Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified speaker]: Great.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Good morning, and back to the House of Environment and Security. We are no longer in executive session, and we are welcoming Matt Tatman from the Solid Waste Division on various solid waste topics. The first of which will be well, it doesn't matter what order you take them in, on the agenda, it is the DEC miscellaneous bill and the areas that are relevant to your division.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: For the record, my name is Matt Chapin. I'm the director of the Waste Management Prevention Division. I think it probably does make sense to start out with age six thirty two and walk through the two sections that align with my division and explain what it is that we're proposing to do, and and hopefully I think they're fairly straightforward. So I have two sections. They're actually sections one and two of the bill. The first one relates to a report that is supposed to be coming from the agency to the legislature on embedded batteries, power walls, and batteries in cars. And what this proposes to do is push the date out one year and shift the person who's providing the report over to the producer responsibility organization as opposed to the agency. Basically, there are two reasons for doing that. One is that the PRO is in the process Call to Recycle, the entity that manages batteries manages rechargeable batteries in a number of different states. They're doing a very similar report in a number of different states. So rather than us reinventing the wheel, we asked them to provide the information that they're collecting in these other jurisdictions that's basically the same on embedded batteries, and it would provide it to the legislature along with whatever recommendations for collection and management that they recommend. So it would align with those sort of other reports coming in and shift it over to to the PRO. Probably just worth noting that there are a number of different entities that will ultimately be collaborating on the report. So all of these different battery segments are managed by different trade associations and the commerce field. They're all working together, and my expectation is, and we've been working with them collectively, that they would all feed into the ultimate report that comes to you. So so that's the first section. I guess I'll pause and ask if there are any questions.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Chapin?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I guess in that case, if we're expecting recommendations from our agency Sure. And yet it's coming from this private sector, can you just talk about how you would make sure the rec you you are up to speed, and you're ranking recommendations directly.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Absolutely. So the report would come to you and to us. And I think at the end of the day, we're the ones who are ultimately gonna be making the recommendations. But it made a lot of sense from an efficiency standpoint if they're collecting all the data and, frankly, looking what the best way to recycle. And really, batteries is going to be the most challenging thing that's out there. I'll be honest with respect to Powerwalls and cars and EVs, there's a lot of value to those batteries, and it's really, I think, more about educating people and making sure that there are a means to get them from the wall to wherever they need to be recycled. The embedded ones, it's a challenge to get them out of whatever they're in and then appropriately manage. We're really going to look to the experts on that to make sure that their systems well. But obviously, we're going to evaluate what the recommendations are and sort of give you our opinion and feedback on it. So

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And this is the existing battery PRO? It is the existing battery PRO. Yes. Work, and they're working across other states.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Exactly. They are. And you are not alone. This is a problem that exists anywhere that's collecting batteries. We are not alone. This is a common problem, and other jurisdictions are basically asking the same questions. How do we deal with these embedded batteries? So that's getting to Samick as we speak.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: We didn't have the secretary on there before. We're adding that it goes to the secretary.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Right. Well, it used to be the secretary was doing it, and so now it's coming to us, and then we

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So you expect that to actually be delivered in a year? Is that the date she

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: needs be? I do. Yeah. I I I that aligns with with the deadlines that are in other states, and I think, you know, we're we're working on it now. We're working with these organizations on it now. I think it's very reasonable to expect that by next year, we'll have this this report available to the legislature.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Other questions on this section?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Okay. So the second section that is in my wheelhouse is making changes to the existing authority that we have for delivery prohibitions to I'm going call them gas flipping stations, but they're category one underground storage tank, which is basically what you think of as gas station. Right now, we can prohibit delivery to these stations if there are a set of violations that they go through and they're identified in the statute. There are basically two changes that we're asking for in this section. Change number one is to extend the delivery prohibition provisions to a failure to obtain a permit. So right now, people who don't have a permit can continue to operate their their facility without that same sort of of authority. Obviously, there are enforcement provisions, but sometimes this is a different tool that we use. And then the other is granting or making it clear the agency has the authority to basically list by rule the violations that have the possibility of resulting in a release to the environment and being able to have delivery prohibition over those. So again, the major purpose of this section is that when we go out and we conduct an inspection on an underground storage tank and we find violations that basically could result in a significant release to the environment, that we stop fuel going into that tank and get it fixed before release actually happens and we have an environmental problem. And so this is a administrative sort of enforcement tool that we use. We don't use it incredibly often, and we use it just like we would any other enforcement tool, which is to say we notify people that there's an issue. We give them time to fix it. When they fail to fix it, we notify them that we're coming out to red tag, they need to come in with a plan to fix it. And if they don't do that, then we go out and actually take this enforcement stuff. So How do

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: you find out if a tank is in this state?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: They're buried. So we we conduct inspections of every gasoline station tank every three years. So we have a group of inspectors who goes out and be both. Can open up. You see those manholes when you drive over. We open those up. We have test equipment. We test in and look at key aspects of the system. There's also monitoring equipment that we look at to see whether it's functioning the way it's supposed to function. Representative Pritchard? Like borescopes? Or how do you look at the internals of the So we don't actually so so I am not a tank inspector, and I while I I work with them, I don't know acutely everything that they do when they go out and conduct an inspection. But, basically, looking at spill and overfill buckets that are there that basically capture things when when there's a release. There's monitoring equipment and alarms that basically go both for cathodic protection and anything within the interstitial space because it's a double tank. If you're getting anything in the interstitial space, that's a problem. So there's a number of different elements that the inspector goes through. I don't know off the top of the checklist of of things.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other questions on that section?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Right. So those are really the yeah. Those are the s 632.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yep. Just a minor one. Any idea how many centers wise maybe that don't have valid permits?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: We occasionally have challenges with the operating permit. I mean, our this is all foreshadowed different thing. We actually there's very little value to the operating permit in the USD program. Right? The standards that they need to comply with are in the rule. We inspect every tank every three years, and we the permits functionally say, go do what's in the rule. It is sort of the legally enforceable mechanism that we use to ensure that if they're not following the things in the rule, that that we can point to their failure to follow their permit. There is another bill that has not been introduced yet, but that the agency is is in favor of and is working towards. Basically, require that everyone comply with the rule, but not require the act of getting a permit. And that basically we would keep the enforcement and compliance mechanisms the same, but not have what I would call functionally the ministerial aspect of getting a piece of paper. So that's not and yet, it's not here, but that is as far as a percentage of people who are not in, it's I can get the number for you. Rather than speculating, let me talk to my team in the office and let you know what the percentage is. It's not significant, but it is there are enough people who miss that step, and it's a problem.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Miss what step?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: The step of getting applying and obtaining their permit.

[Rep. Rob North]: That might satisfy my question that it's not a huge significance.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Well, there's very little

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: what matters is a construction permit, not the operating permit. Right? So if you're putting in an underground storage tank, there's actually a fair amount of review that we do making sure that the equipment you're putting in the ground is compatible with the other equipment that you're installing and that there's not gonna be an issue with the operation of that tank or the installation of that tank. That's the sort of part of our review that matters in the permitting section that matters. The sort of operating permit is like, now that you have it in, you need to operate it in the way that the rules say you need to operate it. So yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright. Other questions?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Alright. So I I guess the next thing we can go to if and please feel free to, take me in whatever direction the committee wants to go. And I guess I would also say, I would love to have this be as much a conversation as anything else. I figured we could talk about the bottle bill and the bottle bill report and sort of where things are at. And I just want to start by thanking our contractor. I think they did a good job of putting together a comprehensive analysis of of the the bottle bill and recycling system. And I think it's incredibly challenging when you're doing the type of analysis that they did. There are lots of assumptions. There's lots of things that went into that model. And so I think that based on some of what I heard from the presentation that was given last week, I'm going to explain how I look at the report and how I view the report as basically a model that helps give me information that I use my experience in judgment and to help draw some degree of policy conclusions. And I figured it might be useful for the committee for me to give you how I do that, knowing that it is perfectly reasonable for anyone in this room to reach a different conclusion than the ones that I draw from this. But this is a fairly complicated report, and it's a fairly complicated set of of issues. And I I figured I'll just I'll walk through my thoughts, and then you can ask me questions and we can dive into any portion of this that you'd like to. And I think some of the challenges that I see are we had to make some assumptions, and we made some choices in the modeling that was done that affect the outcomes that are in the system. One of those choices and by the way, the agency agreed with all these is that we're looking at the actual system in the current state and model one and not what people should be doing. So we're not modeling in what would the cost of the system be if all the retailers were actually doing retail collection? Which at least legally they're obligated to do, but we know that is not really happening in the system. So that affects system costs, and it's something you just should be aware of when thinking about system costs and thinking about the cost of the bottle bill. So that number is smaller than it otherwise would be if the system was doing what it's legally required to do.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: There not a 5,000 square foot exemption?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: There's not today. We keep trying. We keep trying to do that, but it doesn't exist as of today. So that's number one. It is my view based on my experience that there are some assumptions that are used in calculating impacts to redemption centers that are too low. Historically, when we've worked with redemption centers, we've always been told that the number of swords and the cost of a floor space dedicated to basically pushing cans and storing cans is a major cost driver for redemption centers. It's labor intensive. It's space intensive. Frankly, ten years ago or so, when we went through the commingling agreements, the reason we have commingling agreements and tell beer and soda to not sort by brand, not sort by container size, is to reduce the number of sorts and reduce the footprint in redemption centers. For better or for worse, the redemption centers, as a part of this report, said, yeah, the number of sorts didn't actually affect our costs. And that's inconsistent with what we've heard throughout the and it affects the outcomes in the model. Putting that out and just sort of of noting it. And then the last one, and again, I I completely support the the way this was dealt with, but we don't have information on how consumer behavior might change if the system changes. So you can't and we didn't model out how it would make things If we make the system more convenient, will more people come and will we get better capture? We don't have that information. There's not good studies out there to model the information. The information wasn't modeled. So when you look at model one and model two, and model two where you have more and more convenient collection in model two, you don't see any change in capture rates. I think the practical experience from most agency employees is that that's not going to be the case. If we make the system more convenient and we give people more options to like, so that people have some people who want direct return, they could still have direct return. But for other people who it's better just throw a bag into a container and then have something come back to you a week later, that those options will that the greater the convenience, the greater participation, the greater the capture of the system. But I think, you know, we had we had long talks about that in inside as we were developing that, and there just isn't good information to use as the basis of a model. No one wanted to swag it. No one wanted to just make some assumptions up that didn't have any foundation to them. So those are all things that went into the analysis. You just have to know assumptions and factors that are in the analysis as you look through the top line numbers.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Can you also speak to the risk sort of the the the constraint of not raising the deposit return amount? Because that's another kind of box this was put into.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure. Mean, you mean raising the deposit from 5 to 10¢? Yeah. I mean, I think there there was definitely we did not model out multiple deposit rates.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: That's one thing I heard them say was they did have data for the 10¢ deposits.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Right. I think that both Oregon and Connecticut have increased their deposit. Think Connecticut's an interesting example, and we're still looking at some of the data that's coming in from Connecticut. There's significant over redemption in Connecticut right now. Over redemption. Like, think Seinfeld. Onto So it's it's it's my colleague, my peer in Connecticut, refers to it as the Seinfeld effect, that she's seeing significant cross border movement of The

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: other states have bottle bills, they're

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: at a nickel. They're at 5¢. So so people are taking

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: We want to all go together if we go.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: I mean, I think having some interstate conversations about a change in deposit is is a valuable thing to have happen if you're gonna change the deposit from 5 to 6. Has an effect. I mean so we're the existing system said about us of course, I don't have the number right in front of me, it's in the mid 70 percent capture rate. And that rate happens to be the same for both the bottle bill.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: If it's 72 in this

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: That's thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Everything we heard before this was 75, but

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Well, everybody like, there are different numbers that people input, feed into the system. It's but it's 72%. So so, I mean, I guess I'll just take away my my key takeaways from the report, I mean, it's useful, but I think from my perspective, it it helped confirm a lot of things that we actually were thinking anyway, which is effectively that this current system really is not working. We continue to see redemption centers closing and struggling. We have large areas of the state that don't have are basically redemption deserts. And there's not really an incentive to run the existing system as a system. There's no one who basically is in charge of it. There's no one who's basically looking at the totality of the system. The agency continues to support the modernization of the bottle bill and basically moving towards the principles that exist for a city producer responsibility that this committee has used in other contexts, trying to create a PRO, having some sort of planning and management of the system so that we get better capture and collection throughout the state. I think there's going to be a need. One of the challenges is that we're going to be taking a system that exists without a lot of planning and thought and turning it into a system that is more thoughtful. And so there's going to be the need for transformation, investment, mechanization, and modernization of what the existing system looks like. All of those things are going to require some degree of investment, some degree of investment. And then I guess, I think from our perspective, we don't support expansion at this time. I think the report basically showed that you get better capture if you expand the model, and I think we would agree with that, and there's a cost associated with it. And that from the agency's perspective, that it is incredibly important to modernize and update the existing system before we start expanding the number of containers that go into it. And once we get the existing system updated and mod and sort of modernized, I think that's the time we have a conversation about, okay, is the the sort of is the cost worth the increase in the level of conversion?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Rep. Mike Tagliavia]: Thank you. Expansion types and materials of products. Can you give me examples? Water. Water bottles. Yes. Water bottles, wine, teas, juices are normally the things when we talk about expansion, what we're talking about. If I keep going a

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: little further, we already have

[Rep. Mike Tagliavia]: corporations right now in this state doing recycling of all those? Do we have a study to figure out if they're doing it more efficiently than the programs we're talking about, and should we have the state in competition with these outside contractors? So there is a broad based I'm going call it the blue bin recycling system, because I think that's what you're And speaking to. I guess from the state's perspective, the blue bin recycling system is an effective system. We do an incredibly good job in Vermont as both the companies that run it, and and they're private businesses, but they're also municipalities that are are in this this sort of space that run those programs.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: They do an incredibly good job, and we have an incredibly effective sort of capture diversion rate. Right? Like, We should be proud of the work that we've done. That being said, if you're the agency did not model a no bottle bill scenario. If you look at the costs that are embedded in the modeling, there are system costs. So in other words, it looks at what effects does the bottle bill have on the blue bin recycling system, because they both are working in the same space dealing with similar materials. And I think it is fair to say that when you look at the cost between model two and model three, the sort of the modernized bottle bill system versus the expanded bottle bill system, that model three has a higher system cost. So basically, is more expensive from a total system perspective to run model three than it is to run Model two from a raw cost perspective. From a per container taken out of the basically put into the system, it's arguable it's cheaper. It's You're going to get more capture by Model three than you will by Model two. I don't know if that is helpful in answering your question. I'm curious if there's a way just well, I'm sure there's a way to study cost to consumer, which is gonna wind up being more. I I think that what this ultimately ends up showing is that there is a marginal increase in costs to the and I'm going call it to the system. And people will disagree over whether the consumer sees those costs, whether businesses eat those costs. The margins in these businesses are relatively small. I don't know whether that's gonna happen or not. So I don't wanna predict. I can tell you that the system will cost more. I can't tell you whether those costs get passed down to consumers. And I think that gets difficult agencies to try and make that, because it's going to be a business decision that each of these businesses and municipalities is going to have to make.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. Representative Austin? Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: Just are there any options for containers? Are there any is there any new technology in terms of containers at all that would make it easier to dispose of?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Well, I mean, there are collection technologies for so I guess it's a complicated question. So there's a lot of technology that goes into sorting a container in a materials recycling facility, the blue bin facility, to make sure that we're separating materials into the right stream so that they can go back and get commodity value for them. The Chittenden County Solid Waste District just is in the process of making some significant investments to make a really great materials recovery facility that does a better job of doing that. There's a number of technologies like optical sorting, and there's some I don't know that we're gonna be using AI technologies, but I know that there are some computer recognition technologies that basically look at things. I am not an expert in that space, but I know that there's technological innovation through both mechanization and AI that's going on all the time in these types of of areas.

[Unidentified speaker]: I just want

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: to make sure we're staying current conversation is about updating the redemption program and not adding containers. If we keep our questions there, because we have a lot of things we'd like to hear from Mr.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Chapin I'm on always happy to come back.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And we will have you back, and we'll have plenty of other people in to continue to build our understanding.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: So can I ask a question?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: You may ask another question.

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: Option three? Yes. I was interested, I think on all three options, they weren't taking into consideration the amount of energy used to bring recyclable bottles back and forth, know, the driving. And I just thought that was interesting. It's not necessarily a question, but just an observation because I think there's a disconnect when we talk about savings and costs, you know, that there are these other costs. And you don't need to even respond to it, but just to I'm just I was surprised that that wasn't considered.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So there was a greenhouse gas analysis that was done. There were certain things that were excluded from that analysis. Again, I think because of the the challenge associated with trying to to obtain information and model. And then I think the other the other thing, frankly, is is that, let's just say you remove all of the expanded bottle bill material from the blue bin recycling system. Those trucks are still running. Right? Mhmm. You know, they still are going out and collecting your your garbage and your other recycling. So that that's a static cost sort of regardless.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: You have one oh, wait. Can have representative North, because he hasn't had a question.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yes, thank you, Chair. I spent quite a bit of time this summer at conferences, some EPRs and PROs and packaging and whatnot, and at the end of the day, to me, it all comes down to what problem are we trying to solve specifically here in Vermont. I'm not expecting you to have the answer today, but when you do come back next time, if you could kind of very clearly identify for us what problem we're trying to solve and how well do any of these proposed solutions actually solve measurably actually solve those problems. And, again, I'm not expecting you to have the answer to that today. I know it's complicated.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure. I I mean, I I think it's in sort of embedded in my testimony. Right? Like, I think that the problem, at least, that I am trying to address is the inefficiency to Vermont residents of the existing bottle bill collection system and the lack of overarching infrastructure that exists to make it a more effective and modern system. And so I think that that is what this committee has talked about and when the agency talks about file bill modernization. I think it's a I mean, it's a fair question. There are lots of different ways you can collect the things that we're talking about collecting. And if the committee wants to have a conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of those compared against each other, we can have it the comments.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yeah. To Yeah. Me, real problems would be, like, we're running out of space in our land for all. Right. There's too much litter on our roadways. And you can measure how well we are any of these solutions solve, most probably measurably, metrics, not just like, oh, we we think it's gonna get better. How much better? And how what's the cost? So then you can do cost benefit trade offs.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure.

[Rep. Rob North]: If if the problem is, it's it's just kinda hard to use our current system. Well, what does that mean? How hard is it? What are we going to save by making a lot of what measurably are we going to improve for applicable harm?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So I do want to remind all of us I needed reminding myself We have a committee bill already drafted that we we did take testimony on this last year. There's good stuff to look back on and remind ourselves when we have free time because we're gonna keep talking about this topic.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So I'm gonna ask with the other things on so it may be best for me to just do a quick thumbnail sketch on a couple of the other things in the ten minutes that are left. And one of them I'm gonna ask to just sort of the the to take a pass on. So on the UVRL, I know I know that representative Volkam has reached out to the agency. So this is brownfields project in Thetford, Vermont that it's an old landfill. They wanna put solar array on top of the landfill, and there are ongoing sort of, like, monitoring and other costs associated with that. I know that there are conversations that are taking place right now between the agency and and representative Fulcrum about the proposal that she's putting in. I just kinda want to let those conversations happen before I actually testify on on her. Well, okay.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: But I it it came to my attention that there was PFAS found in the monitoring wells, and I immediately thought of you, we were talking about other PFAS topics. This is just Oh, sure. That's why it's on there, and I think understanding it we're not trying to get in the way of any other conversations that are happening. We're trying to understand what's going on there now.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Oh, sure. I think that it's fair to say that any landfill in the state of Vermont is going to have some level of PFAS challenge associated with it. The consumer products that we've used throughout the past century, they have PFAS in them, they've been disposed of in a landfill, and especially some of the older landfills that are online, those can cause localized PFOS related problems. I would not characterize the UVR outpost mills PFAS releases. My understanding, based on my briefing on it, is there's no off-site impacts associated with them. There are on-site exceedances. They need to be monitored, and we need to make sure that there aren't impacts to the community. But we're not seeing that at the moment, so it's really a function of of making sure that the status quo is maintained. It's a status quo at this particular site.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And related to PFAS, can you just tell us where we're at with your area of jurisdiction or interest, PFAS and rulemaking, and just to give us a high level update?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: It's it's probably pretty relevant. So So the portion that really is in my area is called the Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy. It's basically the agency rule that kind of tells the agency how we manage and how we clean up groundwater. We, this past week let me actually take two steps back. Earlier last year, the state's drinking water program adopted the 2024 PFAS MCL that EPA put out. So in 2024, EPA issued a maximum contaminant level, which is a drinking water standard for five PFAS compounds, and they also included what's called hazard index. And what that basically is, is it's a formula, a fairly simple formula, where you put in the concentrations that you're seeing in your sample results, you do some math. And if the number is greater than one, you have a problem. If the number is less than one, you don't. So that was the federal drinking water standard. Vermont decided to move forward and adopt that federal drinking water standard. There's a lot of other components, and if you want to go into the detail on that, Brian Redman or Ben Montrose are the people to talk to on it. But in order to align ourselves with that public drinking water standard, we amended the groundwater protection rule and basically the standards for PFOA and PFOS, which are the most commonly occurring PFAS contaminants that we see, went from 20 parts per trillion to four parts per trillion under the federal standard. That is the the most significant impact. It also regulates some other PFAS compounds we did not previously regulate. Those are all at 10 parts per trillion. So again, I think the story that you all already know is true, which is PFAS are bad, and the more we understand, the more we are concerned about them. So that rule was approved by LCAR last Thursday, filed as a final rule on Monday, and it's effective on January 27. So that is very timely. You're welcome.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Folks have questions on PFAS and water?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: HHW, just to give folks a quick update where we're at. Over the summer, there was a requirement for a stewardship organization to register with the agency. We did not have a stewardship or any group register as a stewardship organization. So under the law, through the changes that were made last year, the agency basically steps in and administers the program in the stewardship organization, and there's a recycling fee that gets put on top of that to help deal with HHW reduction and other related issues. So the agency is in the process of standing up HHW EPR program. We have put an electronic portal out for businesses to register. There's been a lot of outreach to the business community. We've spent a lot of time working on getting people to understand what the requirements are. So that initial registration period's closed, we're about ready to post all of the people who have registered online so their peers can see who's there and who's not. Maybe we might know of some people who we need to contact and educate them on what the requirements are of the law so that they can register now. And the expectation is that the agency is in the process of basically hiring contractors to both look in more detail at what hazardous waste stream is so we can do a good job of allocating costs and also hiring a contractor to help us in the administration of the program, to basically do a lot of the billing and other sort of mechanical work. Ultimately, at the end of the day, there is going to be a lot of participants who have to pay a nominal amount of money for the administration of this program.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And did we ex did you request a data session because we knew this was No.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So I shouldn't say that. There were a number of amendments and modifications that were put in place last year. There may have been.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So I'm wondering if it happened. I'll follow-up.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: So it did pass last year, and I I apologize. I can't remember. It was a fairly comprehensive set of changes. One of them one of them was that if there's no PRO, that the agency would step in and become a PRO. And so all of those changes passed.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, you know, where they passed? What bill?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: They're in, like, the they're in an agricultural bill. I think it's act 54. I will send I will send a copy to you. Great. It was end of session.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I have last I have all the language here, and what we sent was 03/19.

[Rep. Rob North]: It did. It got signed into law. It didn't just pass out here. It actually got signed

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: into Right.

[Unidentified speaker]: So it was

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: sent over in 03/19, and then 03/19 got dismembered, and that sounds like it got put into another bill.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: I will tell you literally as we speak.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: That'd be great, or Brady can

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure, will probably know off the top of his head.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: When you're ready. We have Brownfields on here, but I also would like for you to speak to the TIER EPR proposal.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: Sure. I mean, I guess I'll speak to EPR generally and and to TIRE as a subset of it. I mean, the legislature has done a lot of work on EPR over the past several years, and, you know, I think there are very real capacity limitations within the agency to take on new EPR programs without additional staffing or resources. Mean, am we're sort of HHW EPR is because we're the lead entity on it, it's taking a lot of resources to, you know, sort of get our our sort of program out there and in place. Having said that, you know, of all of the pro the good ideas that people have on other EPR programs, we're supportive of looking at tires. Tires are one of those those issues that I think all of your constituents have probably talked to you about, and they very well have talked to me about their frustrations, both with the illegal disposal that takes place within your communities. We also need to get control over what I'm gonna call wildcat operators who hold themselves out as fairly legitimate business people, but at the end of the day, they're leaving they're they're entering into a lease with a farmer or a landowner and then dumping thousands of tires and walking away from that owner's property. It's a real problem. We've seen it happen on numerous occasions. And we need to make sure that when a reputable business collects tires from you or me, that the person that they're giving those tires to, thinking that they're going to be appropriately managed, is actually appropriately managed.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Which what does that entail today? Appropriately managed tires?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: I mean, there are there are not I mean, I will say the the the recycling options for tires aren't limited. You're really looking at disposal options or energy recovery options. There are not a number of good It would be good, honestly, to have people from the industry come in and talk

[Rep. Rob North]: to you

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: about what the they've identified it when we talked to them that it's a challenge with tires. And I guess I would I would say, recognizing that challenge, that it's better to have reputable system for the proper disposal of them than improper disposal taking place on a far too regular basis.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: How would we get testimony on you have a sense of the scope of this problem of, you know, the non legit disposal of them. How do you know that?

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: It's through both complaints. So we get complaints in from the public about either illegal disposal or other issues. And our enforcement process. We do enforce against these activities. There are challenges with our enforcement process in trying to get compliance out of some of these folks. I

[Rep. Rob North]: can just add to that. I get complaints regularly from farmers in my area. People come

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: out to dump tires on their property and they Yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: That's definitely a problem. Just wondering if we have data. Integrable data was great. And maybe we'll have you back I mean, we will certainly have you back, but since we're right up against the hour, thanks so much for coming.

[Matt Chapin, Director, Waste Management & Prevention Division (VT DEC)]: You're welcome. I'm happy. Thanks, Chris. You're welcome.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Are folks okay for continuing right now? Yeah. Okay. Welcome. Shifting gears. We're going to be hearing about water again in by way of more notes from the Nature Conservancy speaking to us on the wetlands executive order as well as status of the Flood Safety Act.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Thank you for having me,

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: Chair Sheldon and committee members. For the record, Lauren Oates. I'm the director of external affairs at The Nature Conservancy in Vermont. It's good to be back. I think I'm joining. I'm joining, so I'm going to share my screen. And while I do that, I'd love to do a really brief who am I, potentially seen as a greenie coming in talking about this bill. But I have an extensive history in the state with respect to flooding. So I wanted to start with that. I moved to Vermont to help the town of Waterbury recover from flooding from tropical storm Irene as a member of AmeriCorps. From there, I worked at the state of Vermont Emergency Management for six years. In my six year tenure at Vermont Emergency Management, I was the state hazard mitigation officer for five years. So I have been to literally all of your towns. I have met all of your neighbors. I know your town clerks and your road foreman. I have been working on the issues of flooding in this state for a very long time. And in that role, I was also hamstrung by what FEMA would and would not allow and saw a lot of policy issues that I really wanted to fix for our neighbors that are most vulnerable in floodplains from river corridors. So I moved to the NGO community where I could work on trying to alleviate some of those problems. You heard really great testimony last week from Mr. O'Grady. I'd like to just cosign a lot of what he said with respect to floodplains, FEMA, river corridors, and wetlands. But I would like to dive in a little bit more on a couple of specifics in the Flood Safety Act that was passed in 2024 and maybe take a moment to give you a primer or re educate you all, if you need it, on the difference between river corridor flooding and floodplain flooding. You'll hear it as inundation and erosion flooding, and you'll recognize in these photos that the damage looks very different. Inundation flooding is the flooding that FEMA recognizes through the FEMA maps. And we'll talk about the FEMA maps in a moment. That is when a town or an area around a river slowly fills up, like a bathtub, and the water slowly recedes. You'll see that in the image from downtown's Waterbury and Montpelier. Those are both from the twenty twenty three floods. And then the erosion flooding is actually when a water a river charts a new course entirely. It jumps its banks and creates a new path of flow, and it takes out what is in its way, which is often our homes, our roads, our bridges. Fluvial erosion or erosion flooding accounts for 80% of damages in Vermont. So the floodplain flooding, the Montpelier flooding that we think about often and that FEMA recognizes as a risk is actually only 20% of our problem. 80% of our risk, 80% of the damages that we receive are not recognized by FEMA's mapping efforts. And they are therefore a huge vulnerability for development, hence the need for some significant change.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: And Lauren, can you just I presume that by dollar amount in damages, or can you describe it?

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: By dollar amount in damages, yep, for public funding. Public funding doesn't include

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: While a floodplain, flooding, bathtub style might impact more people potentially, it's lower cost to Lower cost. Yep. If you live in a floodplain,

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: a very scary place to live, admittedly. People have experienced repetitive damage if you think of I mean, I'm so familiar with Waterbury because of all my time spent there. But Randall Street flooding, those homes get hit year over year over year. What happens? The structure is still there. You just have to cut the drywall, get everything out of your basement. Significant cost damage, but your structural integrity is still there. If you live in a river corridor, your house might be literally swept down the river. So the mapping, same river, different maps. These are two different satellite images where the red layer is the FEMA mapped floodplain, and that light yellow or pale yellow is the Vermont map mapped river corridor. In that first image, you'll see purple arrow that is pointing to VSP Barracks in Rutland City. When that was developed, if they were to be looking at a map, a FEMA map that said, we're out of the flood plain. It's safe to build here. They built there, and that critical piece of infrastructure that houses staff that would theoretically be exceptionally important during a flood are actually in more significant harm's way by being in the river corridor. But that map is not recognized or realized by FEMA. And unless that gets damaged, it is not actually recognized for FEMA mitigation funding because it is not in the floodplain. That second map is down in Wardsboro, and this is a different problem that we have because our rivers move. You'll see that yellow arrow, hope you can tell, is pointing to the riverbank, and there is water. And the floodplain doesn't even cover the water because the river has moved. And, again, FEMA's maps do not think of rivers moving on the x axis. They only consider the y axis. So that is a risk that is not only not recognized because of the river corridor, but it doesn't even cover a floodplain hazard. I was going to do a little round table and go to each of your towns and show you how this is a problem. And then I realized there are so many towns and so many people around this table. So representative North, I'm gonna pick on you because you are Addison, and a is the beginning of the alphabet.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: I've pulled out a couple of images from a couple of your towns, Flairsburg and Virgins, that show you the difference in a flood hazard floodplain risk, which is the red again, and the fluvial erosion, far more damaging, far greater life safety risk, which is yellow. Yellow and green arrows indicate only river corridor and no floodplain, and that red is the only one that would be eligible for FEMA mitigation funding unless it was already damaged. So that is those are just tiny snippets in small towns and very, very small one off roads close to rivers or even across rivers, as you'll see in wireless images across the road, that represent significant risk of Vermonters. Representative, too.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Before we move on, can you just

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: touch on for the homeowners access to flood insurance? So flood insurance, technically anybody can buy in to National Flood Insurance Program. If you are in the floodplain and you have a mortgage, you are required to have it. So that red arrow house, unless they were grandfathered in from a long time ago, they would have to carry flood insurance. Nobody else has to. If they choose to, they can buy in at a lower rate because FEMA doesn't recognize the erosive risk. But most people we find don't.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And would it cover them anyway? Because if it was an erosion damage?

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: It cover them because it would still be flood damage.

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: This is on the insurance as well. Do you know of companies that are not renewing policies?

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: Not by name, but that is an ongoing discussion in the private insurance community, especially down in Southeastern Coastal United States, where a lot of insurance companies are just dropping it entirely. The NFIP, I think that Mr. Brady mentioned last week, is very in the red. Year over year, very, very in the red. And payouts are we'll talk a little bit about this later, are continuing to be delayed and minimized, and they don't really make anybody whole after the fact. So what does that mean? When we don't recognize risk through our primary risk agency, FEMA, when we don't have regulations in place that limit development in these high hazard areas, and when we already have a historic settlement that placed our villages and town centers right up against the river, means a lot of damage, a lot of damage to roads, to our critical infrastructure, to our homes, to our farms, to anything that is anywhere near a river. And this continues year over year.

[Unidentified speaker]: If you follow whether you

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: wanna follow climate science, whether you wanna follow FEMA funding, all of the trends show that more money, more damages are happening in Vermont and the Northeast in general. So what have we tried? Prior to the passage of 2021 or the Flood Safety Act, the state and NGOs, this body has tried a lot of things to our credit before getting all the way to regulation. We tried the compelling public narrative, showing photos, going to presentations like, hey. This is very unsafe. And, also, your risk isn't recognized by the entity that might give you money if you get in harm's way or if you wanna get out of harm's way. The state created disaster recovery incentives to say, hey, municipality. If you adopt river corridor regulations that limit development in these areas, we'll give you a higher share of state funding to reduce your local burden following a disaster. That got a little bit of movement after Irene, but really plateaued like three or four years later. We tried through Vermont Emergency Management keepers of the FEMA mitigation funds to say, if your town adopts those river border bylaws, not only do you get a higher state share, but it'll also give you greater access to mitigation funds. They're giving you a competitive edge. So your homeowners are triple, your business owners, anybody in your town is getting more and more access to funding to support either protecting your structure from flooding or making sure that you get funding post disaster. And again, so many information sharing. Just year over year over year over year, we have tried and tried and tried, and we have not moved the needle. And the only thing that really is going to work is limiting development in these high hazard fluvial erosion areas for river corridors. I wanna highlight that this is not a new idea. You could go basically to any plan within Vermont Emergency Management, the Agency of Natural Resources, the Agency of Transportation, and you will find that limiting development in these areas is a hugely public safety benefit and priority. It is a huge taxpayer benefit to avoid future development. It is a huge natural resources and habitat benefit. It just checks all of the boxes. And it is a recommendation from a lot of towns who say, we cannot do the administrative burden of following a local permitting process and the administrative burden of being in the NFIP, state, can you come in and help? So much so that VAPTA and VLCT supported the passage of the Flood Safety Act. It's also supported by Vermonters. In twenty twenty four, January, the year that Flood Safety Act was rolling through just a few months after the devastating floods of twenty twenty three, a bipartisan polling firm team went out to Vermonters and pulled something like 700 Vermonters from across the state and thought asked them questions about river corridors, floodplains, FEMA, taxpayer dollars, public safety, all of the things, and ended with, based on all of that, do you support limiting development in the high hazard areas? And two out of three Vermonters said yes. The bipartisan polling firm, and it was bipartisan, Republican, tripartisan, independent, Democratic, or anything else, two and three said, we would support this happening. We're sick of our neighbors getting flooded. Frankly, we're sick of how much this is costing us, and it's only gonna get worse. So looking at public safety as the primary priority of Flood Safety Act, this body, the General Assembly, had a lot of testimony. They brought in ecologists, river scientists, flood plain experts, agency leadership, and said, what do you need to make this happen? And they came back with a big ask. They said, we need a lot of money. We need a lot of staff. You all know, as you go through budget debates, that's not easy. That's not an easy thing to figure out how to fund. But you did. You said this is a top priority for Vermonters. We can't keep spending all of this money. We can't keep seeing our neighbors getting flooded. Here, ANR, 1,750,000.00 for contractual support to move the provisions of the bill forward. Nine new positions, five of which are set aside entirely for the rivers program to work on the river corridor and floodplain provisions. And there was a lot of back and forth on the timeline. I think that's the primary reason I'm here today. Let's just talk about the timeline and requests for extensions. You can go back to the testimony that tried to balance doing a very thoughtful and robust public education outreach campaign, a very thoughtful, very prolonged rulemaking process to make sure that Vermont gets this right against the very real threat of the next flood. The general assembly agreed to 2028 general permit for river corridor permitting and said, you have three and a half years to get this done. And this is what that timeline looks like for river corridors. Start first with amending the River Porter base map that shows those areas that are already developed and where the rivers team is already managing for flooding. Where can we still develop that would still be a little more safe or practicable? So create this map or amend the map to identify these infill areas and designated centers. I'm

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: assuming we're not using the FEMA map that don't span?

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: No, this is just for that river corridor. So DC already has that map. So they have a river corridor map. It accounts for about a third of the stream miles in the state. They're really big ones that do touch down where most people are. As part of it, there's a two year education and outreach campaign effort. That is, I think, one of the longest ones I've ever seen in statute. Then there is an adopt rules by 2027, this passed in 2024. That is a very long opportunity for rulemaking. I do wanna again acknowledge this is a lot of work from DEC staff, and I will talk about how partners across the state have been leaning in both with staff time and financial resources to support moving us forward, because this is an all hands on deck effort. And then finally, like I said, aiming for a January 2028 permit. Mapping, education and outreach, those first two timeline, well underway. The Nature Conservancy, through our own private philanthropy fundraising, there's a lot of interest by Vermont donors, by the way, to solve this problem, went out and said, Hey, DEC, let's go ahead and start that mapping. It's a really hard thing to think about the whole state, all two fifty one plus towns. Why don't we pick a pilot process where you can pick a few towns that have different flood hazard profiles, different development patterns, different political will, different capital? And we went forward and worked on four towns, created a pilot map, had all the stakeholders that are mandated by statute around the table, and developed a process for those four towns that can now be expanded to the full state. So mapping well underway, but not finished. Education and outreach, that two year process. The Nature Conservancy in partnership with DEC Flood Safety Act staff and Lake Champlain Sea Grant have been working on a very robust education outreach campaign. We've been to all of your towns. I checked our list of 66, at least one of your towns and all of your districts, but often more. 66 municipalities have already been outreached to, 25 organizations have been engaged. And that information has been both like, here's the river science behind it all. Here are all the things I just said to you. And what are your concerns? What questions do you have? It's basically like starting the questions and conversations that you would expect from rulemaking. We have five regional webinars coming up in partnership with local organizations and the RPCs. And again, just to acknowledge, when we talk about extensions to this timeline, it's borrowed time. We're borrowing time. So what does that mean? What's that risk? That second line in there is just like, if you take anything away, like take this away. A house built in the river corridor today is a buyout that we have to pay for tomorrow. Hard stop. It's gonna happen. Vermont taxpayers are spending tens of millions of dollars annually on disaster recovery. Eighteen months delay, which is what is being put before you, equates to one and a half or two construction seasons. And again, unless your town is one of those 10% that have already adopted river corridor regulations, you might just look at the FEMA map and say, I'm safe. I'm gonna develop there. You're not safe. The average buyout cost right now is $375,000 per structure. 262 homes representing 262 Vermont families are currently in FEMA's buyout application queue. Those applications have been submitted to FEMA and are not getting funded. That number is as of mid October and they have not changed. There are several dozen expressing interest in applications. And importantly, that is happening in a drought year where people aren't thinking imminently of flood risk. When we have a flood, even if it's not in your town, the interest in those applications spikes. I know because, again, I managed this program for a very long time. And and really, really importantly, something that is different in the calculus of it all since I was here last is that this is all happening as federal funding through FEMA is constricting. Just earlier this morning in Senate Natural Resources, the director of emergency management gave an update on their funding, and it looks pretty bleak. Layoffs were mentioned. Lack of ability to even appeal because applications aren't being denied. They're just being kept in a queue. So they are just in purgatory. They are not getting funded. And why that is important is because for a long time, our approach to dealing with our floodplain river corridor problem has been to invest in buyouts. Our buyout program is impressive. Again, it's something I worked on for six years. I stand by it. Was like one of the most important investments that this state can make with respect to giving money back to the people who have lost everything. And that money is maybe not around anymore, or it's not around very quickly. So if your home was wiped down the river and you have to wait four years to get your check, where are you going? How are you recovering? I say all this to say that the status quo is not working. This is not a new plan. I showed you all the This is not a new idea. It's in all the plans. It's supported by Vermonters broadly. It was passed into law in 2024. The provisions of the timeline of the River Corridor piece are moving, even if they might not be moving at exactly the pace as expected, it is very close to. So the question remains on the, what is the benefit of the eighteen months? I'm, again, a former state employee. I cannot empathize more with the workload and burden that state staff have to manage, but we have to balance that against public safety. We have to consider how we are prioritizing our public safety, our neighbors' safety, our financial investments. I'm not going to read all of this. I sent this testimony in, so you all can check it out. But this is on the Agency of Natural Resources website that basically is saying, you have to break this vicious cycle, or we will never get out of it. And I

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: don't want you to worry about the wetlands.

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: Again, mister O'Grady last week spoke, at length to the wetlands provisions not only a little bit. He touched on them in the flood safety act, which require a two to one restoration ratio. So for any acre of wetland that is taken out of production or its natural state, two acres have to be restored in the same watershed. And that's in recognition of the exceptional role that our wetlands play in not only retaining water in periods of extreme precipitation, but also as evidenced last year in our extreme drought, holding onto that water and making water available in times when we do not have enough water. I think that Mr. Brady called them our lungs. Like, they breathe and move with the system, and they are there for us when we need them in times of flood, in times of drought. They improve our water quality significantly. They act as a carbon sink. So they are good for air quality. And we have lost our wetlands to the tune of 35% in Vermont. For a long time, the state has been working on a two to one ratio. It's also in all of those plans that I noted, maybe even more. And we've been doing it slowly, but it hasn't been codified into law until the Flood Safety Act. That rulemaking around changes to to the Flood Safety Act provisions for wetlands has been delayed and has been leapfrogged by the executive order in September. So when we talk about timelines and deadlines and how we prioritize public safety, flooding and drought and all the costs and pain associated with that, I do just want to acknowledge that we can move quickly. That executive order was passed in September, and rulemaking is almost done. And that is to take wetlands out of production. So not only does that directly implicate that two to one, it's leapfrogged how we rulemake around that. So I leave you where I started, just another the same image as I started on with a plea. I've spent my entire career working on this. I'm getting older. So when I said that a few years ago, it might have sounded laughable. But I have gray hair now. I have two kids. I have been working on this for a long time. And so I'm asking you to please keep to this timeline. The worst case scenario is that next year, we have another year of work in progress and we can see how far we are. And we can say, does 2028 still make sense? Can we still do it? But giving that time now means they will take that time. We all will. I'm an exceptional procrastinator. I just sent my slides moments ago to this committee because I just finished testimony. If you give anybody time, it is human nature to take it. And those eighteen months are not just eighteen months on paper. They are eighteen months that will affect your communities. They will affect the bottom line of the state of Vermont. And they are just kicking the can down the road. And we've known we've needed to do this for a very, very, very, very long time. And then I'm just going to throw in, I'll even offer up something. I'm representing an environmental organization. I have background in science, and I believe deeply in protecting our natural resources, our habitats, and ecology. And later this week, you're going to hear about a provision change in the miscellaneous bill for stream alteration jurisdictional swap. That will say, instead of doing something that's high up in perennial streams, we are recommending jurisdictional trigger for needing a stream out permit being broadened. And normally an environmental organization would not say, Yeah, that makes sense. We would say like, Woah, woah, woah, got to protect those natural resources. We've looked at that. We looked at the language. And if it actually does free up, because the reason that that is being requested is because of administrative burden on state staff, specifically the Rivers program. If that frees up more Rivers time and staff to work on this, we are okay with it. So let's get to work. Let's not delay this. We can come back next year at this time and see where we are. Please don't do it. Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thanks for your testimony. Any further questions?

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: Sounds great. Representative Austin? I know this might be a hard question to answer, but is there a way to substantiate that this issue is directly related to climate change and not taking action on climate change? Or is it not able to substantiate?

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: I guess I'm a little confused by the prompt, but I'll say that this exact provision for limiting development of river borders is in the state's climate action plan of 2021 and is in line with climate science that shows warmer, wetter, more hazardous flood seasons. And again, that mirrors our actual flood profile and all of the money that we receive from Lima or used to receive.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Given your experience post Irene and through a number of other extreme events, Can you speak a little bit about how towns operate now in this day and age compared to twenty years ago? We have so many relatively small municipalities. We don't have much regional infrastructure for governance or financial support. So can you speak to sort of from your experience what you've seen in the dynamics of how towns can operate financially, like just the viability, the stability, the resiliency of towns. I'm thinking personally, I observe some things financially about towns that are struggling And I am just being the retained staff and Waterbury has been in the news on this topic. But towns basically have one staff person and everybody else doing everything else as volunteers. Guess, could you just speak to that? Because our town is our our our state has a lot of different sized municipalities.

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: Yeah. It's brutal, it's overwhelming. Actually, when I was adding the the images of all the different floods from around the state, many of which fall on your constituency. I purposely left in a couple that were just road damage. Road damage isn't as evocative as looking at a house that was destroyed, but it happens everywhere, and it will destroy a town's budget. You represent Middlesex. Middlesex gets repeatedly hammered on their road budget from flooding, whether they're these micro events or the big ones that happen across the States. And so the ability of a small, especially rural town to navigate not only like, how do I do the FEMA blood plane insurance? How do I make sure that we can stay in good standing? How do I create a local emergency plan so I can get access to a FEMA mitigation funds? How do we manage a budget and all of the other things that a town has to do and support our towns that have been developed against our rivers and have this patchwork of regulatory system that has left largely our rural communities who are understaffed hurting. There's been heavy reliance on state emergency management and natural resources staff for technical expertise. Director Foran from VEM's testimony this morning spoke to the lack of federal funding coming in and then needing to pull back technical assistance to towns. That will have a direct impact on the Regional Planning Commission's budget. And they are a huge, huge, huge, huge supporter of towns in developing their plans and understanding the different regulations. And they've been immensely helpful, and yet they are now going to start probably losing some funding because they have received quite a bit of funding from FEMA to do this exact planning work and technical work for the towns. So like I said, the calculus has even shifted since the last time I was here two years ago talking about it, with changes to FEMA and funding coming out to states that have made our, especially rural towns, more vulnerable.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you again for your presentation.

[Lauren Oates, Director of External Affairs, The Nature Conservancy (Vermont)]: Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright, members, have one of our witnesses for lunch, and I just want to introduce the topic of the rulemaking for the executive order pertaining to wetlands is underway, and many of us are getting a lot of being copied on the inputs that folks are giving through the portal. Please join us, Laura. And I just have picked a couple of folks and asked them if they would come in and present their perspectives on it. Hill Eubanks is joining us right now. He's an attorney, and so had a different perspective. And then we'll have George Springston in later tomorrow. I guess we'll have a human. He's a geologist, so he's got a different perspective. We won't. Welcome, Laura. Hi.

[Unidentified speaker]: My name is Laura Hoyt Banks. I'm an attorney from Northfield, and I have a master's degree in environmental law and policy. I have previously served as the chair of my town planning commission, the chair of my regional planning commission, Central Vermont, and my town conservation commission. Currently, work with individuals and organizations on policy issues, but today I'm here representing myself.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Would you be able to speak up just a little bit? Very

[Laura Hoyt Banks, Attorney (Northfield)]: low voice, sorry. I'm here to give the committee an overview of the comments that I submitted to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation regarding the current wetlands rulemaking initiated by the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources in response to the governor's executive order EO-six-twenty five. The executive order seems to be generally well intended. It seeks to increase the availability of housing for Vermonters that cannot afford housing in the current economic environment. I don't disagree that we need more housing. I do agree that we need more housing that's accessible to more people. I do strongly disagree with the method that the governor and secretary are seeking to build more housing. The current wetlands rule makings would allow housing to be built in any unmapped last few wetlands in designated growth areas in the state. So that would include downtowns, village centers, new town centers, growth centers, neighborhood development areas, and opportunity zones. The rulemaking would also allow housing to be built within 25 feet of all size two wetlands in those growth areas. This would cut the current required protective buffer zone wetlands in half and allow for setback of only 25 feet from development. Building houses in wetlands and close to wetlands can have very serious impacts. Wetlands provide a number of very important functions and services. These include blood control, pollution, filtration, and water quality improvement, drought prevention, shoreline stabilization and erosion control, carbon storage, and fish and wildlife habitat. Development in and closer to wetlands results in the loss of the functions that they provide. My biggest concern with the executive order and the rulemaking is the loss of the function of flood control and flood damage mitigation that the impacted wetlands would normally provide. This is especially important as climate change is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of floods. The science on that is basically that over time, the floods have increased and they have increased in intensity. And in Vermont, we've seen that over and over again. Barry and Mount Folier have been devastated by floods. My town has been really damaged by floods in Northfield. And an increase in floods means an increase in the flood damages to homes, businesses, and public infrastructure. The website of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation describes it very well the benefits that wetlands provide in reducing flood impact. On their website, they state many wetlands, particularly flood plain wetlands, have the capacity to temporarily store floodwaters during high runoff events. Wetlands can reduce the severity of downstream flooding and erosion. In watersheds where wetlands have been lost, blood peaks may increase by as much as 80%. Wetlands within and upstream of urban areas are particularly valuable for flood protection. The impervious surface in urban areas greatly increases the rate and volume of runoff, thereby increasing the risk of flood damage. State lawmakers have recognized that the wetlands are very important to the health, safety, welfare of our residents. The Vermont legislature recently passed Act one twenty one, called the Flood Safety Act, with bipartisan support. The law provides a clear mandate to not only protect wetlands in Vermont, but to achieve wetland gains as part of an effort to increase flood resilience. The policy to be followed under the state law, now found in Title X, Chapter seven of the statutes, is clear. The wetlands of the state shall be protected, regulated, and restored so that Vermont achieves a net gain of wetlands acreage. The regulation and management of the water resources of the state, including wetlands, should be guided by science. I just want to take a minute to say that I did send my full comments to the committee. Don't know if you have them in front of you. Okay. Under this law, the Secretary of ANR is required to amend the Vermont Wetlands Rules to clarify that the goal of wetlands regulation is the net gain of wetlands, and that is to be achieved through protecting existing wetlands. And the restoration of wetlands that were previously adversely affected. The wetlands rules shall prioritize the protection of existing, intact wetlands from adverse effects. The statutes further require that the buffer zones for a Class II wetland extend at least 50 feet from the border of a wetland based on the functions and values of the suit and statute. Currently, wetlands that meet the criteria of a Class II wetland are protected by law, whether they're mapped or not. The determination as to whether a Class II wetland merits protection is to be based on an evaluation of the extent to which it serves the functions and values as listed in the statutes, or by its identification on the Vermont Significant Wetlands Maps. Note that one of the most important functions included in the statute is that of flood control. Not all wetlands have been mapped as part of the effort to more effectively protect the state wetlands. The statutes require that state wetland maps be updated periodically. But the intent of the law is clearly that all wetlands that meet the criteria for Class II must be protected, mapped or not. The goal of net native wetlands is intended to be achieved in part by requiring that any activity in a wetland that would adversely impact more than 5,000 square feet be compensated by the permit applicant through restoration, enhancement, or creation of a wetland or buffers. Under the amendment to the rules proposed by the Secretary, there would be no permit required for building housing in wetlands or part of their buffers. This seems to imply that under the rule amendments, no compensation for permit impacts would be required in these instances. This is not at all in keeping with the net gain of wetlands under the law. Under the new rules, housing construction would become an allowed use with no permit required, meaning impacts of the wetland would not be reviewed by the wetlands program, and there would be no wetland protections in these cases. That is a drastic change from how the rules work now, under the statutes. The rule amendments run counter to the statutes and their intent to protect existing class two wetlands and the buffers of at least 50 feet. The statute does not say that only mapped wetlands will be protected. The statute states very clearly that existing wetlands shall be given priority for protection. The secretary may have some discretion in the implementation of the statute, but they do not have the authority to fully ignore its clear intent. In addition to the statutory protection for wetlands, planning policies have recently been put in place by the State of Vermont to address and prevent the impacts caused by climate change. The first plan is the Vermont Action Plan of 2025, which recognizes the effects of the virus and recommends their expansion as part of the effort to increase flood resilience. A scientific paper cited in the plan estimated that the floodplain wetlands in the Otter Creek Watershed reduced potential damage to Middlebury during Tropical Storm Irene by at least six times and as much as 20 times. The second state plan cited is the Vermont Resilience Implementation Strategy. This explains that the loss of wetlands means the loss of the monetary value of flood protection and other functions they provide. Plan recommends conserving wetlands, and it pointed out a study that found that the value of flood protection provided by the flood plain wetlands in the Otter Creek Watershed near Middlebury was estimated to exceed $120,000 and may be as high as $450,000 I'd like to point out that in the rules with the Secretary of Statement, the Secretary of ANR referenced these two policy plans that I just cited, the Vermont Resilience Implementation Strategy and the Vermont Climate Action Plan, to make the case that the wetlands rules should allow houses to be built in wetlands. The secretary stated that these two plans advocate for smart growth in compact growth areas, and I quote, while wetlands provide important environmental and economic benefits such as flood control and water quality functions, the impact to wetland functions will be confined to a limited number of wetlands, and any negative impacts will be balanced by advancing housing construction in compact roads areas. But the Secretary fails to recognize or acknowledge two key points. First, Smart Growth is defined into Vermont law as growth that includes protections for the state's important natural resources, including wetlands. Second, the plans and policies that they cite strongly recommend protecting wetlands for their value in increasing climate change resilience. These state planning policy documents recognise that safe and effective development strategies in the face of climate change will require policies that work to accomplish both objectives: compact growth and flood resilience. In the rule filing, the Secretary was required to provide an economic impact analysis, which is meant to be an analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule. But there is no real tangible economic analysis provided in the filing. The secretary acknowledges that wetlands provide important environmental and economic functions, and that this will negatively impact some wetlands and their functions in designated areas, but that any negative impacts will be balanced by existing housing construction in compact growth areas. However, no monetary values or comparisons or any factual data are given to support these surgeons. If the Secretary had undertaken an adequate economic analysis in the room filing, they would likely have found that building housing in wetlands is more costly than building on more suitable dry lands, and may not result in an increase of housing that is affordable. Building houses in a wetland will increase the impervious surface, while also removing the capacity for water storage in those wetland areas. This could increase runoff and flood risk, and impact and even damage the properties nearby. In addition, the total cost to build housing in a wetland may be doubled or tripled in comparison to the average home built on dry land. Added costs to prevent water and flood damage can include soil stabilization through added soils, compaction and drainage systems, special foundations that may involve pilings to ensure stability, special engineering and construction personnel, and flood insurance. And building in an area with a high water table, like wetlands, could lead to failed wastewater and septic systems. Even if the house can be built, the wet soils and raised water levels during heavy rains can cause shifting soils, damaged foundations, damp and wet areas of the home, mold and erosion. And if the house is not built to be resistant to flood and water infiltration, then the homeowner may experience more impacts than if it had been. Long term, the cost of the abuse is significant. Allowing people to build when no wetlands have been mapped may also provide a false sense of security. Homeowners may be led to believe that it is safe to build in an area where no wetlands have been mapped. Homeowners, as well as builders, may not even know that wetlands, in fact, exist in these areas. And will the state require homeowners be provided notice of the potential for building houses in those wetlands? The loss of a wetland due to development also results in a loss of the beneficial ecosystem services that an intact wetland can provide. The storage of floodwaters and flood mitigation, water filtration and improved water quality, drought prevention, carbon storage, fish and wildlife habitat. These services provide economic value and would likely be costly to replace. The Otter Creek study found that wetlands and floodplains prevented 84 to 95% of flood damages to buildings in Middlebury during Tropical Storm Irene, saving them as much as $1,800,000 An analysis of Vermont's investment in land conservation found that for every dollar the State spent, communities received about $9 worth of natural benefits. Tropical storm Irene alone caused flood damages in her life estimated at more than $600,000,000 There were real costs for development of housing in wetlands, both environmental and economic. Those costs have not been provided in the silhouette making process. In the rule filings, the Secretary was required to explain why the proposed rule is not arbitrary. The Secretary answered that the rule is not arbitrary in part because it is supported by data collected by state government, as well as agency staff and wetlands professionals. In addition, science intends that any regulation of wetlands be based in science. I do not see data or science included in this filing that would support building houses in wetlands. As you can see by all the information I've just provided, which may be more than you wanted to know, is a lot of data and science available to show that building in wetlands is not a very well supported idea. In fact, wetlands should actually be protected to prevent the increased risk of flooding. The Vermont Legislature recognised the need for protection of wetlands as part of an effort to protect people and property from the increasingly frequent and intense flooding caused by climate change. They enacted laws and statutes that clearly require increasing protections for wetlands, not removing those protections. The rules are in direct conflict with the statutes. As

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: someone

[Laura Hoyt Banks, Attorney (Northfield)]: who served on public planning commissions, my perspective is that a reasonable but careful balance must be struck between the need for development and the need to protect valuable natural resources. Both are necessary for the health, safety and welfare of our society. But that balance is not being struck in this rulemaking. This rulemaking increases the risk of flooding and the potential for harm to our residents and property. We can create affordable housing without destroying natural resources as valuable as wetlands, and one that provides us with the means to keep areas of development safer and more resilient. It has been stated that the Secretary would like the environmental community to provide them with alternatives to building an unmapped wetlands and buffers, I suggest they request resources that would allow ANR to identify and map the remaining wetlands in the designated growth areas before deciding it's acceptable to fill them in and build houses on them. For all these reasons, proposed rules and any laws that may be similar, I believe, should be rejected. Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your testimony. Members have questions? Do you have a question? I have a statement.

[Rep. Sarah (Sarita) Austin]: I just want this testimony. Because I find it very compelling, and I know that's taken a lot of time, and I just really appreciate it. Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you for your time. Thanks for coming in and sharing your testimony. Thanks. With that, we're finished for the morning. We have Michael O'Grady coming in to actually walk us through the Health Safety Act. Feel like it's important for us to revisit that statute. And if there's time, he will also be walking us through another water related bill

[Unidentified speaker]: that