective services.

We spoke about the benefits of these free, voluntary interactions with Jen O'Connor, an early childhood policy consultant who is spearheading a new coalition of stakeholders committed to making these visits more accessible.

Here's our conversation from mid-September.

Well, Jen, thanks so much for making the time talk about this important topic.

JEN: Thanks for having me.

DAVID: So what is, I guess, the purpose of a home visitation program, and what does it actually look like, or what types of forms can it take?

JEN: So I want to stress that prenatal and postpartum home visiting is completely free, and it is completely voluntary.

We like to say that children, babies don't come with a manual.

You'll find this out soon enough.

And so when you're after you give birth, whether it's at home or in a birthing center or in a hospital, you are flooded with information.

There are a ton of brochures.

They are going to talk to you about breastfeeding about safe sleeping.

And then you're going to get home with this little one.

And you may not know what to do.

And so home visiting programs provide that support to anyone.

It doesn't matter what your income is, doesn't matter if this is your first time being a parent or your 7th time being a parent.

And we know that these programs decrease child abuse, improve school readiness, and just the family functioning and the strengthening and nurturing of those relationships.

And these programs look a little different by model, so there are some prenatal programs, and there are some that are prenatal postpartum and there's some that are just postpartum up to age five.

These visits can take place in the home.

They can take place virtually in some cases.

And in programs such as ParentChild+, they can actually take place with a home-based childcare provider.

DAVID: So there's probably a stigma, though, around any sort of government visit to your home.

This idea that you've done something wrong, that you're about to be penalized.

Is that the case with these or are they more proactive and preemptive in nature?

JEN: They should be proactive and preemptive.

And ideally they are, but over the years that I've worked on this issue, absolutely stigma keeps people out of these programs.

But what we hear from folks is that if there was no CPS kind of threat in their minds, that they would want these programs.

And we hear all the time from parents who say, I've never heard of this before, and I feel like I should have been entitled to it.

There's a dearth of programs in the States.

So there's a high need and not enough programs.

And all of the research and surveying that I've done in my time in this world is, is showing that parents want these, supports and services.

They are absolutely overwhelmed when they get home with a new baby, and they may actually not need support initially, but three months down the road.

And so, we think that we hope that the need and the want outweighs the stigma, but we do know that the messaging needs to change to a certain extent, that this is something that every parent should have access to.

DAVID: Well right now, who's responsible for administering and overseeing these types of visits?

My brain's initially going to the Office of Children and Family Services, but there are other social safety net agencies at the state level is also local government agencies.

So is there any sort of coordinated overseer and implementer here?

JEN: That's the issue.

There is no coordinated, overseer, if you will, OCFS has its program, Healthy Families, New York.

DOH has its program, the Nurse family partnership program.

They do collaborate, and they both receive some of their programs, receive federal funding, through what's called MIECHV.

But what we have hoped for over the 20 years that I've been working on this issue is some sort of coordinated intake, centralized intake, so that as a parent, you don't have to do the homework to figure out which state agency you have to go through.

You just identify what your need is, and they come to you.

And what we would love to see, too, is these prenatal programs referring to postpartum programs.

So some serve to a certain age group, postpartum, and then you could hand off to a different program that serves slightly older children.

DAVID: Is there an expectation that certain families are more likely going to need these types of services?

For example, if you don't have grandparents and a close friend circle nearby, maybe you will feel more trapped and with less understanding of what's going on?

Or is this the case that you think this should be applied sort of evenly?

JEN: We think this should be universal, and I pushed for universal for a long time.

Currently, a number of the programs kind of focus on highest risk or highest need.

It is a triage system, certainly.

You know, but I would say that, and we've heard this from parents, that they all need some sort of support, and you don't know how to raise a child until you have a child, right?

And so we would love to see a universal system, even if it was just a couple of light touch visits.

So what we've been talking about is one to four light touch, kind give you a phone call, come to your home, maybe do a virtual visit.

You know, what do you need?

How are you feeling?

And if that family seems to need that they seems to think that they need to be referred to a more intensive program, then that warm handoff can happen, but we do think that parents across the state, regardless of risk, should have at least a light touch visit.

DAVID: Well, I could see the benefit of a high quality visit, even if it takes different forms, but I could also see, if done improperly, that you might have, say, implicit bias in the person doing this, and that's going to mean they're going to be referring, say, ethnic minorities, if it's a white person doing it for CPS visits as a result, or other misunderstandings, maybe, about the cultural raising of kids.

So how do you ensure that this is a high quality program?

JEN: So each of the models trains separately.

They train their people separately.

So it could be for some programs, Nurse Family Partnership is all nurses, skilled nurses.

Paraprofessionals, social workers.

So there's a range of folks.

Some programs hire from the community.

So parents who have graduated from the program actually become staff.

So there's all of that work baked in to ensure that to the extent possible there isn't that bias.

And I think a universal program would eliminate that bias right off the top.

DAVID: Well, let's talk about, then, bringing all of the stakeholders together to think about this program more broadly, in a more coordinated approach, because that's something that you are looking to spearhead right now.

So can you talk a little bit about this ongoing effort you've got going?

JEN: Yeah, so about 20 years ago, the Schuyler Center for Analysis and Advocacy convened this group.

We called it the Home Is Where The Start is, work group, and I was a part of Schuyler at the time.

And this group is unique in that it brings all of the child serving, family serving state agencies to the table, sometimes with the governor's office, and with programs and advocates.

And that group meets.

On a quarterly basis, generally, we're actually reinventing it and meeting monthly at this point, but, historically it's met on a quarterly basis.

And then the state agencies would leave, and the advocates would continue to chat and talk about budget asks and policy issues.

So there's been this really great relationship building that's happened over the last 20 years, and that group has had its fits and starts, and home visiting, I think, in the state has had its fits and starts depending on who sits in the legislature and in the governor's office.

But, we have recently, after a little bit of a break, reconvened the group, and I am co-chairing it with my colleague, Caitlin Galbraith, from, a group called Changent, which is used to be Nurse Family Partnership Program.

And she brings, I think, new blood and a new kind of objective point of view to this work because she hasn't been doing it for 20 years.

And then a number of the old guard are still sitting there, 8convened, I think, two weeks ago for the 1st time in almost two years.

And there were over 43 people, 45 people at the table.

And I think that speaks to the energy around this and the interest around this.

And the continued understanding that we still, 20 years later, have a fragmented system, and about 250,000 live births a year and parents who need some sort of support.

So, we are we are hoping to continue to take this group forward.

Certainly, the advocates will be looking for increased funding, as they always are, but this group has really coalesced around some low hanging fruit, and the idea of this coordinated effort.

So maybe it's as simple as a flow chart that is, you know, state funded and hangs up in every OB-GYN office, every pediatrician's office, every hospital that says, are you pregnant or a new parent?

Yes or no?

If you're yes, it goes down that path, right?

Do you realize that you could be eligible for home visiting programs?

Do you know what home visiting program is?

And kind of takes you through that flowchart.

And we're thinking that if we start with that low hanging fruit and get some momentum around that, we'll also be able to show that there is this need, because we know that there aren't enough seats in these programs to serve the people that we think want these programs.

But we have to be able to collect that data and track that to then tell the governor's office and the legislature that people are clamoring for this type of service.

DAVID: And lastly, in terms of the long-term benefit, it seems like if you can, as you pointed out, keep an eye out for warning signs of maybe child abuse and you're able to nip that in the bud, so to speak, this is going to improve not only the lives of those people directly involved, but also the cost of trying to respond to those things.

So it seems like one of those very smart investments to make.

JEN: There's a big return on investment.

We know that emergency room visits go down.

And we know that just that relationship between a parent and a home visitor is a very valuable relationship.

These are people that you maybe call years after you've left the program.

So, yeah, I mean, we really think that if we're going to start investing as this governor in this legislature are in early childhood, this is the earliest part of childhood you can invest in.

And if you make those changes up front, you're going to see dividends later on.

DAVID: Well, Jen, unfortunately, it's all the time we have for this conversation.

Thank you so much for coming in.

JEN: Thanks for having me.

DAVID: And we'll have more on the home visitation campaign as it develops on the Capitol Press Room's radio broadcast.

But now we're going to share a story from our public media partners at New York Now who took a look at the impact of climate change on aquatic life and water bodies here in the Empire State.

The segment also examines the role state environmental officials play in maintaining marine life populations, often in conjunction with neighboring states.

Here's that story from New York Now reporter Elise Kline.

ELISE: Climate change's warming temperatures aren't just impacting New Yorkers on land.

Fish, crabs, clams, and other aquatic species are also feeling the heat.

According to data from the Marine Stewardship Council in New York State Climate Impacts Assessment, rising water temperatures, heavy stormwater runoff, and ocean acidification are threatening marine and freshwater species.

Those alone, those conditions, obviously have have a major impact.

You have whole ecosystems shifting at various times, both to either move in search of better habitats for prey that's changing in terms of distribution.

ELISE: Other environmental experts add aquatic ecosystems, play a big role in New Yorker's everyday lives, without many of us realizing it, they help facilitate fresh water and food, in addition to supporting local recreational activities, jobs, and the economy.

Aquatic ecosystems are very much embedded into the culture of most of our lives.

Whether we realize it or not.

For example, just in the state of New York, 40% of the residents in the state of New York get their drinking water from the Great Lakes water watershed.

So even if you're not an avid fisher, even if you don't go out and visit aquatic resources on a regular basis, you are very much connected to these ecosystems.

ELISE: By simply by living in the state of New York and New York State lawmakers agree, wanting to protect the state's marine in freshwater ecosystems, State Senator Rachel May, a Democrat representing parts of Syracuse and a ranking member of the Senate's environmental conservation committee, says she worries about the impacts of warmer waters, highlighting that the lesser amount of oxygen in warmer water can hurt fish and cause big storms.

RACHEL MAY: It gives them heat stress, and they're more likely to catch a disease of some kind, or be, you know, prey to a predator of some kind because they're stressed out from warmer water.

And it's also warm water, especially in the oceans, that's what leads to worse hurricane activity and bigger storms.

And those storms can then exacerbate all of these problems and, you know, deplete the oxygen even more and that kind of thing.

And so, you can have massive fish die offs because of those storms that are also caused by warm water.

ELISE: During the most recent legislative session, state lawmakers passed several bills to review the State Department of Environmental Conservation's Management of Species, being impacted by climate change, such as Jonah crabs, summer flounder, and whelk.

Senator Pete Harckham, a Democrat representing parts of Hudson, and the chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee, says these bills are important because the state has Thousands of miles of fresh water and salt water, shoreline and coastline and protecting ecosystems protects the state's water.

PETE HARCKHAM: There's serious bills because they're on one-year extenders.

This allows DEC to do the management that they need to do to keep our fisheries healthy and to keep our environment healthy.

And so we need to pass these annually.

ELISE: The bills pass nearly unanimously in both houses this year.

As a member, Judy Griffin and Dermot represe Car was in the parts of Nassau County and a sponsor of the Jonah Crab management bill, says keeping ecosystems healthy and balanced also keeps aquaculture in the fishing industry strong.

Jonah crabs have become a big fishing target since lobsters have become more scarce in New York due to warming waters, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

JUDY GRIFFIN: I think everyone understands that this is for, this is so we keep keep the bees and our oceans proliferate with sea life.

So it's important to take us into account and really, take into account what changes could, become, like what could we start seeing with our warmer waters and all, and things like that?

ELISE: Cold water species, like Jonah crabs, are not tolerating climate change impacts very well.

Their shells becoming more brittle.

>> Crustaceans, crabs, oysters, mollusks, things like that are very susceptible to ocean acidification.

They rely on a carbonate, which is produced in the ocean as a result of absorption of carbon dioxide.

And they use that for their shells and things like that.

And with increased carbon dioxide, that produces compounds that are less readily available to them to actually use in the building of their shells.

ELISE: Some state lawmakers say they also worry about crustaceans like lobsters and mollusks like scallops.

>> We used to have a booming lobstering industry.

And the lobsters died off in the Long Island Sound, and whether it's climate change and water temperature increase, there are a number of issues, and we've had really significant issues in recent years with scallops.

ELISE: Senator Palumbo adds DEC management is critical to keeping species healthy.

He added the DEC while they do a good job, often relies on older data sets, and seems to be understaffed, stressing the need for more funding in general for their management operations.

John Maniscalco, Bureau Chief of the DEC's Marine Fisheries, says populations of sea life have varied with ongoing research, but they are concerned about how ocean acidification could be playing a role in their well-being.

Maniscalco says summer flounder are currently doing okay.

By letting a 2014 study from the European Geosciences Union demonstrating how ocean acidification or elevated carbon dioxide levels can significantly harm early life stages for summer flounder.

JOHN MANISCALCO: You know, we're not above the biomass target.

The kind of our optimal or ideal coast estimate of abundance at this point, but we're climbing there.

>> Maniscalco says, overall, because of climate change, managing where marine species can successfully reproduce has become a challenge.

>> There's winners and losers, certainly.

So lobster is a great example of a likely loser.

So challenged by, you know, warmer waters, and of course, lower dissolved oxygen rates, and so you have that fishery that was highly prominent in a place like Long Island Sound.

Through the mid 90s, that is is mostly gone.

And we don't necessarily anticipate that it's going to return to its former heights.

And what are founders and other species that we might say has lost the climate change.

Nothing happens in a bottle, not everything is climbing, not everything is fisheries management, but you have all these factors that play into it, but certainly makes it harder for species to recover.

ELISE: In addition to passing bills to extend the DEC's authority to manage certain marine life, last year the state budget included a million for fish hatcheries.

The funding was allocated through the environmental Bond Act pot, and is intended to be used to modernize fish hatcheries across the state.

Steve Hurst DEC's Fisheries Bureau Chief, says some of the fisheries like the Catskills have aging structures that need to be replenished to continue operating successfully.

STEVE: We need to maintain those, and it costs a tremendous amount of money.

As you can see here are some of our ponds, the concrete is crumbling.

They're getting old, they're getting tired.

Thanks to the Bond Act, we're able to give them a shot in the arm and do some improvements.

ELISE: Fish hatcheries help maintain fish populations for commercial, recreational, and preservation purposes by breeding.

Katie Piscatello, manager of the Catskills fishery, says they raise about 350,000 brown trout fish a year which helps maintain recreational fishing in the Catskills area.

KATIE PISCATELLO: All of our fish that we raise, go back to the public and we hit up waters that are heavily sought after.

So one, it gives a better opportunity for anglers to catch fish, but it also takes the pressure off any wild fish that are there as well, per says >> The Catskills fishery is key keeping recreational fishing afloat, which generates 1000000000s of dollars annually for the state.

STEVE: This hatchery plays an integral role, putting fish in those systems that can no longer, unfortunately, produce a trout on their own, to a level that can sustain a fishery.

This hatchery fills that void.

All of our hatcheries fill that void.

We work as a system, basically, to provide recreational fisheries, whether those be streams, ponds, lakes, as far as big as Lake Ontario, to provide those fisheries.

New York State is the top fishing destination in the country, actually, and our hatcheries are the backbone of that.

ELISE: David Stormer, Habitat Restoration Director at Riverkeeper, says popular freshwater species like trout and bass fish that many of the state hatcheries manage, are struggling with the effects of climate change.

DAVID STRAYER: Well, what they're experiencing now are these early spring warming events.

Striped bass are looking for like 64 degrees Fahrenheit is like the optimal temperature to spawn in.

There's a little bit of a range around that, but then that range is now occurring earlier in the spring, and then as the summer warms continuously after that early spring warming, those temperatures are just not available to striped bass to spawn.

And we're seeing that, that result in, in poor reproduction of striped bass, for like the 3rd year in a row, >> Other climate change experts, stress, fisheries, sustainability with climate change, depends on whether or not species and fisheries are able to adapt.

Kravinhoff says lake trout and walleye are good examples of this, adding that they also need suitable temperatures to reproduce, and they can go to deeper waters to adjust to the heat, but it remains unclear how suitable that is.

But whether or not there's suitable oxygen at the depths that they need to go to remains a significant question.

And so we are seeing contraction of those habitats, which inevitably will impact the sustainability of those fisheries long term in terms of their habitat, whether or not they're able to reproduce in those systems and whether or not we can continue to fish them in the way that we have in the past is a significant question and challenge for management entities for those kinds of fishery stocks.

ELISE: Hurst says fish hatcheries play an important role in DEC's fisheries management.

STEVE: It's a tool we use for fisheries management.

Fisheries management is a combination of supplying recreational fisheries, and also restoring native populations, for biodiversity in the state.

Hatcheries play both roles there.

ELISE: Piscatello says it could be very costly to keep a fish hatchery running.

KATIE PISCATELLO: There's a lot that goes into running a facility, not just labor wise, but electricity, food costs for fish is very expensive.

And so there's a lot that goes into it that you need money for and just the upkeep of the facility as well.

We have some ponds here that were, that are oldest, I believe, from like the 70s.

And so the upkeep on those is, you know, can be costly.

ELISE: Piscatello adds, while they typically rely on creek water sources, there are years like last year when they faced a drought and had to rely more heavily on water wells, which increases electric costs.

The 100 million in funding will be implemented over the next 5 years to build a new hatchery in Randolph and make improvements to hatchery operations in other areas of the state.

STEVE: The water flow and fixing our wells up, Caledonia hatchery, we're doing new piping.

We're going to cover the ponds, believe it or not, we lose a lot of fish to birds.

ELISE: Hurst adds the funding will also help make fish hatcheries more sustainable and energy efficient.

Some state lawmakers say this funding will be significant for environmental conservation.

>> Hatcheries feed over 1200 water bodies around the state.

And the fact that we're going to have this modernization effort is very important in terms of keeping pace with climate change, keeping pace with other kinds of threats to fish species around the state, fish countries.

>> Fish hatcheries and things like that, again, go to keeping the fishing industry strong, keeping agritourism strong.

Trout fishing is so huge in New York.

We do a lot of stocking, even in my district.

There stocking in the stream.

So it's important to keep the ecosystems healthy.

It's important to keep, the economy healthy, they rely on, agritourism, for their livelihoods.

ELISE: The funding is going to a handful of the state's fish hatcheries for this 1st phase of their modernization plan through the Bond Act.

The 2nd and 3rd phases will depend on securing more state dollars.

STEVE: Well, we did a study, basically, to see, what do we need to make sure that our hatcheries can operate for the next 50 years, for that next generation of anglers and our conservation society that needs these fish for biodiversity, such as I said.

And that price tags about $350 million.

ELISE: Many state lawmakers say it's too early to know what will end up in the next fiscal year budget.

However, some lawmakers say this is an issue they intend to advocate for.

>> May: I will say, there is a big fish hatchery in my district.

I know those of us who live where this happens, we have to be the ones speaking up for them, and so I will certainly be doing that.

ELISE: So far, too, the bills to extend DEC management to Summer Flounder and whelk have been signed into law by the governor to build to do the same for Jonah crabs, still awaits review.

Next session, some state lawmakers say, in addition to funding, they intend to focus on the issue of how data centers are impacting the environment, not just through water use, but through warming waters, which are already being impacted by climate change effects.

Elise Kline, New York Now.

DAVID: And for more on the regulation of marine life in New York check out our interview with the state's Bureau Chief for the Marine Fisheries, which you can find in our audio archives at capitalpressroom.org.

And now we're going to shine a spotlight on a perennial issue at the Capitol in Albany, which finally made it through the state legislature this year, the adoption of Kyra's Law, named for Kyra Franchetti, a young girl who was murdered by her father during an unsupervised court ordered visit.

The legislation is designed to impose more safeguards in child custody and family visitation decisions.

New York Now reporter Elise Kline spoke this summer with the bill's assembly sponsor, Queen's Democrat, Andrew Hevesi.

ELISE: Can you start by telling us what your biggest concerns are with family courts in the state, particularly when it comes to how child abuse cases are dealt with, and do you think the state is doing enough to address those concerns?

ANDREW HEVESI: Well, first, thanks for having me.

I really appreciate it.

The answer to the question is, that New York courts are operating without a statewide uniform standard, for cases when parents are involved in custody or, visitation cases, and either child abuse or domestic violence arises.

And what is happening, without the statutory guidance, we're seeing that judges are putting in place stay away orders that are not always based on the best evidentiary foundation.

So we're looking to change that to prevent any future abuse of children and murders, and also to make sure the parents know exactly what's going on with their cases in family court.

There's a whole overhaul of the uniform procedures that we needed to jump into here.

ELISE: What are the biggest policy reforms that need to happen from your perspective to address those challenges in family court?

ANDREW: Look, so, Kyra's Law is, I want to start by giving credit to Jacqueline Franchetti.

I know you have spoken to her and her incredible story.

Jacqueline's courage and tenacity are really incredible, and I'm honored to work with her.

But what we need to do is make sure that there is a procedure from the beginning stages of these proceedings.

When anybody raises a visit.

I'm sorry, when anybody raises child abuse, or domestic violence, or any other standard.

Any other incident that could hurt the child.

So we've created a new standard that will trigger a review in family court that has a variety of new factors that the judges are now required to consider, including, they prioritize the safety of the child, but they include what we're calling lethality factors in domestic violence and child abuse cases, which are the factors that will lead most likely to further bad, horrible abuse or death of the people we're trying to protect.

So we have put those in.

The biggest component, I think, and this is arguable because it's a really comprehensive bill, is the first use of the coercive control in this statute.

That's the first time in New York state that we're using that particular term.

And I think that that is one of the most important parts of Kyra's Law.

And now we're going to establish what coercive control is and have our judges look out for it.

Now, let me just say one last thing: After the judges conduct their review, they're now going to be required by law to put their decisions in writing.

So if they're issuing a temporary order of custody or a permanent order of custody, judges will now be required in writing and on the record to state what they are basing their decisions off after they've done that review.

And if there's any part of that review that shows this preponderance of the evidence, that any of these events happen, these lethality factors that I talked about, then the judges are going to have to take that as a significant factor and explain that on the record when they are going to be making these determinations for kids.

ELISE: And Kyra's Law, as you know, passed both houses this year for the first time.

The bill is named in memory of two-year-old Kyra Franchetti, who, in 2016, was shot to death in her sleep by her father during a court ordered, unsupervised visit, despite repeated reports and accounts of his abusive behavior.

For viewers who may not know, can you tell us what the biggest family court reforms in this law stand out to you as you were mentioning before?

the overall impact Kyra's Law Would achieve in signed into law.

ANDREW: So, the Kyra's Law, when I hopefully hopefully get sent into law very soon, we're in active conversation with the governor's office.

We're hoping to have happen is anytime that any party, you know, raises child abuse and or domestic violence and or anything that could pose a serious risk to the child, we created that as a new standard.

When that standard is, that threshold is crossed, that the judges are going to know how to do their due diligence and they're going to be looking for the things that all of the experts in domestic violence and in child abuse are able to point to and say, these are the things that are most likely will lead to fatality.

And so I think with this comprehensive process, what we're going to be able to do is slow down, or stop, possibly, but definitely slow down the number of children who are placed via New York's family court and their judges into the hands of abusers.

I think this bill will do a great job in preventing that from happening, and giving our judges the best information as they go into make these reviews.

So I think this is going to save lives, and I'm honored to work with Jacqueline and Senator Skoufis and all of my colleagues to get this one done.

ELISE: Kyra is, sadly, one example during a recent press conference about Kyra's Law, a child survivor, 15-year-old Meghan Margaret, spoke about her experience being ignored by family courts in Schenectady County.

She talked about how she was repeatedly sexually abused by her father from age 3 and begged for the courts to listen and protect her, but was still mandated to have visitation.

What do you think is contributing to families' cries for help being seemingly ignored in family court, and how will Kyra's Law potentially help break down this issue?

ANDREW: So that was incredibly important and impactful, quote from a young lady who went through the system and had to deal with that horribly, but she's not alone.

Julissia Batties, Adam Coleman, Montreal Williams, Rykelan Brown are just some of the others kids who have lost their lives.

So what we're hoping to do is to make sure our judges, not only, are looking for the right things, when they do their review, but they're also trained.

So I think that was a small part of the problem.

And I want to be very clear.

The Office of Court Administration, the judges have been terrific in negotiating and working with this on this bill over the last couple of years.

They've been great.

But prior to our work together, there are some judges that sitting on the bench that don't have the technical expertise that we think they need.

So Kyra's Law is going to help provide them through judicial training as well.

ELISE: Yes, the judicial training piece you've mentioned a lot.

What has changed with this bill this year compared to previous years?

Why was it able to pass this year?

And why has it taken many years to pass both houses?

Can you tell us about what the challenges were to get it to this point?

ANDREW: Sure.

So first, the challenges are, this is one of the most Complicated sections of law that you can If you make a mistake, people are going to get hurt.

Kids could get abused, kids could die.

So you're going to go slowly and make sure that what you're doing doesn't cost more harm.

Second, and I don't want to be crass about this, but blood was Spilled.

Which means that the parties that you're negotiating with, they're not happy with each other.

Then you add in to the, to the mix that there are a variety of different interests.

You have courts who have defensive attorneys.

You have children's attorneys, you have matrimonial attorneys, and almost every one of them, over the last 6 years, were coming in not only with suggestions on how to make Kyra's Law better, but on the existing language, but adding language.

Every meeting we had, it added six more components that we had to do our due diligence on.

And Jacqueline and our some of our friends, Joan Gerhardt from NYSCADV and Jennifer Friedman, Ann Dorchin from Sanctuary for Families, have been instrumental, but we've been doing our due diligence and taking a long time because you don't get this one wrong.

If you get this wrong and wrong, somebody gets hurt.

So we were making sure that we did it right.

ELISE: And this is a bill, as you have mentioned, has been, is a long time coming.

Advocates have been pushing for a decade.

Kyra's mom, Jacqueline, told me that she sobbed watching this pass those houses this year.

You've been a key lawmaker on this carrying this bill for a long time.

Can you tell me what did it mean to you to watch this pass?

ANDREW: It was an incredible relief.

I will be more relieved when we get it signed by the governor.

But to have it pass both houses unanimously was an incredible relief.

And I want to talk about the difficulty, particularly for Jacqueline, having to fight through this because I want to be clear, during those 6 years.

So we didn't introduce the bill, and the unfortunate incident with Kyra was 10 years ago.

We introduced the bill about 5 years ago.

But that means that the last 5 years, Jacqueline has had to endure me primarily, and Senator Skoufis is, well, telling her no, no, we can't do it.

No, we don't have it.

No, this is not right.

No, we're going to hurt like, and keep going back.

And for her to have to keep dealing with us and in turn, revisiting this horrific incident in her life, she has an incredible amount of courage, and I'm so proud to work with her.

So the relief is that we finally have a product.

I don't see anybody of note who is saying that this is a bad bill.

We passed it unanimously.

We're working with the governor to get this signed.

So I am very hopeful where I wasn't over the last couple years, even up until this year, to be perfectly honest with you, we were under a time crunch.

Remember, session ran short.

We got this bill done within the last 5 or 6 hours of session this year, and we had to rush it because in the last years, we were taking our time to make sure that we were doing our due diligence.

So this is a complicated one.

I feel much better that it's passed and it will feel incredibly relieved once Governor Hochul signs it and starts saving lives.

ELISE: And on that note, have you had any conversations with the governor and her team about the bill?

Do you think she will sign it?

ANDREW: So we're in contact with the governor about this bill and other bills.

They are terrific.

They don't give you an indication if they're going to sign it, but my my sense is they're going to work with us.

By the way, Kathy Hochul, Governor Hochul, who I'm supporting for reelection, has a terrific record on bills like this, dealing with domestic violence.

She passed, I believe, it's called Melanie's Law earlier in the year.

So she's been right where you need a governor to be.

And her team is terrific.

So I am hopeful for a good outcome, although there's no promises.

ELISE: And what are your priorities for the next legislative session to address child abuse?

What needs more needs to be done to reform the system?

I know you mentioned there are some other bills.

ANDREW: Terrific question.

So there's another bill on the governor's desk that I think goes perfectly hand in hand with Kyra's Law, and that is to create a supervised visitation in every corner of New York State.

Because one of the problems that we're seeing in Family Court is that judges are wanting to have parents continue to have contact with their kids, even though there are allegations of abuse.

And if you have supervised visitation setups where there are professional operations in each county of New York State, people can come in and they can safely have visitation with their kids.

If you don't have that, which is what we have now.

Then you're putting kids and parents in safe situations, and particularly, we are in a dire circumstance, I believe it's over 33 counties, have zero supervised visitations.

in New York city, we have incredible wait lists that can take up to two years.

Also, there's some of them are cost prohibitive.

So we have passed the bill.

It's on the governor's desk, waiting for her to be signed that will establish supervised visitation in every quarter of the state that state funded, that does a variety of things.

The most important is it will protect kids, but it will also stop the backlog of family court cases that are waiting for information on those visits.

And it will, make sure the family court is not as slow as it is now.

One of the significant reasons that our judges tell us that family court slows down is because they don't have access to reports from that kind of supervisors.

So if the governor wants to really help on child abuse, this is a 1-2 punch.

Kyra's Law, and then it's a supervised visitation program, and she will be, the governor will be regarded as the hero that she should be and that she is on these topics.

ELISE: And so when you come back to session, if both of these bills are signed, do you have any other priorities that you'll be looking at?

ANDREW: There's a number of bills that we'll be looking at.

One a particular note is about the mandated reporter system.

So we've been looking at this particular system for a while from the years.

I have a bill that it's called keeping family safe together.

I love the names of the bells.

They're great, but they don't really tell you what the bill does.

What this bill does in particular is it eliminates the criminal and civil penalties for mandated reporters.

Now, the mandated reporter system stays because you need that, you want that.

But what we're finding now is that there's overreporting in the system, and more kids are being reported and shuffled into that system, which is actually, unfortunately, a path to family separation, which is a childhood trauma that you do not want.

So, we are going to be making the case to our colleagues slowly but surely to build consensus that you still want the mandated reporter system for people to call in child abuse, but what you don't want is the coercive nature of the penalties that mandated reporters have to have because what it does is it takes them away from using their professional judgment.

If they're a teacher or a psychologist or any other doctor who comes in contact with kids and puts in their mind, well, I have got to do this, otherwise, I'm going to be sued or otherwise I'm going to go to prison.

And that doesn't always manifest in what is best for the child.

So we're going to have those conversations in the upcoming session.

ELISE: Unfortunately, that's all the time we have for today.

Thank you for sitting down with us.

ANDREW: It's a pleasure.

Thanks for having me.

Take care.

We were speaking with assembly member Andrew Hevesi, chair of the children and families committee.

>> Now we're going to turn our attention to the issue of biosolids, the scientific name for the leftovers from wastewater treatment plants, for year consideration environmentalists have been raising concerns about public health risks posed by the so called sewage sludge, which can end up being used as fertilizer.

We discussed those concerns, as well as legislation, imposing a multi-year moratorium on the sale and use of biosolids, with Wes Gillingham, of the Northeast Organic Farming Association, in Caitlin Ferrante, conservation program manager for the Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter.

Here's that conversation from mid-September.

DAVID: Well, Wes, for listeners who aren't familiar with biosolids, maybe hearing this term for the very first time, should they know about what they are, how they're produced, and how they're used nowadays?

WES GILLINGHAM: Well, when you say biosolids, what you're talking about is sewage sludge.

Sewage sludge, everything and anything that goes down your toilet or the gas station, into the sewer system.

DAVID: Gotcha.

WES GILLINGHAM: So the sewer system and the public wastewater treatment facilities, they take all this crap using a technical all this crap, using a technical term, take all this crap, put it to protect the river systems.

So, we concentrate everything that's solid biosolids, they call it biosolids, because it is made up mostly with people's waste.

>> Organic material, >> But it has everything else in it.

Any kind of chemical, pharmaceuticals, PFAS, the forever chemicals, you know, solvents from a factory, all sorts of things end up there, but it gets concentrated into a bio.

So I like to call it toxic sewage sludge, not biosolids.

Biosolids is a really nice way.

DAVID: Sounds friendly.

WES GILLINGHAM: Exactly.

So that's what it is.

There's a huge volume of it.

Think about how many toilets in factories there are in New York City.

It all ends up into this system.

They do a really good job of cleaning out so that it can release the water into a river nearby.

But now they have this solid stuff they have to get rid of.

In the 70s, they took it out in the ocean and dumped it.

That got stopped because of all the ecological issues around that.

Now, they go to a facility.

There's class A and class B biosolids.

And that's a designation by pathogens, like how many biological pathogens are in it?

You can't just put this out.

New York City or New York State has the system of taking biosolids, Class A, you can get a special permit to spread it on farmland.

Class B, which is that you can get a permit to take it to a facility to compost or dry and pelletize it.

And then that can be sold in a certain -- that's the stuff that ends up in your local tractor supply house.

If anybody goes out and goes to their local hardware store and buys fertilizer for their lawn, they should turn it over and look at the label because they are required to say derived from biosolids.

Well, that's what's at issue here.

That's what we're talking about, is how much, I just have the question, how much sense does it make to take a really toxic sludge that's got everything in it, And one of the issues with forever chemicals and PFAS is you're mixing these all together, there's precursors that end up with Classes of PFAS coming out that then went in.

So the testing protocol with 15,000 kinds of PFAS is, it's inadequate.

DAVID: Well, okay, let's talk about the landscape right now in New York, because this is not a new issue in 2024, on my show, we were interviewing the head of, I think, waste management, about biosolids in terms of how they were thinking about it in the state's broader waste management plan, and in 2025, now confirmed DEC commissioner Amanda Lefton was asked about biosolids, seemed to downplay the scope of the problem, but also highlighted the importance of probably trying to address where these forever chemicals are entering the system and thus ending in biosolids.

So how would you describe the and policing this issue now?

CAITLIN FERRANTE: Thank you.

Yeah, there are some concerns we have.

You know, there have been steps forward, but things we feel like they haven't gone far enough.

So, you know, there's been interim policies around addressing some of the issues that we've raised over the years, what Wes was talking about, were the different classes.

You've got waste coming in from other states, out of state that might not be getting a New York permit.

All right, so then how do we regulate the chemicals and things that are in those waste streams?

Which we are grateful that they're addressing the issue on some level, but we don't feel like they're going far enough.

Wes had mentioned that there are 15,000 PFAS chemicals in the class.

Some say that there's more in the class of PFAS chemicals.

The most popularly used or most used by industry or PFOA and PFOS.

So that is what the DEC policy is saying.

Okay, use those as indicators.

So test the soil, test the products for PFOA and PFOS.

If you're not finding those, I think there's a false sense of security that, oh, then there's no PFAS contamination.

But it doesn't take into account the full PFAS burden, it doesn't take into account the precursors or the smaller PFAS chemicals that aren't going to be detected if you test just for PFOA and PFOS.

So we have concerns that it's not, it's a step forward, but it doesn't go as far as, say, some states like Maine or others who have come further.

They're using different testing methods.

Well, Maine actually stopped the spreading of sewage sludge because they were finding that there was just too much contamination.

You're creating this legacy problem on farmland.

They are forever chemicals.

You can't mitigate, you can't, like once land is contaminated by this, it's going to cost millions to try to remediate it if possible.

And we're very concerned that, with DEC and other folks, and the Hochul administration, when they push that this is a beneficial use, we say, we don't believe that it's a beneficial use.

We believe that there are other aspects that aren't being taken into account.

The drinking water potential contamination, our farmland potentially contaminated, the agricultural industry.

I mean, these PFAS chemicals, they can be absorbed by crops.

Animals eat, you know, forage.

They can get PFAS chemicals in their milk.

Our dairy industry is, I think, the largest agricultural industry in the state, and we have very major concerns around contamination.

PFAS contamination specifically.

And through the increased use of biosolids.

DAVID: Well, then let's talk then about the legislative response you're looking for, which includes a couple different bills, but the crux of both of those bills is a five-year moratorium on the sale and use of biosolids.

If the Hochul administration says we can do this safely, we're monitoring, we're keeping an eye on things.

Why do we need a moratorium?

And if we do a moratorium what happens to the biosolids that are going to still be created?

Should we just start digging a hole and cement them all in somewhere?

WES GILLINGHAM: As a farmer, the one of the most important things to any farm is the soil.

And the fact that you're potentially not just contaminating it today, but contaminating it for the next 40, 50 or they call them forever chemicals.

DAVID: Some farmers, though, clearly are comfortable using them, right?

WES GILLINGHAM: Farmers are, and so my two big concerns is contaminating the soil, but also contaminating any individual farm.

Farmers are under such a tight budget to make a living in this state.

There's a whole host of issues working against your average farmer.

And then the farmers end up being the victim because these companies are coming to them and saying, hey, I can get you a truckload of cheaper fertilizer, much cheaper than what you buy, you know, from so-and-so.

And they see it as a bottom line thing.

They're the victim, because they're being sold a bill of goods that are potentially contaminating and ruining the longevity of their farm.

And this has been a huge issue for years, and one of the biggest impediment to making it stop, I support way more than a five-year moratorium.

Five years as a minimum we need to figure out, okay, what do we use and how do we how do we get the large volume of biosolids, toxic sewage sludge, into a safe place for our communities, for our farms, for our drinking water.

I mean, New York City, the volume of sludge that New York City generates, and then have it come up and be spread on our farmland, makes zero sense.

I mean, talk, tell the average person and they're going to say that makes zero sense.

But not only that, the Deer Island facility outside of Boston, it's the third largest wastewater treatment facility in the United States.

They're sending 12% of their sewage sludge into New York.

DAVID: So, then, what, though, is the alternative with what is produced with these biosolids or sludge?

We can't throw it into the ocean and we can't spread it on our land.

I mean, I made a sort of facetious line about burying it in the ground and cementing it like nuclear waste, but is there a better solution?

WES GILLINGHAM: That's why we need a five-year moratorium.

DAVID: But so what do we do in that?

WES GILLINGHAM: We figure out this solution.

Well, they are taking a lot of it and putting it in landfills.

There's technologies that they can work on to reduce the volume so that you can put more in landfills, but that's why we need a five-year moratorium to actually come up with a plan that makes ecological community sense for the health of our communities and to protect one of New York State's biggest assets is our agricultural industry.

To have a threat to our soil and our farms, it makes zero sense.

Maine, there were farmers that were getting contaminated beef.

They didn't even know that their farm had had PFAS spread on the farm or the sewage sludge spread on their farm.

It was from 30 years ago.

CAITLIN FERRANTE: I will add, so, this is an issue that is supported by the American Farmland Trust, and the Farm Bureau hasn't been as, pushing back against it as, like, say, other issues, the environmentalists have worked on worked on when it comes to, ag issues.

But I will say that when you talk about, like, what do we do with it and what, this is a larger issue, this is definitely an issue that this is the end problem.

And this is a problem that is being caused upstream through the use of PFAS chemicals and other toxic chemicals higher up in the chain.

So you have industrial uses, you have them in products.

Like in New York State, we've banned them from use in firefighting foam and apparel food packaging.

We need to be looking at a much more large, larger, you know, like product sector of bills or of products.

We do have some legislation that would ban the use of PFAS chemicals in a slew of products, including cookware, industrial paint, dental floss.

It's in practically everything, and there's really no reason for it to be in everything.

There are safer alternatives.

They're making products in Europe and in other countries and other states without PFAS.

These things all find their way into the waste stream.

So, be it through their production, be it through even industrial uses where they need to, say, lubricate a line or some gears.

Like, it all ends up in the waste stream, it ends up in our soil.

Ending up in our drinking water and ending up in the sludge.

So this is an issue that we're trying to deal with downstream, and this is the issue, like the problem right now is not going to be going away anytime soon.

We need to be addressing these upstream issues.

But at the same time, we can't just be putting it on our farmland.

So I think that's where for us, the 5-year moratorium is kind of a pause.

And the bill sponsors have -- in terms of putting it on the farmland.

The bill sponsors have been very supportive of, they had originally a five-year moratorium then we introduced legislation working with them to address some of the concerns around -- like we need funding for testing for these chemicals and also farmer relief.

So, say, a farmer tests or they find sewage or PFAS contamination on a farmer's land.

They should not be penalized, like their farm should be taken away or, you know, put out of business simply because they were doing something they thought was correct.

So there is in the second iteration of the legislation that Senator Harkham and Assemblymember Anna Kelles put out a farmer protection fund which we still stand by and hope that we can get it across the finish line in 2027.

DAVID: Well, still a lot to be discussed here, unfortunately, that's all the time we have for this conversation.

Wes and Caitlin, thank you so much for making the time.

WES GILLINGHAM: Thank you very much.

CAITLIN FERRANTE: Thank you.

DAVID: And before we go this month, we want to provide a moment of levity at the expense of all the political campaign signs filling up right of ways, and littering lawns across the state.

This is a satirical commentary.

We recorded this fall for the Capitol Press Room's, social media accounts.

I hope you enjoy it.

Mark Waldack, is that a dog or a hand gesture?

Either way, I'm asking questions.

two thumbs up.

, Harry Wilson, too much white space, even for Republican primary.

C minus.

I like this woman for Schmidt's sign because of the ambiguous nature of it.

Maybe it's just his mom and his wife who support him.

We'll never know, three stars.

This sign's a winner because of how many letters it fits on it.

It wins the Merriam Webster Award, creativity points to assembly minority leader Ed RA, figuring out how to fill an entire lawn sign with just RA, 4 stars.

I like this Kathy Marchion sign because there's a gun and a fishing rod on it, and I picked it up off the street one day more than a decade ago.

I give it a 21 gun salute.

He may not be chief judge, but he lives on inside.

Hector LaSalle, you get the consolation gavel.

Eddie Jenny.

What body of water is this?

I vote no.

And unfortunately, that's all the time we have this month.

My thanks to all our guests, as well as WMHT, for sharing their studio with us.

For daily state government coverage, check out the Capitol Pressroom, at Capitol Pressroom.org, wherever you download podcasts, and for a deeper dive into the World of New York politics, check out our insider podcast, dispatches from Planet Albany, available on all your favorite podcast platforms.

And remember to follow us on YouTube, where you can catch up on past episodes and also check out our short, digestible videos from our interviews at the Capitol.

And finally, I'm excited to announce the newest edition of our viewing audience, Eleanor Lombardo, who arrived 5 days early this fall.

She and her mother are doing great.

We're all looking forward to sleeping more than 3 hours at a clip.

On behalf of the entire team at WCNY, I'm David Lombardo.

Thanks for watching.

Support comes from O'Donnell and Associates, a public affairs firm, providing strategic guidance to businesses and nonprofits on navigating government policy and regulatory issues.

More information is available at ODonnellSolutions.com.

Intelligence guided by experience.

This program is brought to you by the members of WCNY.

Thank you.