Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Good afternoon. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is Wednesday, 04/08/2026. It's 01:30 in the afternoon, and we are here to hear a bill. And the idea would be to vote it out today unless at the end of the conversation people feel like they need more time. So I'll take a temperature check. Conversation. So this is S-two 18, an accolating to reducing chloride contamination of state waters. Start with Gregor and legislative.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. This is Michael Grady with Feltus Head and Council. S-two 18 may seem familiar to you because in last year's session of the biennium, you saw two different bills move through the larger bodies, both bodies, doing very similar things. One was S 29, the one was H 86. H 86 was passed out by your house environment committee. It was passed out by your ways and means committee and by your committee. Passed the house. But when it went over to the senate, it was added to h three nineteen. And h three nineteen was subject to multiple floor amendments, and that bill subsequently was sent back to committee. And those floor amendments weren't about the chloride contamination reduction program. It was about other provisions of that bill, but it ultimately led to that bill not moving forward. To separate h 86 from h three nineteen and to send it on a cleaner path, senator Watson this year introduced effectively the same bill as s two eighteen. What that bill does is it establishes a chloride contamination reduction program at the Agency of Natural Resources. As I think many of you know, the state is required to implement water quality standards and they're implemented under the federal Clean Water Act to go out every year and identify every three years and identify whether the waters are meeting the water quality standards. And if they are not, why? And in some cases, whether or not they're stressed. Chloride salt is an increasing impairment of waters in the state and or a stressor. When you look at the information that's available from ANR and other entities, you will see that there's dots all over this map, over the state showing where chloride levels in waters are increasing and or are causing impairments. And as you know, when there is an impairment, the state is required to implement a cleanup plan of total maximum daily load. There are currently nine impaired waters impaired for chloride. They are largely in Chittenden County, but they are not solely in Chittenden County. Consequently, the state is required to implement a plan for the cleanup of those waters to bring them back into attainment for water quality standards.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Next.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Is there a TMDL for chloride? Pardon me? Is there a federal TMDL for chloride?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's not a federal TMDL. There are The state is moving towards adopting TMDL for those nine impaired waters. And they're on a schedule of the Sunnyside Brook, which was the first impaired chloride water. That's on schedule for 2024. Potash Brook, 2026. Inglesby, 2026. And then Stevens in Saint Albans is the last on this current schedule, that's 2027 to 2028.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Did the agency do any background chloride assessment for

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's part of what they have to do for the analysis of whether or not it's impaired. It's looking at the levels and determining whether or not those levels are background or whether or not they are increasing. When you look at the charts on those levels, and this is just a Lake Champlain chart, you will see that the levels are increasing over time

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: from I don't like that dip. If things are increasing, they don't usually go down for a reason. See, my concern is TMDL. If they're going to do a TMDL, we got the whole basin of Lake Champlain was marine to start with. So we've got chloride that's eroding from the rock itself. As well as other rock. We've got chlorides going on agriculture fields. We've all the chlorine that's coming out of sewage treatment plants and all those sorts of things. Unless they've done a survey of that, which is in long enough time.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: When you look at the chloride contributions per watershed, and this is Sunnyside Brook, so you you have a couple of different sources here. For example, the the army roads that are in that area. When you model the sources, you will see that most of it is from state roads, municipal roads, private roads, and other paved surfaces, parking lots, sidewalks.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: We're just scared of this model

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because Well, I mean, that's what you have to do for every TMDL. You you because it's a water based, rain based, precipitation based plan, in most cases, you do have to model because you can't can't predict the rain.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: You know, I know all about modeling. Right. I do. I know about all that stuff. It just makes me nervous. And I may have both of this bill, but but not for those reasons. My my concern is that and the sand one element of this is sand. I've done stream surveys in Vermont, a good number of them. And sand is really bad on our trout streams, embedding the substrate for spawning on trout streams in a serious, serious condition. And we're not looking at that in this part and parcel of the sand and salt that was on our roads. So all I'm saying is it doesn't give me a good feeling, a feeling of lack of completeness in the planning process, if all those elements haven't come together. And I'm with everybody and not wanting to have more salt going to streams. But then I look at the 100 feet away from a sand or salt pile and I don't think that's far enough. But if you've got leaching or eroding sand or salt from a salt pile, it could go a lot farther than that. But having an inventory that you're proposing in all this, I think it's a great thing. So I'm going to support the bill. I'm just trying to express for the people listening that I'd like to have a lot more due diligence going on at DEC level.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So we'll have the policy committees maybe talk to that because I imagine they've taken some other testimony as well. So I have Lynn and then John.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Where do you get a copy of that?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: No, I was going to ask the same thing.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: I looking, I can't find it, so I don't know.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're online, I can get them to you. Can get

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: Are they

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: on different committees at certain days?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe I I downloaded these from, Senate Natural.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Senate Natural Resources. Okay. And I will Perhaps when chair Watson comes, she can tell us when that is, and then we can go find it.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: I just looked up there. I couldn't find anything. Maybe I'm not looking on the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: right place, but Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It all depends on how committee assistance posts, and that's not all

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: the system. So we'll get that information. I think we all are interested in seeing

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: That's fine.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: David, you win. Send your piece. Okay, continue.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you have the nine impaired waters and because there is a need for a TMDL and because the major sources are the chloride that's applied to paved surfaces, there's been a proposal to establish the chloride contamination reduction program at ANR and to effectively create best management practices for the application of chloride so that it reduces the water quality impacts while also maintaining safe travel and pedestrian conditions for users. And so that's effectively what this bill does, but it also provides an incentive to those commercial chloride applicators and those municipal chloride applicators who receive the training, then they have some legal protection if there's a cause of action that's brought against them for damages solely from snow or ice. So that's generally what the bill does. The purpose section is effectively what I just said. Page one, line 10, section two, it establishes that chloride contamination reduction program at ANR in the water quality section. Apply salt as intuitive. It is literally the physical application of salt or salt alternatives to roadways, parking lots, sidewalks for winter maintenance or summer dust control. It does not include transportation infrastructure projects. Salt is often necessary for things like hardening soil, hardening surfaces during construction projects. So because those are very unique and kind of case by case, transportation infrastructure projects are not subject to the definition of applied salt. Commercial salt applicator is someone that is applying chloride for compensation. A master commercial salt applicator is someone at institution, an organization that can train others within that organization regarding the best management practices. Salt is every form of chloride that you can think of. Salt alternative is everything that's not chloride that's used for deicing and dust control. And then transportation infrastructure construction project is defined for purposes of that exception. Page two, line 14, you get the creation of the program. It's at ANR, but it's in consultation with AOT because AOT already has practices that they use for state roads. So why create the program and you rely on the entity that is already doing some of this for state roads. It will be an voluntary education training and certification program. This is not mandatory for a commercial applicator. It's voluntary, and it will be about the effective and efficient application of salt and salt alternatives to provide safe conditions for pedestrians and vehicles while also reducing the impacts on water quality. As part of the program, we're on page three, line three, ANR adopts five rule best management practices for application of salt for salt alternatives. Those best management practices will do things like establish measures for increased efficiency of application. They'll establish standards for when and how salt and salt alternatives are applied in order to prevent them from entering the waters while also maintaining safe conditions. How to calibrate your equipment or monitor your equipment for application on page four. When sand the E and Ps will address when sand is an appropriate alternative to salt or salt alternatives, particularly in regard when application will be less applicable to water quality. There will be recordkeeping requirements, and recordkeeping is an important part of the legal benefit that the applicators receive, and we'll talk about that in

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: a

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: minute. ANR will circulate a model form for record keeping. It will establish requirements for certification. They will establish requirements for testing. Now on page four, line 18, this is where the program, the Chloride Contamination Reduction Program, offers training, again voluntary, offers training for commercial applicators and implementation of the BMPs. Upon completion of the training, they are certified as certified commercial salt applicators, and that's a two year certification. Now a business that employs multiple applicators can get an employee certified as a master who can train all of those persons within their organization. That's page five, lines three through eight. Page five, line nine, the certified applicators submit an annual summary of total winter salt usage to ANR. You might be surprised we don't really know how much commercial applicators are currently using in the state. And so this is to help provide a metric. Page five, line 11, ANR establishes methods to estimate and track the amount of salt applied by certified commercial salt applicators. ANR may revoke a certification if the applicator is violating the BMPs or otherwise violating the requirements of the chapter. Then on page six, you get to that that legal benefit that the commercial applicator will receive once they're certified. And so that applicator that's certified and the owner, occupant, or lessee of the property that the applicator is providing services to receive what's called an affirmative defense against a claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice. If the claim damages were solely by snow or ice, and any failure or delay to remove that snow or ice is due to the applicators implementing the best management practices. So what is an affirmative defense? When you passed h 86 last year, it wasn't an affirmative defense. It just said that the applicator shall not be liable for the damages that caused solely from snow or ice, and they were implementing the BMPs. Well, that that's a shield. That basically says that the plaintiff who potentially has a cause of action can't bring that cause of action in his court, can't access those courts. It's a qualified immunity, but it is still an immunity. There are other types of immunity, like absolute immunity, which is something you enjoy as legislators. When you're out there on the floor saying things, saying things that are wrong, because you're sometimes wrong,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: and But we never do that.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You are not subject to a cause of action for that because that's what the constitution says. It's an absolute immunity. This is a qualified immunity. The applicator would still need to show some things, but when it's just immunity, the burden's on the plaintiff. The burden on the plaintiff to show that the applicator doesn't have that immunity. And it's thought of by some advocates as a bar or a hurdle of that injured party seeking redress in court. So what an affirmative defense does, it shifts the burden from the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant actually says in an affirmative defense, yeah, I did that. I actually did that. But because I met these criteria, I am not liable. That so here, the plaintiff still gets their access to court. Burden shifts to the defendant to say, I'm not liable because it was solely snow rights. I was implementing the BMPs. I was certified. I was in my two year certification period, and I was keeping the records that are required to maintain that certification. Still legal benefit. Plaintiff still gets a rip an opportunity in the courts. There still has to be facts that are proven by the defendant. But this is something that was more palatable to the judiciary committees in both bodies and more palatable to some of the advocates who advocate in front of those judiciary committees.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So John has a question I want you to know that Autumn found the slides, five pages, and so they're now on our website. So refresh your page and you'll see it. Okay. Go ahead, John.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: So this is different than any liability insurance a commercial applicator may already have in place? Or would that be something very different in terms of

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the applicator, if they're

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Just asking because I'm not sure what kind of insurance an applicator could currently have,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: doing that type of work. Right. So most applicators have CGL policies because most property owners require them that they're servicing to have a CGL policy. What has happened in some of the other states, because the property owner gets this benefit too, they get that affirmative defense or immunity from liability. The property owners are putting it in a certain condition of their contract that the applicator gets certified, because then they both receive that legal benefit. They're still gonna carry CGL policies because it's still gonna be there's still potential liability, but it reduces that potential liability. And remember, you still have to show certain facts in order to qualify. You have to show that it was solely snow or ice. It wasn't due to some Conditional. Right? You did as an applicator that was was negligent. You have to show that the harm was caused because you were implementing the BMPs. There was a case in New Hampshire brought against a larger commercial applicator. That commercial applicator showed that they met all of the conditions. And then they showed that it wasn't fully civil rights, that the person actually fell over a bush in the median and they had they had no duty. The commercial applicator had no duty to maintain the bushes in the median, and, therefore, there wasn't a viable negligence claim. They would have qualified for the immunity anyway, but it wasn't viable.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Wayne, I thought it's fair. I think it'd be great.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Any cases are you aware of any cases where other than, you know, things like snow removal or ice where someone gets hurt or damage has occurred, have you know, have any losses pertaining to the amount of chloride in waters for any purposes or within adverse effect that someone has had that has resulted in a lawsuit?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not aware of that, but this partly addresses that and it's partly intended to drive down the need for those individual plans in the impaired waters where somebody could say that one source, a large user or a large development somehow was the cause of a greater contribution than others and therefore should be subject to liability in the remediation of it.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Wouldn't they already be liable if they cause some harm now by their action? It's potential,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but one of the things that this also does is it gives that commercial applicator that goes through certification. It says that they're not gonna be liable for stormwater and direct discharge violations if they're applying the BMPs as as it's another legal benefit of this. Don't impose on them water quality violations when they're doing what ANR trained them to do.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Let's Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's the affirmative defense. Key part of the affirmative defense is that, on page six going on to page seven, the commercial applicator, the property owner that's served, they have to keep records of their practices consistent with the requirements established by ANR. You need to show that you're actually doing the BMPs. And some of the commercial applicators have equipment that does it all fairly automatically, that record keeping. But ANR is also going to establish a form for those that don't have that specialized equipment to be able to keep the record keeping in order to qualify. Page seven, line seven through 20 is that presumption of compliance with water quality standards if you're implementing the BMPs, and it's exactly what I was just referencing to Rosh. Page eight, nine, three, ANR is required to do education and outreach not just to commercial salt applicators regarding the program, but also to members of the public who are using and applying salt or salt alternatives regarding the potential harm to water quality pets and wildlife from excessive application. So that's the program at ANR. Page eight line 14, this is a report. It is not a requirement. Last year, you saw in one version of the bill a requirement that municipalities cover their salt storage. That is not in this bill because of the concern about cost and application. This is just a report from ANR to you regarding management of state and municipal facilities for storage of salt, salt and sand mixture, salt alternatives, and sand. What they're reporting is, a, an inventory of those facilities that are used for that storage, an estimate of the number of those that are currently covered, an estimate that are within a 100 yards of the surface water are not covered, And in an estimate that are not covered and are more than a 100 yards from the surface water. And then an estimate of the total cost to cover or move those facilities that are not covered and that are within that proximity to water. ANR already has a large amount of this information. It's not going to be difficult for them to provide this report. They have been tracking this type of storage at state and municipal levels for water quality requirements, but it will be consolidated and there will be a recommendation on how much it will cost for coverage to help reduce the amount of chloride being contributed to waters. Page nine, you just saw an ANR program for commercial salt applicators. Page nine, section four is a program to give municipal salt applicators that same affirmative defense, but they have to go through the training annually as part of the AOT local roads curriculum. But then all of the rest of the criteria are the same. Any liability is for harm caused solely by snow or ice, And when the municipal applicator is applying the BMPs, they have to maintain the records that the commercial applicator needs to provide. And so that is the affirmative. Municipal applicators receive it also, but they have to go through annual training through the training they already do for local roads.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So is this a voluntary program for municipalities too?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's it is technically voluntary, but most municipalities send people there for the local roads curriculum to get that training because there are variations or variables that are added each year. But I wouldn't say that every public works employee is trained every year. Okay. So page 11, how is this program going to be implemented? The bill gives ANR options. In other states, it was initiated through contractors that were able to do it either remotely or through group presentations. And ANR has the authority to do it through a contractor, but they also could do it through a staff employee. However, in either case, house ways and means wanted to report back to you, the general assembly, about what that fee would be charged to a commercial applicator by A and R or by the contractor in order to fund the program. And they want that fee to be approved by you, the general assembly, before it was assessed. And then page 12, line seven, section six, as with all new programs, you've probably seen this language more than I have. It's a contingent funding clause. Yep. It is not currently in the senate. It's not in the budget bill because this came out of the senate. They didn't have the budget. You didn't have the bill. So there's this contingent implementation that the duty of ANR to implement the chloride contamination reduction program, municipal salt applicators, and the fee report is contingent upon an appropriation from the general fund for those specific purposes. You will still get the report on covers of salt storage because as I referred to earlier, ANR largely has most of that information.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay. So that's section three, and that's still Yes. Part of us. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Any more questions for Mike right now?

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Yes. Thank you. I just was curious on the section regarding the AOT municipalities. Did I hear you say that the municipalities are mandatory training for their people and their peep in their public

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't think that it's not technically mandatory. It's just that AOT have you ever seen the Road and Bridge Manual? It's an orange book that teaches local public works how to implement certain practices, stormwater controls, the local road, municipal road stormwater permit. There is that training that's available to all municipalities, and most municipalities do it annually, but I wouldn't say that they

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: all do it annually. Not mandatory, mandatory, but they've

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: got a book that they use. Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that book is about things mandatory for them, like the municipal roads, storm water permit. And so most of public workers are going be going through this, but I can't say that all of them will.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: So this is not something on top of that, but you can apply that same

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's gonna be in that program, yes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: You would get if

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: you were doing it through a contractor

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: or ANR.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. James will tell you what may be necessary or speculatively from last year to run the AOT program and the ANR program, but it will require money.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: It'll require money.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: But but that's for the people who are non municipal employees.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And for the municipal employees.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: And and so are they duplicating? I mean, is the ANR

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: sitting on top of the other? Is

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: especially if they're going to be hiring a trainer to specifically do that program.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So there will be some level of duplication?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, some level of training offered by both programs, yes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Practices, and that's what ANR is gonna base their best management practices on. State employees already have that qualified immunity. The Tort Reform, Tort Claims Act, for a while, they were just fully sovereign immune. But then because of you you allowed for torts against state employees up to a certain amount. I can't remember what it is now. I think it might be $500,000. That's that you will allow that against state employees.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: So state employees do not have this affirmative defense, or they do

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, they already have that qual they already have a qualified immunity.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: As a state employee.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As a state employee. When they are acting within the scope of their-

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Training.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Employment. They're out there using their snow plows to take down mailboxes, yeah, that probably will not get immunity for that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Wayne, and then So in

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: the testimony with ANR

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Lynn? Yeah. So the same employees through AOT already have the same training, and

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: this is not gonna be something new for them?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. They they are not even subject to the program. AOT has been very clear that they already have their own program. They don't need this program. They already train their file drivers. They actually go and follow their new drivers to make sure their new drivers are doing what they're supposed to. So they don't need the program.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: They don't need it, so they don't have to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: do it. So they're excluded from it.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Encouraging use of brine. Was there any feedback from that? You know, there's a maybe

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, brine is a contributor of chloride, but it's not just brine. It's all of the sources of chloride, which and there are many, magnesium, brine. It's like pretty much any type of chloride that's used for de icing and dust control.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: It seemed like we had brine as encouraging the municipalities to use brine. And then either they didn't like it or they phased out of it instead of just solid salt.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it requires a lot more storage than a certain type of storage than your traditional

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: We may hear from the policy committee on that, from Rep Chapin. I'd like to get James up here to talk about the so thank you, Mike. Don't leave,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: but you're welcome to take a seat

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: on the sideline and get James up here to talk about the fiscal note.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Stephanie joined fiscal office. There is a fiscal note posted on the committee page for this bill. There are six sections of the bill. The first one that I want to draw the committee's attention to is actually the last one. That being section six, this is the section that makes implementation of most of the bill contingent on the general fund appropriation. So I think what you should all understand right off the bat is that if you were to recommend this bill as it's currently before you, only one thing would happen since there's no appropriation in the bill and there's no corresponding appropriation in the budget as it was passed by the house. And that would be the contents of section three. As you just heard from legislative counsel, it is the agency of natural resources report on management of salt and sand storage facilities. So the only section of the bill that is not contingent on a general fund appropriation is this requirement that by 01/15/2027, ANR produced this report. And as you heard from legislative counsel, this is something that the agency anticipates being able to do with existing staff resources. They have testified to the effect that they have most of this information readily available. And so this work does not require an additional appropriation. The sections that would not become effective without a general fund appropriation are sections two and four. These are the sections that establish the chloride contamination reduction program. And these sections speak to the agency of natural resources directive to undertake rulemaking to adopt the best management practices upon which certification would be based, and also speaks to the Agency of Transportation's directive to implement a similar parallel program through the already existing local roads municipal technical assistance program. So there's no appropriation contained in this bill. There's no corresponding appropriation. The House passed budget. However, there was testimony taken in the other committees of jurisdiction speaking to the anticipated implementation costs from the agencies of natural resources and transportation. So the Agency of Natural Resources has estimated that a $350,000 appropriation would be necessary to implement the program as currently contemplated in the bill. This would consist of a one time $200,000 appropriation for contracted services and a $150,000 base appropriation for our permanent classified position. My understanding is that the $200,000 preparation for contracted services would be to help put together the training certification materials, study the best practices that would be contained in certification training materials, and the kind of one time program set up responsibilities. On the agency of transportation end, they also estimate $350,000 would be necessary for implementation through the local roads program. This would consist of a $200,000 appropriation for contracted services and a $150,000 probation for permanent classified position. I think it's important to understand the AOT has estimated that this would be a base recurring appropriation, ANR has estimated that only a $150,000 base appropriation would be needed. Overall, you're looking at a potential cost just taking these estimates at face value of $700,000 for implementation of the program. If the committee were to contemplate appropriating funds for this purpose or would like to better understand these estimates before recommending the bill out of committee, I would highly recommend hearing from the agencies to provide some more color for you all about what went into these estimates. Representative Dickinson, as you had inquired of legislative counsel about how the agencies would share these similar but different responsibilities across these programs.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Great. Thank you, James. Any questions for James? Seems pretty clear.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: And one more piece I forgot to mention is the requirement of a fee report. The Agency of Natural Resources would also be contingent on general fund appropriation required to submit a fee report to the committees of jurisdiction if this program were to be implemented. Any fee that would be charged to municipal SALT applicators and commercial SALT applicators would be subject to approval by the committees of jurisdiction and the general assembly before it went into effect.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: But the seat of court wouldn't have it either without the appropriations. Exactly.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That is also contingent on an appropriation.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: They couldn't do that without money. I think the

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: idea is that there would be no certification to pay a fee

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: it's a little, but I'm not sure I'd buy it.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Let's put

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: it that way.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Well, agree. I mean, seems prudent to me to get a little more detail about what this might work like here. It's something that felt was voluntary, at least on the commercial side of things, not knowing exactly what the fees would be, and, you know, it's a two year certification, and there's lots of certifications that are like one year, two year, three year, five year kinds of things, depending on the topic here. You know, is it prudent to have just a two year piece or a three year piece to kind of maybe cut back on some of the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: costs So we can ask trained,

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: but I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: who are here to some of these questions now.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Those are good questions. Just kind of follow-up on

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: what I suggest we heard from you.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yes. And the New Hampshire We

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: don't have that right now.

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Think those are good questions. And the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is, I believe, their agency's name has a very similar program, which this is largely inspired from. My understanding is they employ only one half time staff member to implement this program. They run it at a bit lower cost than has been proposed by the agencies. But I wouldn't anticipate that fees in the amount to cover a potential $700,000 cost to be practicable for those seeking to participate in the program. But there is the potential for fees to somewhat defray the cost of implementing the program depending on what that level is and what the appropriation out is. Wayne, you look like there's a question.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not sure it's for you, but is did ANR is this ANR's idea? Is this something that they were driving?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Why don't we get the two committee reps here, Senator and Representative, to come up and talk about that? So I think we're clear on what James is presenting. Thank you very much, James. Why don't you both come up? There's chairs hanging around that you can No more at them. I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: don't think I've had a senator and a representative come at the same time to

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: talk about a bill since we got here. We appreciate you both taking the time. Sure. If you want to introduce yourselves for the record, then we can talk about this.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: Ella Chapin, representative for East Montpelier. I'm Senator House Environment Committee.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Anne Watson, Senator for the Washington District. And I'm chair of Natural Resources.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: This started, Senator Watson, your neck of the woods, in your committee. But as we've heard, it's been around. It's around last year, then things happened. And here we are again. Here we are again. So you heard some of the tenor of the questions, and I want to give you both a chance to respond to what you're hearing from the committee. Sure, Will.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: And I have not been here for the entire time, but just to get to the question that just recently came up. So this was brought to us by some advocates who were aware of the program, in New Hampshire and thought that we could potentially use a similar program in Vermont. And then it was consequently supported by Agency of Natural Resources. They, both I think, a lot of the environmental advocates as well as ANR are recognizing that salt is increasingly a problem in our aquatic systems and is starting to impact aquatic biota in a negative way, knowing that we have these salts related TMDLs coming down the line. And so a little bit of prevention could be, very helpful in terms of not getting to the point of needing a TMDL. So, that was, one of the motivations. And then, I also wanted to point out, I put together a compilation of the data that we Oh, we don't have that one. Yes, as well. So this is a lot of the what ended up happening on the floor was that as I gave my floor report, there was an interest in more data. So I put together a handout of more data that resulted in this. And so I can get you this handout that's Is it on your committee page? It's not, because it's a compilation of data that we have presented to us. So I don't think it's on our committee page. Like, I could have our committee assistant put it up. That would be one, easy solution. But it's it has data regarding, the increase in chloride levels that we're seeing in Lake Champlain, in the tributaries going into Lake Champlain, in bodies of water around the state and the with thresholds of, you know, this is, what is acute levels of chloride, what is chronically problematic levels of chloride in a body of water, and so across the state, what those look. So any case, happy to provide this to the committee.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: We have a question. Well, or comments more. My concern is more with DEC. When And the salt bill came through last year, I did bother to go and look up the scientific papers and such. There have been several studies on some of the streams going on. I have those, I know that they were trying to determine whether or not there was more salt downstream of a bridge, or upstream of bridges, they found that they couldn't detect any significant difference. You heard some of my comments about background levels of chloride in the soils and everything like that. And the distribution of that across the state. My concern is, and we've seen in the past, we've got a PCB in school thing where we've got a standard that's 10 times more stringent for the rest of the state. So without due diligence in terms of looking at the science and doing the survey data, then it makes me extremely nervous that we might be going down the hill where we have another regulation put in place, a TMDL, that's going to restrict folks from doing various activities without really having done the hard work to figure out where we should really be. So I have a strong objection to just advocates coming in and just say, oh, we need to do this. They're making money doing that. They're costing us money. And if we put these, if we spend this much money, are we gonna get a return on investment? Is it a little bit of a difference or is it a big difference? And I'm very much for protecting the environment. But when you start talking acute, acute to me means that something's gonna die. And in my experience with salt, these kinds of systems, that isn't happening. Unless if it is happening someplace, I'm unaware of it.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'd like to know. Do you want to

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: speak to that? I'm happy to.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Okay. Well, because I want to say just a couple of things, not at that last point. But one of the graphs that we have as a part of the set is a correlation of paved road density as a function of or I guess I should say the chloride in a lake as a function of density of paving. So the more densely an area is paved, you can see that there is at least a loose correlation with the amount of chloride that you find, in the associated bodies of water. So there's at least a correlation there. And I just wanna make sure, two, to just clarify, this is all voluntary, and so it's not restricting anybody from doing anything.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: No. I know. And and again, I'm I'm curious. I'm interested. I I wish that DEC and Fish and Wildlife would be doing more surveys or looking at, you know, specific do you have any decrease in aquatic invertebrates associated with that? Again, causation and correlation are not necessarily the same thing. But you start seeing a correlation and then you start looking for causation. And so I hate putting a cart before the horse. Nancy? I

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: I guess I would speak really broadly and say I saw a lot of really good data that shows a lot of correlation, including a lot of loss of aquatic species on the environmental water quality side, causation in science is always much more difficult to address than correlation. What system? Stream systems or lake systems? So primarily we saw a lot of data around stream systems because that's where we're seeing the impact of the chloride much particularly strongly and where we're seeing the What about the sand

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: sea there is sand with the salt. And I have studied lots, I've done habitat surveys on submarine streams in St. Vermont, Mount Killam and Shiart in New Hampshire. And sand impacting the substrates is a huge issue. It impacts the spawning habitat for the trout. It embeds all the substrates so the aquatic populations can't like that and get extremely few species. So when we're not even addressing that in this bill, it makes me nervous because the correlation could be with sand, not necessarily with salt.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: I don't agree with that last statement because sand doesn't usually affect salinity and pH in the way that chloride does. But I agree with you that there are many compounding water quality issues that are all happening in our streams and lakes at the same time, whether it's PFAS or sand or salt or turbidity or straightening. I mean, there's so many different pieces, so it is really hard to tease them all out when you just look at something like an invertebrates population. But when you step back and look at the picture much more broadly, I think the return on investment is so clear. So I just want to step back and tell you that water quality in streams, while we do have now nine TMDLs, one of which is required by EPA and just got approved by EPA, is certainly a driving factor here, and certainly a reason that the return on investment to be proactive in reducing how many TMDLs we end up with across the state is certainly a major driving factor. Much more broadly, we have Vermonters who are suffering with cars that are not lasting more than seven or eight years because of salt impacts, because of the overuse of salts, particularly on roads, driveways, and sidewalks. And then we also have an impact on our infrastructure, and VTrans can come in and tell you all about why we should utilizing salt as minimally as possible to save our roads and bridges from damage. And then, one of the biggest reasons is that salt applicators, the business people out there doing this work, salt is incredibly expensive. And so if someone who has a big paved driveway like Walmart hires them to come in and apply salt and take care of things, and they have no liability protection, they're gonna apply a lot of salt for the same price that they get to keep that drive, paving, that parking lot, safe. And if they can follow best management practices and get a certification and then be protected from liability, and they can use much less salt for the same contract amount that that business is going to pay them. Pay them to manage their this is a win win win for a very low cost for a program that's voluntary but working in our neighboring state of New Hampshire, where it's been there for ten years. It's working very successfully. It's still voluntary, and it is supporting the salt applicators and the municipalities and the people of New Hampshire. So I definitely hear a lot of the concerns, and I don't disagree with you that you can't necessarily prove that this is immediately going to cause less salt in some of our waterways. It's going to take time for us to reduce our salt use on the landscape, especially in really urban areas. And then it's going to take time for that salt amount in the stream banks to start to go down. And then it's going to take time for that to impact the waterways, and there are many other issues that are also impacting our aquatic environments that may or may not be being reduced at the same way. But luckily for this bill, that is not the only reason to

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: be Stay with me. All those things up with you, and I wanna stop this all. The sticking point for me is the fact that if we I don't wanna use the word. If we don't properly apply our science, commodities, if we don't have the proper standards, if we don't do the proper research, and we're doing it because, oh, this is a good thing to do, but we're not doing the right thing there, then we're corrupting the tools that we have to go about doing really important things in the future. And legally or forget the legally part, it's always going be the legally part. But corrupting the science, it bothers me to no end to see the science corrupted. I like reducing the liability for the folks. I love the survey. They can do the survey stuff on the garage and everything already and I think 100 yards is too short of the distance. I think they should be able to look at farther away because of stuff going in there. But when they don't look at sand, and I know sand is such a huge problem, that tells me that somebody isn't thinking well and I don't like that. That's my problem. I want to vote for it.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: All right, so I'm going to keep going. Right is John and then Wayne.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: to change direction here. No more questions about what Wayne just asked you about here. So you know this model here was kind of replicated to some degree here from what New Hampshire's doing here for recent ten years, What think, something like proportion of commercial applicators take advantage of the voluntary program to become certified and better up to speed on what they need to be doing here to keep, parking lots and dry houses and stuff straight, whether it's for some residential places.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: In New Hampshire?

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: In New Hampshire, yeah, I'm just trying to get

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: I know the sheer numbers, so I don't know the percentage because we didn't get the data on the total number of SALT applications. I'm not even sure they have a SALT application.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: They may not even have a list of

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: I don't think they know their total number of SALT applications, but in 2013, shortly after they started their program, there were 35 applicators from 22 companies that received their certification. And then last year, they had seven it had grown in twelve years, I guess, it had grown to 700 applicators within 175 companies. And I think a lot of these companies are pretty small teams. So I think that it shows that people

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: There are bigger states than us here, clearly,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: People are utilizing the program as salt applicators because it's advantageous to them as a private enterprise in multiple ways. It's saving them money, giving them something that differentiates them from the rest of the community.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: And just as a quick follow-up, so every couple of years they have to become re-.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: It's a two year, my recollection is that you're certified for two years. I don't know that you have to go through the entire program again.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: More of a review probably of sorts here. Does that seem to work with commercial applicators every two years?

[James [last name unknown] (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm just asking.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: It seems to.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's similar to the pesticide certification training. You'll probably do a full scale. And then your second year probably is a of a remedial modernization. And then in the next two years, you'll be full scale. And it'll be like that.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: And I would just say, as you brought up earlier around use of brine and new technologies that are being promoted, I think that this field is changing and different products are being introduced. And so I think that one of the beauties of a best management practices program that's available to all applicators, municipal, state, and private, is that people are getting trained on what's the newest thinking, the newest science behind why you would use one tool and technology over another. And it's also really different what kind of truck you have. So there's different best management practices depending on the different kinds of truck infrastructure that you have for their enterprise. Yeah. I would just add, I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: think you likely went over this, but the program was intended to scale for different size organizations. So if you're just one person with a truck, then you could just get the regular SALT applicator certification. But then if you're an organization where you are supervising multiple people, there's the master.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: 10 drivers.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Yes, then it accommodates for that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Can you define what an advocate is? Who are these people who are advocating for this? So I'm trying to think

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: of who, what Primarily the Lake Champlain Basin program, and they've been working with scientists at UVM and I think also over in the Lakes region of Upstate New York on data that's been collected over time and really looking at the science and identifying both preventing TMDLs that were acquired by EPA as a reason to do this work and the water quality changes in the data that Center Watson was showing that clearly we are seeing rapidly increasing salinity levels in a lot of our waterways. When we first started hearing about this in our committee last year, I just Googled online and found very quickly a map of the entire world and where salt is used for road and driveway management. Of course, it's not in Florida, that's not in certain parts the world, but Vermont is one of, I don't know, maybe less than 20 states that uses salt. Is, I think it was at the time a year ago, basically the highest user of salt. I think it was per roadway mile, like per paved And The US is by far the biggest user and applicator of salt in the entire world. So other places are not managing their snowy and icy roads with the same use of salt, and we are really an outlier in our use of salt. We're not alone. There are other states in the Northeast in particular that are using I mean, there's other Northern states that really don't use hardly any salt. I don't know if it's not allowed. I just want to let you know we're really in a bit of a class of our own of using this much salt in Ireland.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I wonder what Norway does. Anyway, I'm biased there.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Write the best you can.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: So the way the bill is now, committee, is there is no money in the bill, and we don't have money to put in the bill. The bill can be and so if we pass the bill and it gets out, the report will come out with the inventory of all of those things, which I think most people I'm hearing, I sense that's kind of an important thing that we have. The contingency, I just checked the language, is not written that it's only contingent on language this year, which is great. Thank you. Which means that if in the future another legislature decides that they would like to fund this, the mechanism is here for doing that. So we don't have to create legislation. It could be funded in the governor's budget. It could be funded in wherever. So Mike?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It will be codified. It's going to go into the Green Books, but ANR will have no duty to

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: get the money out of this way. Right,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Unless and until they get any money. Dave?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: I do understand it's voluntary, but do either of you know if the Vermont League of Cities and Towns spoke favorably to this?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: The only thing we heard from them last year in our committee, they were comfortable with all of the bill except for the liability provision that we were entertaining last year. And that's partly what held up the bill last year, maybe the primary thing that held up the bill last year. And so this affirmative defense is an improvement that addresses some Thank you. Or gets their concerns in a different way. And the same in

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: the senate. They wanted a much broader exemptions for other kinds of things. And we felt like that was not the scope of what this was trying to accomplish.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Thank you. Yep.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Any other questions for folks?

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: Maybe just have one. What are other kinds of questions? Like, similar to the senate folks now. Did you have different kinds of questions, and what were you thinking about in this? Doctor, I put you on the spot.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Yeah. No, I'm trying to think of the

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: cancer's Just other thoughts.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Washington District; Chair, Senate Natural Resources and Energy)]: Well, so one of the things that we talked about was, so in New Hampshire, had this ever actually been put to the test. And, as it turned out, it has. So there was a lawsuit brought against someone who, or an applicator who had been through the process of getting the certification and the affirmative defense. Well, I guess they have a slightly different version of liability protection, but their liability protection did hold up in court. And this is a slightly less appealing kind of defense. This is it's sort of sort of like one step down from what they have. But it did hold up in court, and we found that to be very encouraging. So the question is about, did work? Yeah.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Any other questions for the committee? I'm not seeing we are ready to take a vote on this. We have it going and off to the floor. Sure. Okay.

[Rep. John Kascenska (Member)]: I'd take

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: a motion.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Is there a second? Sure. Thank you.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: Trevor, I think this will be yours.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Yep. And so when you are ready, I'm not seeing any other questions from the committee. If not, the Board may call the roll.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Representative Bluemle? Yes. Representative Dickinson?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: Not much.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: I'm sorry? It's just a report at this point.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, would say I support a lot of the concepts behind it. Do agree.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: I'm not supposed to have a vote of explanation on that

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: vote. Didn't want to say

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: if anybody has the discussion part.

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: So I can skip you and I'll come back.

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: Yeah, why don't you do that?

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Representative Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Representative Laroche?

[Rep. Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Yes. Raulicki? Yes. Rep. Nigro?

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Yes. Rep. S. Whirrell? Yes. Rep. Steven? Yes. Rep. Yacovone? Yes. Rep. Shai? Yes. Rep. Tim Dickinson?

[Rep. Eileen “Lynn” Dickinson (Member)]: I'm going say no. Not because I don't agree with

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: 10:10.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The third one should just be maybe.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Alright. So 10:10. Trevor, you'll take care of sending that to the clerk. Thank you all for coming and for your time this afternoon. Really appreciate it. Thank you. James,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: thank you. We got you in

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: this year.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier; House Environment and Energy)]: I'm really glad. Hooray.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations Committee)]: Maybe that's all we have for today. Tomorrow morning, have our field trip, and we can discuss that once we're off camera. Tomorrow afternoon, we are going to have Emily. And hopefully Julia Richter, but if not Emily, do it, we're to talk about the issue briefs that they have developed for us in the legislature. What happens if there's no budget on July 1? And what happens if there's no yield bill? Very interesting. So that will be after the floor. We're sort of thinking it might be 03:00, but maybe it'll be early. So just come back to the committee room after the floor for that. And then Friday, we will start we're still working on the timing of this, but we'll hear the house education policy side of the education transformation bill. And then Tuesday, we will hear the ways and means parts of that. And then we will vote it out on Tuesday. So that's the plan for that. And I don't have any new news from ways and means because they haven't voted anything out yet. So you can look at drafts, but I think they're not there yet. It's only Wednesday.