Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Good morning, welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning we are going to hear from Jordan Gonda, ANR.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Good morning. For the record, my name is Jordan Gonda. I'm General Counsel of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. I'm here in representation of the agency. I'm here happy to speak with you about a provision of H six thirty two, which covers many different provisions of proposed changes for DEC for the department. And I believe a cohort of my colleagues will be following me today in testimony to speak to those other provisions. This morning, I have some, I believe the committee received a walk through from legislative council on section 22. But I'm happy to cover that again, give some more back story and rationale for the proposed change and answer any questions that you have and happy to follow-up with anything after today as well. So again, section 22 on page 31 of the bill is the proposed amendment to the Vermont Administrative Procedures Act. The Vermont Administrative Procedures Act is the law that governs the agency and department rulemaking in the state. This specific provision would add an additional basis for an emergency or an expedited rulemaking. There currently exists an ability to expedite rulemaking under emergency circumstances. That emergency basis is limited to provisions that are necessary to address an imminent peril to public health, safety, welfare. This proposed revision would add an additional basis to allow for emergency rulemaking to provide an expedient mechanism to address any gaps in state protections that result from changes in federal policy that conflict with or jeopardize an agency or department's ability to fulfill its state statutory mandate. The justification for this, and again, I'm speaking only for the Agency of Natural Resources, but this language does, would apply to all agencies and departments within the state. So from ANR's perspective, this proposal focuses on federal changes, including, but not limited to, the federal government, including federal agencies proposing to amend or repeal federal regulations, as well as issuance of new federal policies, directives, or enforcement discretion policies. From ANR's perspective, the Federal Administration has proposed a swift and sweeping effort to deregulate environmental public health protections. The ANR does have very robust state law that allows us to administer our own state programs here, but we do in critical areas such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, we do have a cooperative partnership with federal agencies and the administration to employ some of those programs. What that can look like is sometimes in our state regulations, we reference federal regulations, provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations. But outside of that, we do rely on EPA under primacy and other cooperative agreements on enforcement matters. So this is really a prophylactic or preventative mechanism to allow us to address any gaps that may result in some of the federal government's changes to its regulations or policies. As a little bit more of a backstory and justification for this, about a year ago now, the government issued an Executive Order 14,219, that was in February 2025, which required federal agencies to identify unlawful regulations within sixty days. And unlawful had a very lengthy definition that pointed to several Supreme Court cases that limited or drew back on environmental protections. And the month following that, their presidential memorandum was issued instructing agencies to prioritize the repeal of unlawful regulations using the Federal Administrative Procedures Act Good Cause Exception. This Good Cause Exception essentially allows deregulation or rulemaking to happen bypassing notice and comment rulemaking provisions when the repeal is unnecessary, impractical, or contrary to the public interest. So basically there's a direction to environmental agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency to swiftly identify environmental protections that exist at the federal level to determine whether they are unnecessary, impractical, or contrary to public interests, and to potentially move forward with repealing or modifying those without public notice and comment. Paired with these directives was several press releases and other communications that came out from EPA and Administrator Zeldin, as well as other forms of communication announcing historic deregulatory efforts aimed at primarily Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act provisions, protections, but many other areas as well. You may have heard of these and seen some of the news around the specific protections that they were committed to repealing or backing away from. And furthermore, new directives and policies are aimed at backing away from enforcement of federal programs and historic cooperation with state programs. So again, we want to be poised to act quickly if necessary to redress any gaps in environmental or public health related protections that result from any of these changes. We're monitoring that closely. Again, we're only the first year in the second administration, but are tracking or trying the best that we can to track some of these proposed repeals or limitations on these types of protections. This would allow us to move swiftly to adjust those gaps, even if there's not an imminent threat to public health and safety, but where there would nonetheless be a gap in protections in our state regulations. The limitation on disability, again, would, we would need to convince the rulemaking committees that this provision would apply. So, LCAR would have the ability to retain would review the appropriateness of using this emergency provision. And it would sunset, I believe, in 2028. There's a date specifically in the statute where this would no longer be a way to fulfill emergency rulemaking. So I'll pause there, see if you have any questions about the language or the reasons why ANR supports this proposal. Currently

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: under this emergency rulemaking, LCAR reviews the appropriateness of it when it's in use. Correct. And can you give us some samples of when it's been used?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: So emergency rulemaking is pretty rare within the Agency of Natural Resources. We've undertaken emergency rulemaking and forgetting the timeframe to adopt standards for hazardous waste standards and groundwater enforcement standards for PFAS. That was following the discovery of PFAS and groundwater in Bennington, South Bennington area. That's the only instance that I'm aware. So again, it is rare. And that was- that relied on the provision that currently exists in law, where we needed to establish those standards to be able to investigate, require the investigation and remediation of an emerging contaminant that we knew was very harmful, but we didn't have enforceable regulatory standards for.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: That's right. And it's on LCAR then.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Yeah. And again, that allowed that rule and those standards in that context to become enforceable immediately. We then, the agency, had to then follow course of public notice and comment appearing before LCAR to receive approval for the rule, but the standards became enforceable prior to that process.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Do members have questions?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Just one clarification. Representative Norm.

[Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. Is this applicable to ANR or Agency of Ag as well?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: It's currently drafted as all state agencies. So that, yes, agriculture, Department of Health.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: This may be a little off, but I'm curious if you were aware of the I read about it this week EPA's decision to not include the value of human life when evaluating costs of policies. And I'm curious if you're aware of that and if it would affect any of our way we are implementing the Clean Air Act. It was mostly targeted at the Clean Air Act. Did you catch that?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: It rings a bell. Not specifically any announcement that was made this week, but certainly something that we could look at.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Yeah. I'd be curious how it would play out the way we implement the Clean Era, if it would have any ramification at all.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: And I've heard similar positions of the administration around cost benefit analysis for implementing, adopting new health based standards for contaminants. There's some litigation where those arguments are being made. I'm not aware of any specific rule makings where that is a basis or that is an argument, but we're certainly trying to pay attention to those types of policy statements.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: All

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: right, other questions? Representative Chapin.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: The last sentence here in this edition, on a majority vote of the entire committee, LCAR may object to proposed emergency rules for adoption under this subsection on the basis that the provisions do not apply. Why is that there? Wouldn't that be the case for anything?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: In my opinion, that would be the normal course of LCAR's role at the end of any rulemaking. It might be there. It might be a question for a legislative council as to why that's there. To me, that's not concerning because that's what we would expect of LCAR at the end of any rulemaking. And as I'm sure you know, LCAR, if it decides to not vote to approve a rulemaking, it doesn't mean the rule doesn't go into effect. It just shifts a legal burden onto the agency if it were to be challenged after that point.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Can you just, I know you already said this, but it's real quickly and we're not super experienced with a lot of things. Can you just describe the public engagement process in emergency rulemaking, where and when and how? Sure.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: In the normal court, I'll start with just normal non emergency rulemaking. The agency would file, the first formal step would be filing with the Secretary of State's office and the Interagency Committee of Administrative Rules. Prior to that, we would likely be doing some pre rulemaking stakeholder engagement where we're trying to get a sense from the community or regulated community or other stakeholders as to what proposals should be put forward. But the formal rulemaking starts when we file with the Secretary of State's office. We would receive a hearing from ICAR to make sure that we are engaging in a robust formal public comment period. And that hearing would be followed by usually it's a thirty day public comment period. We would hold a hearing or more, depending on the interest level or the geographic impact of a proposed rule, receive written comments, oral comments at the hearings, and may extend that period if it's particularly of interest to the community. At that point, when the comment period closes, we will work on developing a responsiveness summary. So we're required to consider all comments and provide a written response to them. And then we would make any necessary changes to the proposed rule in light of those comments and issue that. We would submit that to LCAR along with the Secretary of State, along with our responsiveness summary explaining the changes, then plan to come before LCAR. That whole process typically takes about six months. The difference between this would be our rule would go into effect as soon as we file with the Secretary of States. And then we would do all of the rest of the process, public notice and comment hearings. And unless we got LCAR approval within one hundred and eighty days, the effectiveness would go away. But it's just kind of flipping the process. It would become effective at the outset instead of after LCAR approval. You.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Representative North, was there someone else I can't

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: remember Over here?

[Rob North (Member)]: No. Okay. Just a follow-up on that question. So if if this change is not just affecting ANR, as we're hearing from ANR today, counsel, wouldn't all of the agencies be interested? And why is such a change being put in a miscellaneous environmental bill? I mean, this is a broad, broad change.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Yeah. I mean, I have a note here that

[Rob North (Member)]: we'll check-in with gov ops,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: who normally would oversee the APA, and they will

[Rob North (Member)]: look at it. That would be what we we will do. Yeah. This seems pretty sweeter to try to tuck into an environment in this language bill.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Representative Austin.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm just

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: wondering where science comes in to, you know, where where Vermont would say we're we're going to do this because, like, with climate change. You know, science has said that this is this flooding is gonna happen, like, forty years ago if we don't do something. And so now we're spending a billion dollars a year for not following science, you know, what science was telling us was gonna happen. Think COVID, you know, could be another example. What happens when there's a economy between the federal government science and Vermont science?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Yeah, I think I understand your question, it's a good one. So where we have specific state authority to adopt things like health based standards for contaminated sites or for water quality, we do need to formulate those rules on the basis of science. Science. We do have to have a technical justification and a rationale for those to be legally defensible. That underlies all

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: of our

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: rulemaking. Sometimes we get direction from the legislature on specific rules and standards to adopt. And sometimes we rely on EPA, the federal government, or other scientific communities throughout the country to provide us that science.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: If the EPA is not following science, then what happens?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: This amendment would it be?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: Right, right.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Yes, and that is a concern, especially with what is happening with some of the scientific boards and other organizations that produce the science underlining some of our protections here, but also throughout the country. In my opinion, any reduction in protections also needs to be justified by science. So I think what's built in there is that if the federal government or any state government is to reduce protections to health or safety, there also needs to be a scientific justification for that. So in my opinion, repealing provisions of regulations that are out there to protect people's health and safety, or the quality of the environment cannot be baseless. So despite what we're hearing about the potential repeal of federal regulations for cause, essentially, we would be scrutinizing those decisions. And those decisions would be subject to potential legal challenge if there's not a technical basis for it. So I know it doesn't directly answer your question, but it is a lot of what our agency does. It is why we have so many technical, we have scientists, engineers, and others who are paying attention to the science that's created either in Vermont in consultation with our own Department of Health or from EPA or from other national groups that are producing the science that is helpful for us in making our determinations about what is reasonable. So people will argue that you can find data to support both sides. I'm just wondering, how do you

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: substantiate the data that's verifiable and replicated and peer reviewed? Because that's, I think, what it comes down to is how do you say, this is the best data, and these agencies or whatever organizations have all supported this finding.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Yep, it's a complicated answer. And unfortunately I'm not a technical person to give you the best answer. My agency works very closely with the Department of Health who will come up with the values that we will consider. ANR is not, it depends on the context, but we have different lenses than just, we have a different lens. We have factors that we can consider in coming up with like a water quality criteria, for example. But we do often work very closely with the Department of Public Health to help us understand what risks are to human health through their lens.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: We are going to have a number of technical people joining us that may be able to address that.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: But again, this provision is procedural. It allows us to make that case to LCAR the same as we would to provide that administrative record that there is a technical and scientific basis and that we've done our due diligence around developing that. This doesn't change the burden of proof or the standard for the agency to adopt a scientifically or technically based rule.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Great, thank you so Very helpful.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Are there further questions? Presenter Chittenden.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So I guess I'm just trying imagine how this could be abused and not meet our intent. And I'd like to know a little bit more about how agencies, not just ANR, you may not be able to speak to other agencies, but like how rulemaking gets initiated. Because what I'm hearing is this actually doesn't do a lot. This really simply, in either case, whether it's non emergency rulemaking or emergency rulemaking, the agency starts the rulemaking process and goes through LCAR. And other than someone suing the agency to try and stop that process, This is really just about whether the rule gets implemented six months or at zero months, however long that takes. It's not a humongous difference in my mind, except that there's not public comment before it goes So I guess I'm in that public process. So I guess I'm trying to understand a little bit more about how and when agencies initiate rulemaking what the public has at their disposal, which is my understanding is our lawsuits and the court system to try and say, actually, you're

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: not meeting those. And I understand that. Again, the formal rulemaking process, once we file, kicking off the process takes anywhere from six to eight months. Many, many cases we are doing pre rulemaking stakeholder engagement with either the regulated community or the members of the public to try to hear what's important to them in a proposed rulemaking. In Sorry to interrupt you, but

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think I didn't frame my question well enough. Like what role did the legislate Do you only start rules when a new law is passed? Rulemaking to do? Like That's what I'm trying to get at. You have broad rulemaking authority much broader than that. Correct? So there's many things that could trigger the agency to choose a rulemaking path. So my understanding is this doesn't have a huge impact on when an agency would undertake rulemaking, except that give

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: us an additional basis to maintain protections or standards that are in place, or to change them in light of something that the federal government might do.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's really about that gap potential for some action to happen. And for us in Vermont, to have a gap of protection for the six months or the rushed process to make rulemaking, it gives the state option to close that so that you, the agency, can enforce that right away and try and close that gap. Otherwise the agency can go into rulemaking.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: Yes,

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: that's correct. What I would be most concerned about following what we're sort of reading, you know, reading the tea leaves and hearing the messaging from EPA and other administrative bodies is that any changes that they make could come very quickly. We wouldn't have a lot of time to react. We wouldn't have a lot of time to study, to understand the basics of what they're seeking to do. But because federal regulations are interwoven into our state rules, and because we rely on EPA and other federal agencies in cooperative partnerships to administer some federal laws in the state, we wanna be able to close any of those gaps to maintain any of the standards or the protections that we have currently that might be caused by a change in that relationship. And it would, you know, we also would have the ability to say, if we don't do this, there will be an imminent harm to public health and safety that already exists. LCAR still has the ability to review those, the proposals made for that reason, this would give us an additional opportunity to react quickly to maintain probably a protection that already exists in light of a change in our federal relationship.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Any other questions? Thanks for joining us.

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: Thank you for having me.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: And I would expect that we will probably you may be asked to go to GovOps and look at this. Sure. Yep. With that, we're going to welcome Deputy Commissioner Camden back to you soon. Welcome, Neil.

[Neil Kamman, Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for having me. I'm sorry I can't be there in person. It's the driving. If I had just more than one fifteen minute testimony, I would be there with you in person. But otherwise, it's not quite worth the discomfort to make the trip in and out. So thanks for your forbearance. I've just got some remarks I want to provide to the committee to preface what you're going to hear over the course of the morning and afternoon, and I really want to thank you for your continued attention to our requests in H632. I appreciate it a lot, And there's a lot there. I'm going to go a little bit philosophical with you all. I hope you'll forgive me that and then just raise some points that the staff themselves may not feel fully comfortable raising so that they can present their technical information, which is really quite good. So I just want to offer my perspective with you all is that we are managing Vermont's environment in partnership. I understand the role of the General Assembly is to set the policy and then the role of the agency is to carry it out. You know, whether it has to do with timelines or means or methods, we learn things along the way. It's reasonable to reconvene and talk about those things. It's entirely expected and reasonable for a committee like yours to call us in and ask us questions about our progress. No shade, no issue. And It's also reasonable for the agency to approach you all with things that we're seeing that we'd like to make you aware of. That's what we're doing here today and with this bill. In regards to three acre impact fees, you going to hear from Terry and Gianna this morning. And as Legis Council O'Grady pointed out in his remarks earlier on this, the language is inarticulate. We didn't get it perfect, and that was not unpurposeful, but it was intended to promote a discussion with you all about how we proceed through this issue of impact fees associated with free acre retrofits and stormwater management.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: We

[Neil Kamman, Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: sorry, yeah. It would be one thing to simply eliminate impact fees entirely, but there would be impacts to doing that in terms of our ability to meet certain water quality requirements, especially in impaired waters. And Terry will talk about that. And yet the impact fees also impose a pretty heavy burden on Vermonters that need to prioritize what they spend their dollars on, especially when we're talking about manufactured housing communities, small housing developments and the like. So we're not asking you to bless some baked proposal that we have. We're literally approaching you, Gian and Terry are going to approach you with options for the dialogue. And, you know, we thank you for that. You're also going to hear from Chris Rutland and Ethan Swift about progress with our newly developed clean water service provider network. They've been up and running for three full grant years now. And I'm incredibly proud both of Ethan and Chris and the whole team's work to stand this up, but more so of what those people are doing out on the ground. They took on a responsibility without a full knowledge of the whole body of work that it takes to discover from whole cloth new projects, develop them into designs, procure the designs, and then build the projects. Individual groups were doing that, but to create a new organizational entity that convenes partners to do it in repeated wheels that exist in each watershed is really pretty cool, and you'll see some nice outcomes there. And also just want to point out, please don't hesitate to invite Claire Madden in when the committee has time to hear the clean water performance report, because I don't believe Chris and Ethan are going to give you the highlights of that today, but that is very foundational and important work. Lastly, in the afternoon, you'll hear a couple of different witnesses. Deirdre will be in just to talk about income thresholds and income eligibilities for our auto emissions repair program for when vehicles fail inspection, and she can explain exactly why we're seeking the modifications that we are. But a really important piece of testimony, and I thank you for listening, is Rebecca Pfeiffer. Rebecca will join you to talk about the Flood Safety Act and all of the work that the Rivers Program's been doing on that. You've heard a lot from a lot of stakeholders, including us, about our progress implementing the Flood Safety Act, and it's really critical that we continue to make progress. But I do want to point out that this is like the full implementation of Act 121 actually represents it's not just implementing a law, it's literally a generational modification in how Vermont lives with and interacts with its environment. And there's a tremendous amount of work that Rebecca and all of her colleagues and Mike Klein before her and others in the agency and with your blessing and help did to bring us to the point of even being able to move Act 121 forward. So it's a big change, but with big change means we need to take it responsibly and carefully. This is why we continue to ask for more time. Just a couple of quick reminders, and I'm not trying to be picky, but it is true that the agency requested 18 positions to do the work and received authorization for 15, but only funding for 11, and we're never able to true that up. So I'll leave that where it is because we are doing the work with the resources that we have. And I really feel like they're doing a good job of advancing things with the resources that we have. You're going to hear about that from Rebecca directly. And they're doing that all while new floods come along and impact the ability of the program to actually do the ACT 121 work, which creates this incoherence, right, because we need to get the work done because it keeps flooding and every time it floods we need to pivot to help Vermonters recover from the floods and provide the FEMA the information needed so that they can be made whole. And that's a really important part of what Rebecca does, which you'll hear a little bit about. And we're not doing it alone, right? We've we work with a number of organizations in the implementation of Act 121. We have a great partnership with The Nature Conservancy, and you heard from Lauren the other day about this, and we're literally meeting with them again tomorrow about this work and about our progress and how we work together on this. But I guess my big take home in as you listen to Rebecca is to just be mindful that we really need to bring Vermonters along in this work. We talk a lot about three acre stormwater and that's you know, 800 parcels or sorry, 8,000 parcels involved in the state of Vermont amongst about 800 projects. Here we're talking about new floodplain and river corridor rules that will affect 5,600 miles of river, nearly 210,000 acres of land and 45,000 parcels. So this is bigger than the Shoreline Protection Act was, and this is bigger than three acre is. And we're kind of coming to terms with that and realizing the degree of engagement that we want to undertake with Vermonters in order to really bring them along and to make this successful. So those are my remarks. Just I really appreciate your engagement. I have another meeting and I'm going to go to it. You've got a killer team coming to you for the day, but I will stop there and just see if there's any questions for me. I hope that landed well. I mean, I really mean it all in a manner of respect and cooperation together.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Yeah. Thanks, Neil. Do members have questions? I think we're all set.

[Neil Kamman, Deputy Commissioner, VT Department of Environmental Conservation]: Great. Well, listen, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate, Chair Sheldon, you letting me in to chat with the committee again. I'm here anytime you need me and otherwise the team is there. So thank you so much.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thanks. All

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: right. We have I don't if there's someone who's if we have you in the order you want to present in on the agenda, should we just go with that?

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: I'll start. For the my name is Jana Patito, deputy director for the Water Investment Division. If it pleases, Madam Chair, can I just invite my colleagues Chris and Terry, to deal with me because we'll be swapping between sides a little bit? You may. Thank you.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Okay.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: The host has disabled screen sharing. Try again? Yes. You're screen sharing. Oh, now it's working. Thank you so much. Great. Good morning. For the record, again, my name is Jan Patito. My pronouns are sheher. I'm the deputy director of the Water investment division, and I'm joined here by my colleagues, Terry Pursell and Chris Rutland. Would you like to, for the record, introduce yourselves too?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: For the record, I'm Terry Pursell. I am the operational section supervisor in DC stormwater program.

[Rob North (Member)]: And I'm Chris Rutland. I'm the technical project manager for the Clean Water Service Providers. I'm housed in the water investment division of Geon.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Thanks for

[Chris Rutland, Technical Project Manager, Clean Water Service Providers (DEC WID)]: having me. Yeah. Thanks for having me.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: Thanks for having us this morning. So this is our run of show today. Well, two big chunks. One is discussion of the draft language and H six thirty two, certainly not all of it, but certain sections of it that we can speak to today. And then some program updates as requested. Chris Rutland will speak about the water quality restoration formula grants and clean water service providers. And then return back to me to give you an update on the regional stormwater utility study committee that came out of act 37 of 2025. And in terms of discussion of draft language, as Deputy Commissioner Kamen suggested, we'll start with the stormwater impact fees. And we thought it might be helpful to do a little bit of context setting there about what we mean for that. And so Terry will be speaking a little bit more about the intention behind the impact fees, the math, and the current status. And then we'll try to wrap that up with sort of what does that look like on the landscape, the lessons learned, and some considerations for this draft language for you all. And then I'll speak a little bit to two other sections of h six thirty two that also relate to the water quality restoration formula grants, both the change in notice type and the timeline for developing accounting methodology. So to start with stormwater impact fees, the pages that we're looking at are fifteen and seventeen in h six thirty two, and this is the the two sections of the edits that we're talking about. As you can see, they are simple strikeouts for now, and the language really is a starting point. We have seen some unforeseen challenges in practice and wanted to share those with the committee. And ultimately, our goals are to see if we can find ways to relieve financial burdens where appropriate and inappropriate cases while still balancing that with forward progress on food reduction goals and total maximum daily loads. So impact fees are a unique thing in regulatory stormwater and a very specific thing. So we're not talking about the permit fees that someone might see as they apply. They would face administrative and technical fees. And also, once they hold a permit, there's operational fees. Those are all separate things. And so Terry is gonna give you a bit more context of what we mean when we say impact fee from there. So I'll pass it to you.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Hi. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having us today. So I'm going to get into a little bit of the background on impact fees, how they came about. I'm not going go into every portion of detail on that, and then the theory behind them, why we included them as part of the structure of the three acre permit program and why they were included as part of act 64, the Vermont Clean Water Act. So these are existing sites, three acre sites, and then some additional sites in stormwater impaired waters that also need to upgrade a much smaller number compared to the three acre sites. And they're often constrained by space, by utilities, by wetlands, a number of different things that can come about that are already there in place on the site in the context of where the development and the impervious surfaces were located. So it was understood that some sites would not be able to meet standards, either fully meet them, partially put in a practice to treat a percentage of that impervious surface, or in some cases, they may not be able to do anything on the entire site. And so in order to enable an alternative to offsets, An offset meaning often needing to look off-site at another option, a different site, to find a solution for getting the treatment in, which is often challenging finding a well owned landowner. There can be logistical difficulties right off the bat there, we allowed for impact fees. And that the purpose behind these was to enable projects that voluntarily exceeded standards on these three acre sites to basically incentivize them, to give them some incentive to say, if you are able to, if you're willing to go above and beyond what you need to do, there would be money in funds set aside for those projects. So that was the intent, and we were directed in statute to include them in our role, and so we did, as well as in our general permit. And the structure is such that they need to be the projects need to be located in the same sub watershed. And that could be a stormwater impaired watershed, or that could be a lake segment of Lake Champlain, or it could be Lake Macphermagog, which is also a part of this as well. So as Gianna noted, just to make that clear, no changes to impact fees alone would affect any other stormwater permitting fees. It's just folks coming into the door apply. Once these are in separate statute, then there's

[Rob North (Member)]: no proposal to change those.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: The impact fees are currently established as a one time fee. So some of our fees, Jan mentioned annual operating fees, annual each year. These are not fees. You pay one time the asset impact fee and results in compliance with the permit requirement, and that's it.

[Rob North (Member)]: So

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: I mentioned the just for the reference here, the 10 BSA chapter 22 stormwater permitting rule. It's section twenty two one zero zero two, and that's the general permit references there. The definition of a stormwater impact piece is in 10 BSA twelve sixty four b 11, and then twelve sixty four f is where we were directed in rulemaking to include the use of saltwater and tap beads. So we know of 3 Acres sites, I think. I know most of you were were here for the extensive discussions in the last session. A little bit under the radar are a smaller number of sub three acre sites in stormwater impaired waters. There are approximately 38 or so of these, which also need to complete in the FAA and to complete upgrades. And they are also a part of the structure of impact fees where if they are unable to meet standards, you'd be looking at an impact fee. And it's the same idea, to enable the goals to be met, potentially by sites doing more on their site and being incentivized to do so. The impact fee values, basically, most three acre sites are subject to what we call the redevelopment standard, which normally that equates to treating roughly half of your site. So the impact fee was established as a maximum of $12,500 per acre of impervious surface where that standard couldn't be met. So that maximum is important. That's only where on their site they can't do anything at all. So it is prorated based on what you can feasibly achieve. Some sites, we've had a range so far of as low as 2,000 or so dollars. And then as high, there's one site in a stormwater and barric water that is over 200,000. So there's quite a range. And this really in terms of the history where this came from, we had a stormwater impaired water rule established in 2006. That is the first time when impact fees came into statute in Vermont. So this was not brand new in terms of three acre sites, but it was newly applied to a much larger range of sites across the Lake Champlain and Lake Mountain and the Gap Water Shants. So the the thing with impaired waters is the challenge is often that they need to do a lot more. That sites that are not in impaired waters, that we have roughly maybe a little bit more than a 100 or so sites that are three acre sites in stormwater impaired waters, and they have to meet an additional channel protection standard. They have to treat a greater percentage of their site, and it's a detention standard to hold back the water. These impaired waters are often impaired due to excessive flow. There's too much flow going in and impacting streams. So what we've seen is that some of the higher impact fee amounts have come about in these impaired waters. I mentioned the $200,000, and there are a few others as well that are fairly high. Now bigger picture here, we've got 700 plus three acre sites in total. This was set up the the standards were established for three acres such that most sites were intended to begin to achieve the standards fully, and that is what, in fact, is happening. We have about twenty three three acre sites that are subject to that fee so far out of two fifty plus that have been fully permitted. So we're about close to 40% there in terms of the total number of three acre sites that have been fully permitted. And so far, we've got 23. So if you just push that out a bit, you're looking at anywhere between fifty and sixty three acre sites if that trend holds in total that we might have that would be subject to impact fees. That could change a little bit. We can't predict the future for sites that haven't been permitted yet. But just based on what we've seen so far, that's what we're looking at. So by and large, most sites have been able to fully meet standards. So I just mentioned these numbers here. So we've got about 8% to 9% that expected to either have already paid, or we've determined the fee and let them know they just haven't quite been paid yet. And in terms of that balance of the 8% to 9% and then how many sites are actually eligible to receive impact fees, We estimate it's 10% to 15% or so. We haven't been tracking that number as closely. But it's similar. Generally, most sites are not proposing to do more and to exceed standards. So there's probably that's a pretty close comparison there. There's not probably a huge difference. And then I have this number for the potential foregone income. If impact fees were just completely repealed based on current projections, that could be around 3,000,000,000. And I'm using a median impact fee just based on those 23 so far of 45,875. Again, that's a median. The range is quite close and highest.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: Ask for this, but happy to take more you wanted to say before taking it back. Covered a lot of this too.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah, it's, Do you want

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: to taste? So we'll wrap up stormwater impact fees and then definitely pause for questions and clarifying opportunities. And what does this look like in practice? Terry's starting to speak to that already. What have we seen on the ground? And I've just divided this into what it looks like for folks paying in and then what it might look like for folks that are expecting to upsize and receive payments out. As Terry said, some sites just can't feasibly meet the treatment standards. They're site constrained. And some of them are still required to do some construction on-site and then pay an impact fee for the differential of treatment. And so we've certainly heard from folks that that has felt punitive, that they're doing the best that they can, maximizing what treatment, and then this additional component has been difficult for people to meet financially. We were fortunate to receive American Rescue Plan Act dollars from the legislature, and we did make sure in our design of those programs that we could pay for impact fees for those who received those awards. We struggled with the public perception of that, that we were paying ourselves. So there was a little bit of a struggle there to, because they needed to pay the impact fees, we were giving them money to then pay back the impact fees. So there's a little bit of struggle for that communication challenge, I suppose, on the ground. And also, impact fees tend to be one of the first pieces of math that folks could do to get a sense of what costs they might be facing and tended to have sort of a sticker price shock for some folks before they even completed their engineering feasibility analysis, before they had a sense what, if any, construction, whether they'd even be subject to impact fees because they're aware that that was a potential that sometimes dissuaded some sites from making progress. It was just sometimes a scary number for folks, misunderstanding how to do the math, and was a challenge kind of moving folks through permitting and encouraging them to come in the door. In terms of what it might has looked like on the on the payout side, as Terry mentioned, we don't have quite a good count of the impact and how well this has been serving as a carrot for some folks who are also subject to the permit and might be incentivized to upsize if they have that space. Certainly, the federal money has helped us make en masse progress with the three acres and people getting in the door. But there's been some we have a suspicion that there's a disparity in payout and a timing issue that may or may not be complicating whether or not we're effectively incentivizing up upsizing on other sites. For example, the cost to treat a dollar per acre of impervious surface treated could range from $65,000 to maybe $80,000 per acre median. So if a site is willing to upsize and treat one more acre, that might be another $65,000 to $80,000 that they're taking on. It's unknown and maybe unlikely that they would get that much payout. And so the disparity of the difference isn't really enough for them to be willingly upsizing their project. And, additionally, the timing challenge. So we're we're not paying out yet to folks. My understanding, right?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Right. They have to actually build their system and then have it certified by an engineer. So there can be a lag between their costs and then when they would actually be able to get the funds back from us.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: We're also waiting to see, right, how much comes in. Is that correct? Or how much gets paid out?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Yeah. It it it goes into the specific fund account. So I think there are 12 in total, like, segments and then, again, waters. So it it would need to come. And I think there might be a mechanism if there were additional dollars left over, but it's the intent was for it to stay in the same watershed camp. So that so that while there there was a really good

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: intention there to say, like, look. We've got some money. We've gotta fund. Like, maybe some other folks would be willing to size up. The mechanics have been a bit challenging, and we're not quite sure how well that's worked on the ground. So when it comes to this draft language, as Neil had mentioned to you all, it really is a starting point and considerations for wanting to just be transparent with you all, what we're hearing from folks on the ground. There certainly can be some benefits to repealing impact fees in certain situations, making those projects more affordable. Either the state money that we're passing along or their private dollars will go further in doing treatment on the ground, and it would hopefully address some hesitancies for some of these sites. As it's currently drafted, it would remove all impact fee ability from the state, which might include, I think, new development sometimes and also be subject to impact

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: In a very, very limited set of projects. That's only where there's an impaired water with no cleanup plan, essentially. So Moonbrook in Brooklyn is actually in that category because they don't have a flow restoration plan. They're down the ground. Reality, though, is I don't I'm not aware of a single project yet that has actually needed to pay. There's a $10,000 impact fee with a specific design standard for expansions and new development in the Moonbrook, only the impaired part of that watershed in Rutland City. So it's quite limited in scope, but that could be an issue, yeah, if if more projects are gonna potentially proceed in that area at some point.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: Thank you, Terry. So in terms of considerations, maybe two big categories of it. And one is really where is it most appropriate to remove their impact fee? And then another whole section is sort of just some operational considerations may be tackled in statute, may be tackled in rule or procedure. Where is it appropriate, this site activity component? What are we trying to solve for? As Terry mentioned, new development might be a really small portion of this, but making sure it's clear from the legislature, are we trying to relieve retrofit costs or sort of all costs in this space? Site usage, absolutely often tied to site constraints. Sometimes commercial sites tend to have more site constraints and face higher impact fees for that reason. Residential subdivisions might have more green space, but also have challenges with sharing, having shared access to land or ability or access to capital. So who to remove impact fee applicability to could be based on-site usage and what would that be appropriate what would the appropriate site use should be? We look to you all to tell us. And we've also heard from folks in terms of ability to pay and affordability, and the manufactured housing community is one example where it is it specific to a site site usage? And then site location. As you've as you've heard, we have, I think, maybe 29 or more total maximum daily loads that we deal with, and the nutrient one gets a lot of attention. It's really big scale cross phosphorus reduction for Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog. That's what the three acre properties are helping tackle. They're reducing phosphorus on the landscape. But we also have these stormwater impaired, very small watersheds that are impaired for flow and volume, and the opportunities there to offset are much more limited to find a project in that same one. So our ability to continue to make progress on that particular TMDL, depending on whether we're looking at that. All TMDLs or phosphorus ones is something to consider. And at the same time, those small scale stormwater impaired watersheds are where the treatment standards are higher, where the costs might be higher, where these folks have not had access to prior American Rescue Plan Act dollars because those are targeted specifically for three acre, but where they might be facing similar retrofit obligations. So balancing sort of need of financial relief with our ability to continue to maintain progress in pollution reduction is tough nut to crack. And then in terms of some operation considerations, impact fees were introduced to as an alternative to offsets because they can be complex, because it might be hard to find site access somewhere else to do a project, and we don't want to de facto force offsets by removing the ability to do impact fees. So just something to consider there an intention. A timeline or requirements for reimbursement for those who have paid into the funds to date and whether or not that would include the state if we've already paid on behalf of some beneficiaries for impact fees. And we're not sure, but whether there might be any ramifications from sites that did voluntarily upsize with the expectation for payments out of these funds. And so some we are not sure what those might be and who might have done that, but something for consideration as well. So that's impact fees, and that's quite a bit. I welcome questions.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Well, I guess how can you not be sure what that last thing you just said? It seems to me that my first question was going to be, what was the incentive for someone to upsize if they could, if it wasn't going to be paid for by public dollars or the impact fees. Why would someone do that? And now you're saying you don't even know who's done it. How is that possible?

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: The intention is that it would be paid for out of these funds, but when they get the dollars and how much of that additional cost is actually covered is unknown.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: What would be their incentive to upsize if that's all unknown? I can't imagine why someone would voluntarily upsize with all that unknown.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: I think there are certain projects where it makes a lot of sense. If you already have stormwater runoff flowing into a certain location and the costs maybe are substantially less compared to another project, I think that's what we tended to see. So therefore, you're still treating a greater area. And let's say you're converting something that's already there into a better treatment practice that meets the modern standards, but you've already had something there rather than nothing. So it's a lesser burden and cost. So it can make sense in some cases, but I think what we've seen is what you indicated there is probably what others are looking at too, that there isn't as much of an incentive for them to work for time and sense

[Rob North (Member)]: to look into that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: I guess I'm I'm I feel like I'm missing something. If the if the idea was to have these impact fees address the pollution problem, it seems like there needs to be a nexus, direct clarity on incentivizing people who can do more to do more with some surety that it would be covered, or even they might make a little money on it because they are willing to do this. And that nope. That doesn't exist.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: So what we do when they apply and they sometimes they'll do it upfront and indicate in their engineering feasibility analysis that we believe we are eligible for x amount of dollars. And those dollar amounts are the same as what the impact fees that people pay are. So the overtreatments, those are equivalent amounts. And then we will review that and we can't really guarantee that the funds will be there, but we can let them know that we at least, at this point, agree with the figure or maybe we disagree and we think it should be something different if the math was off for the way that they did the calculations wrong. So we do have records of that. It's just not something we've been tracking numerically to date, meaning I don't have a I'd have to do some research to get numbers on how many sites we think are eligible this month.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: So I guess it seems to me we're trying to get to something that is fair to these folks. And The impact fees are just one piece of it because folks can also do offsets. Help us understand what an offset is.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: An offset would be a few different options. One would be a different site. The easiest way that might work out is, let's say, landowner owns more than one property, and they have a three acre site, but then they have a site that has two acres of a permanent surface that none of that site has been permitted under a stormwater permit before. So it's eligible then if they wanted to pursue something on that other site as an offset, they could do that. Offsets could also be exceeding standards in certain ways. But I think that first one, where you're typically looking at other sites that are unregulated to complete a project on that site. But the ownership is often a key thing there. If you don't own any other properties, it becomes a greater challenge to find a landowner that would be willing to allow that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: So I think we need I know I need a little bit more on this. So I have a three acre site, and I can't do any stormwater treatment on it. It's totally constrained. I no longer have to pay an impact fee. What do I have to do? Anything if we get rid of impact fees?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: So they'd still need to obtain a permit. If it was a site that had a previous permit, we would still meaning an older permit, these would only be permits from the 80s, 90s maybe in some cases.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: They would have a stormwater permit from the 80s?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Yeah. So some three acre sites had operational permits, but they predated the standards that we have with the more modern treatment standards, particularly for water quality. The standards used to be all about, for the most part, detention and flood control. The the whole purpose here with the phosphorus was not often addressed. In some cases, it was in sort of just my happenstance more, the way the design happens to be put together. But we have some three acre sites that never had any operational stormwater apartments ever, and some that did just to over standards. So a site that never had an operational permit before that does nothing would need to get a permit, but if there's no impact fee and there's no offset requirement, that would essentially be the

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: What would you be permitting them to do? Just keep polluting?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: I think the expectation would be the existing conditions would have to essentially remain as they are. I think for one thing, if they were to expand on the site, they would get installed more from it. And yeah, I don't actually know the full reason why we chose require those sites to still obtain permanent coverage if they never had one before, if they're not actually implementing

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: treatment. Are you saying that part of this request is to eliminate the requirement for offsets? I mean, I guess I'm trying to understand how these folks are being treated the same as the ones who happen to have space on their property to accommodate this. Like, how are we getting to that equity piece? That's the impact fee does.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: The difference between how sites that can do something are being treated versus those that can't. Yeah. Well, I mean, a site that can fully meet standards is often, in most cases, still needing to implement a system that has cost, and often at far greater cost than the fees.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: That's kind of my point. If my property can't do anything, I'm just out. I don't have to do anything, especially if they don't pay an impact fee.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: If the impact fees go away and no other change is made, then yes. Essentially So

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: I guess help me understand how we can like, how can I get to equity? Like, if they can't do an offset and they can't do anything else. Trying to be fair here

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: to Yeah. I don't know that our intention would be to eliminate entirely the ability for people to do an offset, and that's something you might wanna think about. I I think the problem would be if we were to tell someone you no longer have the option to pay an impact fee, but now you actually have to do something that is more challenging in many cases and more costly compared to the impact fee. Offset Yeah. Would be actually implementing the system and, in some cases, getting property access.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: So

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: you have this. How much how many impact fees have you collected during this process?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: The total amount? Yeah. It's 420,000 each.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: And have you paid that out to people who could do more?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: We have not, because these sites have actually built their systems. I think, you know, the schools have done more with the the funding they've received in some cases, but they have to have fully built their entire three acre stormwater system and have it certified by a PE, so that we know they did it, they're eligible to then apply for the funds.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: And some of that, knowing the success of how much the impact fee has really been an incentive, it's been the schools have done a lot of the construction, and they've been largely fully funded. Because they've been fully funded, we said they're not eligible to receive impact fees because we've covered those expenses for them. But I think you're really getting at some key questions, is that maybe they're probably not always appropriate to remove impact fees in all scenarios, but there might be scenarios where there are sites still subject to construction expenses and impact fees where the the double whammy might be important to articulate where that's appropriate and where that's not in terms of the costs. And then in terms of how to continue to make progress for a general three acre site across the landscape, we're better suited to capture that progress on the nonregulatory side. We have the clean water service provider network. They're assigned phosphorus reduction targets that can't be met with the regulatory piece. And then the challenge is, how do we do that in stormwater impaired watersheds? Because we don't have that same framework to offset the reduction.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Do other members have questions? I want to be aware of the time even though we have a lot of time with you today. We have a lot we want to talk about and not just impact. Representative Austin and the

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: And I may

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: have asked this at an

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: earlier time, but we share the lake with New York and Canada. Do they have the same kind of regulations? And if they don't, how do

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: we

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk/Member)]: determine the phosphorus that they're putting in the lake as opposed to Vermont?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: So New York has generally a different landscape comparatively to Vermont in terms of what they're contributing. They are not off the table entirely. I think Neil could speak better into the details. There was a coordination there and including with Canada as well. Canada is also a little bit different in terms of the nature of what they're contributing to the lake. Not saying it's nothing by any means. But they are factored in, I'd say, to the broader by TMDL. They're just not part of our regulatory state Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Representative Satcowitz.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I'd like to just echo Chair Sheldon's concerns about fairness. It does seem like if you have a site where you can't do anything, that you're just kind of lucky that you're not having to pay that fees. I will go into that further. Sounds like one of the reasons for this proposal is because you're having a hard time actually using the impact fees that you've collected, and it sounds like there's a lot of pretty narrow constraints on what you can do with that money, and I'm wondering if a solution to that problem would simply be to broaden this largely the types of projects that that you can undertake using money generated from impact fees. It seems like it's really all about water quality. So instead of having just this very narrow band of water quality projects that would be permissible to pay using this money that it could be a a much, much bigger sort of opportunity across multiple watersheds perhaps. And then I was also concerned about impact fees not applying to new development because of the the cases where perhaps your developer has options of multiple sites, and one site might require you to do a lot of work because you can, and another site, you might have constraints, and then you would not have to pay impact fees. And so you'd be be causing the problem, but without having to pay the associated impact fees or mitigate the effects of your development.

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: Well, I'll just quickly respond. I think for new development, it's a very different process because there is no engineering feasibility analysis for new development. So the the standard is almost like if you can't fully beat the standard, it's gonna be hard for us to issue that apartment. So I understand what you're saying. If it was the case where we were letting new development off the hook with that manager, but it it's it's a different technical fee process for for three acre compared to

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So you're saying if if a developer comes and says, we have this site we want to permit for it, and it's constrained, they would be unlikely to be able to obtain that permit in the first place?

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: I mean, we try to the best of our ability to you know? The engineers, of course, are trying to find a solution that can enable projects to move forward. It's not a preference to stop them, but they ultimately do need to meet the required standards. And that might mean that in some cases, they might need to go with a smaller footprint of their impervious surface to fit in the software management that they need.

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: And representative, the I would say maybe one of the main drivers of including this in tech corrections is not necessarily an inability to suspend the fund, although that's a great idea about flexibility. It's probably more so that we're hearing from the public concerns about the cost burden and the impact fee being particularly burdensome and wanted to present to you that it's nuanced and that there are a lot of factors we're trying to balance. But the department would love to engage if there's time this session with you all on on a better solution at some of these questions of what is equitable, what helps us continue to make progress. The draft language is probably not is is not the answer right now for sure. But that's what we're hoping to share with you all is how it it it can be a lot of trade offs in some ways.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I I would just wanna respond that it sounds like the impact the pure financial impact for people who pay impact fees is actually less in a lot of cases than for people who actually have to work on their site. So it would seem like if you're just talking about the actual financial impact that that it's it's already unfair to the people who have had to do expensive projects, not to the folks who are paying the impact fees. What hearing is that there's this feeling on the folks who have to pay impact fees, they shouldn't have to pay them because they are not able to do the work on their site. And I can see how it could feel that way to an individual landowner who's faced with paying these fees, that they're not actually solving the problem of their site. But when we look at the broader picture of what's really fair, it does seem like the original intent of the law is really was doing the right thing.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: And but I think to the point of the double hit, like, the folks who can do something and are doing as much as they can and also subject to an impact fee, there's room there, it sounds like. Representative Tagliavia in that picture, and then we're going to take a quick break and refocus.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Question about looking into the future with this dealing with stormwater, three acres, stuff like that. We're right now in the middle of future land use maps, tier one a, tier one b, and all this mapping, tier two. Has anybody looked at those maps, where they're laid out, and what the difficulties going forward are going to be because of where those are laid out? And the idea that we're apparently looking for small, densely populated areas, isn't that gonna create a huge issue for development that's potentially gonna be in some of these areas?

[Gianna Petito, Deputy Director, Water Investment Division (DEC/ANR)]: I'm not directly involved with the tier mapping, and I don't know if any of my colleagues

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: I can speak to that. You're referring to the the preferred development areas for related to the wetlands discussion.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: How is that gonna affect stormwater permitting? Is it gonna create problems like we're just talking about impact fees? We We can't provide relief. What are we gonna do?

[Jordan Gonda, General Counsel, VT Department of Environmental Conservation (ANR)]: So right

[Terry Pursell, Operational Section Supervisor, DEC Stormwater Program]: now, the impact fee for new development is really Moonebrook and Rutland, and we haven't seen that yet. So I don't know if there is one of those areas in Rutland City now that has been designated. But potentially, that is one instance. But the rest of the state really is does not have that impact fee for new development or expansion of surface. The rest of the state is really looking at these impact fees applying to existing development, three acre sites, certain sites in stormwater impaired waters, but not for proposed new development.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: Representative

[Christopher Pritchard (Member)]: Pritchard. Yeah. You talked about constraints. You know, most of the people that I have dealt with, and I know it's a small snapshot compared to what you are, but the impact fee is an issue of affordability for them. I mean, I've talked to people in the Rutland area that on this list, they can't afford the outfit, they can't afford the impact fee, and either of them is gonna put them out of business. Plain and simple. I mean, you visited a site this year, I think, Kevin came down to the Hatake's. These folks have three employees, they've been in the business fifty years, we're gonna put them out of business. This infuriates me, this whole thing. What we are doing to people, we are harming people. And when I spoke to, at a meeting with Commissioner Moore, you used the term remove phosphorus. We're not removing phosphorus. We're capturing phosphorus, and there's a big difference. The phosphorus is still there. Still has the ability to go. Just the amount of harm that we're doing to people in this thing is unconscious. It's unconscious. And we're gonna keep expanding that. We're hurting people, honestly. And I think, I can't believe that the impact part of it wasn't part of what you're hearing from people. Is it not? I mean, the exception was made for the Rutland Fair. They couldn't afford to make the outfit. They couldn't even afford the impact fees. They'd be out of business. Institution's been around one hundred and seventy eight years, gone because of this. And all we've done with Act 181 is just prolong that pain. That's all we've done for the Rutland Fair. We've delayed the inevitable, as far as I'm concerned. And for the people that paid before, yeah, they got funding. There's a difference. Know, if you're gonna pay for my outfit, I'm fine with that too, go ahead and do it. But now that's gone, and it's a whole different situation. And these aren't just business, these are families. I mean, we took testimony about families that are being. So, you know, I think that's my 2¢ on this thing. I just really discouraged about what this is doing to

[Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment Committee)]: people. Okay. With that, let us take a five minute break, and then we'll