Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are going to do a section by section, not quite walk through with our legislative council, but a talk through and see where we're at on each of the sections of the bill and, if we need to hear more testimony or have questions for council on them after having taken a fair amount of testimony on it so far. Welcome, Michael.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Michael O'Grading with legislative counsel. As the chair just said, I'm not going to do a full walkthrough. I'm just going to focus on the subject matter of each section and see if you need additional explanation or discussion and stop me whenever you feel the need. So the first section regarding the, standard of future responsibility program for batteries. Part of that program required ANR to do an assessment of how and whether to add difficult batteries that are currently difficult to recycle as part of the program. The EPR program, the user responsibility program wants to be the one to do that assessment, but they need additional time. And that's what section one does. It retains the assessments, which is the responsibility to the stewardship organization and gives them an extra year.

[Speaker 0]: Any questions on the extra year for that? Alright.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Section two relates to the fuel storage tank program and making it easier for the agency to inspect and red tag category one tanks. Category one tanks are underground tanks generally used for gasoline and other motor fuel.

[Speaker 0]: Have questions on this section? Yeah. Representative Nora.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: No. It's not included. Thank you, chair. Michael, I know it's not included in the bill specifically, but is there an official Yes. Dimension bill per category? I'm I'm thinking the last thing.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There there is. And and A and R wants a lot of changes beyond this. Like, they sent me 25 pages of changes to the to the UST program yesterday. And but this is just, like, a threshold one, but I can read to you what a category one is.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Just wanna make sure we're not adversely affecting the

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't apply to farming, and it doesn't apply to tanks used for home heating fuel. That's not. That was my main concern.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. What's the threshold change mean to you?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This change is is about when they get to basically determine that the tank is red taggable, and it doesn't have a valid permit. That's not currently in here that it that it had to have a valid permit. And then it has to basically have not meet standards and could result in a in a a leak of a regulated substance. And and so they believe that this is gonna make it easier for them to regulate the cat ones.

[Speaker 0]: The nature of the larger changes, do they do they impact this request, or what are can you summarize them in a few sentences worth?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So just as the transportation fund is is suffering revenue losses, the petroleum cleanup fund is suffering losses because part of a there are two counts in that fund. One is a heating fuel account One is a motor fuel account. The motor fuel account is a penny per gallon of gas, fuel sold. And so they're losing revenue in the motor fuel account. Motor fuel account effectively is the insurance program for fuel dealers because under the Federal Resource Conservation Recovery Act, fuel dealers are required to have insurance in order to have an underground storage tank. But when that requirement went into place, you wouldn't be shocked to know that insurers weren't going to insure them. And so Vermont was one of the first states to create this fund that serves as the self insurance for fuel dealers in the state. So they're paying in both on the the per cent fee for fuel and on a licensing fee that they have to pay. And so and then they do have some responsibility of their own to pay above and beyond the insurance, but that's that's what it is. It's really important for fuel dealers in order to meet the the federal requirement.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Tagliavia? Can you give

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: us an example of how this insurance works, like a specific incident where there was a tank, a leak that this fund, concert with any other responsibility or insurance that a fuel dealer had, how this actually helped cover all of the expenses? Well, I can give you

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: a couple different examples. One is there's just an exigent leak out there. Right? The fuel dealer's driving his truck her truck to for a delivery. They're slide off the road. There's a leak. A and R responds immediately under the environmental contingency fund and clean setup. But then the fuel dealer's on the hook for what A and R is spending for the cleanup. Now they pay up to a certain amount before the insurance kicks in. But after that amount, the insurance kicks in and pays for that cleanup.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: They being A and R pays or they're fuel dealers? The

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the Honda. And now the same similar thing, go out to a gas station. Your Life your wholesale gas distributor is is delivering and and notices that, hey, this is taking longer to fill than it usually does, or, you know, there's something visible or or smell related that they they find that there's a leak. There's a response. Again, the the fuel dealer, the gas station pays a certain amount, and then the fund pays the rest, like insurance.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Very successful.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's hugely successful. It's it's and Vermont was one of the models. And so a category one tank let me find the definition. It's an underground storage tank except for the following. Fuel oil storage tanks used for on premises heating purposes and farm or residential tanks for storing motor fuel. And an underground storage tank is any one or more combination of tanks, including underground pipes, that is or has been used to contain an accumulation of regulated substances and the volume of which is 10% or more beneath the surface of the ground.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thanks for clarifying that that def a function of my logic. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that definition. Is is there also already therefore in statutes some regulations regarding the residential fuel tanks that are So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: those are generally considered above ground storage tanks, and those are your heating, fuel oil, kerosene. Are they're called above ground even though they might be in your basement, and you consider them below ground, but they're actually above ground. And there's a whole suite of rules for those. They're not changing. They're they're not changing, and and I don't believe the proposal from the agency changed the AST, the above ground standards.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: Did you

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: get a sense of

[Speaker 0]: the urgency of the sort of vulnerability of the fund?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That that's one thing they they didn't give me, and and you should receive a PCF fund report. Their their their report comes in a little bit later, but it it should come in right around now, like, around the January. And they're they're pretty good about porting.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Moving

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: on from section two. Section three relates to an ARPA program that provided funding for homes of low and moderate income to make repairs or improvements to their drinking water or wastewater or stormwater. That personal information that was provided by applicants was supposed to be confidential, and it wasn't clear in Vermont's authorization of that program that it needed to be confidential. Section three verifies the confidentiality and makes it retroactive. Section four, you're now into the flood safety sections. Section three relates to the river corridor development, base map and the requirement that on or before 01/01/2020, currently 2026, DEC update the river corridor base map. The agency wants to push that date by a year. And similarly, the education requirement, the outreach requirement, the report requirement, the rulemaking requirement, and the permit requirement for development in a river corridor would all be pushed a year. And that is section three. That's also section four. That's section four. It's section five, and it's section seven.

[Speaker 0]: So, Michael, we've tried to dive into this a fair amount and understand the current obstacles or whatever, why we're not meeting the original deadlines. I mean, we took compelling testimony yesterday that ANR originally told us they needed more time to start there. But then also about, I think, 3,000 miles of river corridor are already mapped and potentially already enforceable or regulatable. So I know we're all concerned about public safety, and we want to stand up a program efficaciously as we can out of the gate. So I think that may be a summary of what we're grappling with here. Other folks have comments on this? Representative Austin? Yeah.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I was just wondering how it aligned with what we heard, the testimony we heard yesterday, how it impact this section. Because it didn't sound like they were they it sounded like they needed more time.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. This is their ask for more time. Yesterday, they

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: were explaining that to us.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. Are you saying that you think we can at least include the 3,000 miles that is already mapped?

[Speaker 0]: I guess I'm just I need to follow-up on it and figure out how they're doing it, if they're even, yeah, sharing the data with folks. Okay.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I was just waiting to see what

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Did they tell you how far they were in the rulemaking process?

[Speaker 0]: Wait. Does anyone have met?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I don't think they did. Got some

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: because that's an important piece of information because they need to

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: have the rules before they permit to develop. I think they said they were starting to overtake it. Right? Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Chittenden?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: A couple of things. I guess what I heard from them was that they might have some other ideas for us about how to move things forward as quickly as possible while also taking the time they need to do it well. So I guess I'm curious to hear a little more from them before we decide exactly what to do here. At least that's the sense I got that they might be able to think on this and think with us on it. I really like I know very little about how this works, but the things that came to my mind were, like you said, sort of communicating and collaborating with other folks that are issuing permits out of ANR. There a way to moratorium is probably too strong of a word, but is there a way to take precaution in the areas that we already know and either do public very strong education to the other folks who are permitting those developments and the people who are pursuing those developments. So just a way to really support and ensure people are aware of what they're doing in river corridors. So those are some things that I would love to follow-up with them on. And then this very first section four is what looks to me like maybe an annual report. I'm a little confused. The date they're trying to change is for a report that will include a summary of the public input received. And I guess I don't want to wait to hear that. I particularly would love to still get a report in January 2027 about the public input received, whether they're ready to do on page six, the recommendations and analysis of permitting is not as clear to me, but I guess I wanna make sure we're hearing back from them about because they've already This is not about starting the education process. Were very clear. They've already started gathering public input and doing the education work. They're just hoping that would span multiple years. So I guess on this section in particular, I'm interested in seeing if we can rearrange this language so that we at least get a report on what they have done so far in January 2027.

[Speaker 0]: So are you proposing on page five, line 17, sticking with 27 there?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: And then maybe making it an annual until the permitting process is complete. It sort of looks to even on a first read, that section looks like it should have been an annual report to us

[Speaker 0]: for a few years over the course of the Oh,

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it should probably say on 01/15/2027 and annually until permitting.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's what when I've looked at this the first time, that's what it that was confusing to me that it didn't say annually. So I guess I'm wondering if we could say 01/27/2027 and annually. And then if some of these four points that are included aren't appropriate for that first report, can we just adjust that so that works? Alright, so it sounds like

[Speaker 0]: we still have a few questions on these that we need to follow-up on and hear back from I think you asked for alternatives. I'm not sure where we landed on that, but I think they did a I think we had landed with ideas back for the mapped the 3,000 miles of already mapped. Alright. And then

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So could I just on page five, there's gonna be three changes. On line six, you're gonna keep that January 27 date because that

[Speaker 0]: It's ending.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That trues up with the report on line 17.

[Speaker 0]: Well, no, I don't I think so if we give if on the previous page, education and outreach, line 21, they get an extra year there, how does that relate to this section b? I mean

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I see your point. You want them to continue education outreach up until they start the rules or the development. Yes. Okay. Alright. Understood. And then on page on page five, line seventeen and eighteen, it's gonna stay twenty twenty seven, clarify that it's reporting annually until the permitting.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. K. Alright.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should I skip over section five because that's where you need more information about alternatives, etcetera? Okay. And that takes you to section six. This is actually about NFIP, and this is the report from the study committee on state administration of the NFIP program.

[Speaker 0]: I actually have a question on the previous section.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Sorry. My other thought is that why change dates from 2028 to 2029 at this time? And what if we leave them or even do a six month extension or do, I don't know, if it's appropriate to add some language to revisit this after we get a report next January. I guess I don't see the necessity And I sat on the judiciary committee last biennium and I watched the administration just year after year ask for more time. I don't believe that's what's gonna happen with the Rivers program unless we get a major flood every year and their team is diverted to more pressing response activities rather than proactive planning activities. But I guess I've experienced watching an agency just sort of every year defer and defer and defer. I guess I'd rather leave dates that we don't need to change at this time and here or there. I just want to put that to the committee. Just wonder about

[Speaker 0]: I think that's a great question.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: If you leave that 01/01/2028, you're gonna have to go back and look at the rules because that was pushed to 07/15/2028.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you're gonna have to make them coordinate depending on what you do.

[Speaker 0]: Maybe they should just both be July 1528.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I like the idea of pushing out just six months. Should we at least have next session to kinda see how they're doing? Right. And then push it out. If every I mean, with just a team of eight people, every year we push out, it's another $2,000,000. Got it that way. Eight people for a year is about $2,000,000.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. They're tons of other stuff.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Nonetheless. I mean, that's how a business would look at it. A business would say, eight people for another year, that's another $2,000,000.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I thought In terms of price per program. Just just you got eight people working on something for a year. It costs you between 1.6 and $2,000,000.

[Speaker 0]: I'm not sure we do have eight people working on it.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: You know, it's a fraction of their workload. So but it's it's that kind of workload in price. Their

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: workload's gonna increase after 2028 because they're gonna be permitting the development in the River Corridor, and they're gonna be running the NFIP program even if it's only just approving the state NFIP standard.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: We plan to develop a larger workload that will follow-up on that team down the road for permitting. Okay. So maybe as a part of talking with the rivers corridor team, we could talk about not changing all of these dates and then get back to you, Michael. Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm not making any change to what's in

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The bill right now.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Let's see.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On the on the dates, you're gonna talk to river corridors. Right?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. Other than that, page five, line seventeen and eighteen. Mhmm.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So section six, that's NFIP. I'm pushing the report date back from the study committee from 08/15/2025 to 08/15/2026. Section seven was really just the date of the rules for the river corridor development permitting. Specific implementation of that. That's there because the previous chair of Senate Natural always liked to have a directive about when they had to begin and when they had to end.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Where are you?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On page eight, line 10, section seven. Senator Bray, chair Bray always like to say when they had to start rulemaking and when they had to end rulemaking. So there's always sections like this and bills he was involved in, and then you then need to true those dates up when you change.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, it's sort of weird to have it past dates, but okay. Section

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: eight is moving out of River Corridor and away from NFIP for a minute to the net gain of wetlands. There was a directive that the wetlands rules be amended to have a state state policy of net gain. If you're gonna be disturbing a wetland or doing an activity in a wetland, disturb 5,000 square feet or more, you needed to have a two to one ratio of mitigation to disturbance. That was supposed to be amended by December to July 2025. The agency asked for December. That's obviously already passed. I think you heard testimony from Laura LaPierre, the wetlands division, that they have started this but may have stalled it while they're working on the other rulemaking. So I don't know why you I

[Speaker 0]: don't either. But just so the committee knows, I did ask Michael to draft an amendment that if we have time, we'll get to today to consider revoking their ability to use rulemaking for permitted uses in wetlands and codifying the existing allowed uses or permitted uses in a buffer in statute as opposed to doing it through rulemaking. So just something to think about. Then I don't I mean so what's do you have a thought on this, Michael, a recommendation of this section?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm I'm I mean, the date has already passed.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. It's

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I wouldn't say it's unique that there are dates in statute where the agency is told to adopt rulemaking by the time, and they don't. I I I would also put on the table consideration that if if ANR comes forward with the rule that doesn't include the net gain policy, That there's an opportunity for Ela Cart to object because it conflicts with statutory authority and legislative intent. So that's another thing to consider because they're not they're going for one rulemaking but not doing what they're told. In that rulemaking and so that's that's an opportunity for our car to object. So just be aware of that regardless of if you change this date, if they don't address that gain in a proposed rule, there's opportunity for objection to help.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Austin.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Is the net gain equivalent in terms of the land, the wetland, You know, in terms of what, you know, species are living there, what plants are there? Mean, is it

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I mean, it's not immediately that because if you're doing mitigation, sometimes you have to create wetlands. Mhmm. And so it takes time for the environmental benefits and wetlands functions to return, and they may not be exactly the same. I don't know if you've ever seen one. It it they're they're pretty ugly to begin with, the wetlands mitigation, because it's it's construction. And but then in time, the the functions return, and they they basically turn into full scale weapons.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Equivalent to the one

[Speaker 0]: we yep.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Representative Chapin. So I was I find this really confusing, this changing a past date to a different

[Speaker 0]: past date. I want to just be clear that I left this in. This was language they asked for originally, and then Got it. So I'm leaving it in for this conversation to happen.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Was leaving it in. It's probably gonna come out.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Okay. Great. I guess I would just say I don't feel comfortable voting on this, and I would rather just leave it as it was.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. That they didn't do

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: it. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. I agree. So think we can take this section out. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on to section nine. This is the section about clean water service providers and the notice that they have to follow when providing notice of projects and lists, etcetera. They are looking to harmonize all the notice requirements under one of the default a and well, actually, they're moving away from the default a and r notice and comment and then just going to notice to the public in a comment period of not less than thirty days. Big change, I think, is there would be no specific allowance for a request for a public meeting.

[Speaker 0]: So have questions about that or comments on it?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So so that was section nine and section 10. And then on page 12, you're moving to section 11, moving out clean service water providers to stream alteration. Whenever there's a movement filler excavation of 10 cubic yards or more in a water course, you're supposed to get a permit. Years ago, that water course was limited to one that drain. I can't remember if it it was five square miles or two square miles. The agency is looking for some threshold on the lower end because they don't wanna be going out to, like, minor streams, tributaries that just don't have a drainage to do stream alteration. So they're proposing to go from no threshold to 0.5 square miles at the location of the proposed change.

[Speaker 0]: We took we took good testimony on this also. Do folks have questions?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I don't have a question, but just I mean, support of the half a square mile that seems to make sense based on the testimony.

[Speaker 0]: And you had a lot of questions about this. So I wanna make sure that you feel satisfied or that if you're not, what else?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm not satisfied. Yeah. I mean, I think that we surfaced that this was very much just driven by staff capacity and not the potential for ecological damage and science based, like where does it make sense to utilize the limited staff capacity and what I heard was there are large, larger sized rivers in more populated areas where what is it? It's like a 10

[Speaker 0]: cubic yards.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: 10 cubic yards is the other threshold that causes a permit. 10 cubic yards out of the river in Montpelier, maybe we shouldn't be permitting that. Maybe there should be a much higher cubic yard threshold in certain larger waterways. Then maybe we want to really look at what's an appropriate amount in very small tributaries and headwaters. I think it's important to rebalance their workload, but in an ecologically appropriate way. And project for developers who's moving 10 cubic yards out of the main Onusky River, it's a real hassle for them to be getting a permit also, and not just our road crews doing roadside work in the headwaters. So I guess I'm just, this felt very arbitrary to me, important, but arbitrary. And so I guess I would prefer to either make this extremely temporary, and then make it clear that we want to work on this, I guess next year at this point. I don't know that we have time, but ask them to maybe build some recommendations for how to re I mean, that's what would make me feel I could do this temporarily for the next year or two, while they develop recommendations that are science based around and looking at the effects on people who are actually going after permits for the river work. Could we add a study in here to get them to come up with recommendations that probably end up making a lot more sense for them and for us and for folks who are digging in river channels?

[Speaker 0]: Right. Which we got, we asked them, I asked them, have you ever scaled considered scaling this? And they hadn't, and I think they definitely got thinking about it. So we can circle back and see where they're at.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The the this you're talking about, and the the nonsatisfaction is with the 10 cubic yards number, not with the half square mile.

[Speaker 0]: Well, no. With both. But if it's a staffing issue, then, it's not ecologically based. And I think the point is that we've been using this 10 cubic yards for a very long time as a threshold for permitting in stream work. And is it is it what's driving that threshold? I mean, of it is it's, I think, very hard even for someone working on a stream to know how many cubic yards they're gonna disturb, so it's low on that end. But I I think it would be interesting to pursue what you just said, which is if this were more temporary and then we got recommendations back on, is there a different way of scaling our permitting in this area to ecological impacts rather than arbitrary capacity or volume threshold? Representative Tagliavia?

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: In hearing testimony, I don't recall with respect to this wording that they mentioned any distinct ecological damage that would refute their request to do this, and the 10 cubic yards that got brought up. Or I I if there was an issue with some of these small streams and the amount of disturbance, I think we would've heard it in testimony. I think we're beating a dead horse here. I like the wording just the way it is.

[Speaker 0]: Like, none of Austin.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I just I don't really know. I'm I'm working on trying to make a on a form informed opinion, but it's an area I don't know a lot about, but I just don't wanna take any risks with hurrying this up without making sure scientifically and ecologically it's safe to do or responsible.

[Speaker 0]: Well, would you represent Chittenden to kind of work on some leaving this language the way it is, but then work on

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: What I just suggested? Yep. Flushing that out.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: that would mean that would affect sections eleven, twelve, and 13. They all change that threshold for the different sections that they relate to. So moving on to page 14, section 14. This is in the stormwater section. And what this section does, what ANR is proposing is to remove stormwater impact fees for the three acre and for stormwater permits in general. You need a summary of what that means?

[Speaker 0]: I don't think so. We took a fair amount of testimony. Do folks need a summary? It seemed to me what we were hearing was that this was sort of too blunt of a tool or a miscellaneous bill that we should if we want to take it up, we need to do it differently. Other folks agree with that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm fine

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: taking it out just as it's written. And then take as you say, to proceed with this and then take it up any other more comprehensive change separately. This was the recommendation. I don't seem seem reasonable today.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: So we would have to do that through a committee bill. We could ask them back in to keep talking about it and flush it or have a side conversation about

[Speaker 0]: I'm sure you guys are talking about the same thing. I wanna make sure that

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I heard keep it, and I heard take it away.

[Speaker 0]: I I think that that's different entirely. I mean, I I I heard the folks who administer this coming in and saying they weren't even sure what the ramifications of this change would be at this time and that we would need more information to understand it fully. I in a miscellaneous bill, would be in support of taking it out. And if you're interested in revisiting that, that's a a different topic.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So who again, who was it that recommended this strikeout?

[Speaker 0]: Well, it it came as part of this administration bill, deputy secretary Kim.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Are you saying you're second guessing what he or he that he's somehow now second guessing what he was saying?

[Speaker 0]: I think he sent his his staff came in and said, there's a lot more here than we realized. That's what I heard. There might be a there, there, but we're not ready to just wholesale give up on this as the structure of

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: the program.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. And maybe one of us could just commit to communicating that to the deputy commissioner so that they know if they want to keep working on this with us, that they should come and talk with us about it. Do you have to take it up in a different

[Speaker 0]: Communicating that right now. Great.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So section 14 is being removed.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I disagree with moving it, but

[Speaker 0]: See?

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Does that mean some water feels so warm?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: In fact, it's K. That would get

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That takes you to page 17 line section 16. This is the changes to the concentrated animal feeding operation.

[Speaker 0]: Had a great orientation to current broader law at the very beginning first week with Michael and then get a fair amount of testimony on this. And, Michael, have you been asked to go into our ag committee on that language?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I, so there is a miscellaneous, two miscellaneous ag bills coming, one from the house, one from the senate. I can't remember which will have changes in it to the to the LFO program, And I expect I'll be brought in to talk about that and this, but I haven't received a direct request so far. I totally expect it, but yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Talking about the cowslash calf pair thing. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, and now we can get into the detail of that. Okay. So representative Chapin did follow-up. I don't know. Let you you wanna report on what you found.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, I had an exchange with edit of water quality regulation at the ag agency who let me know a little bit. The slash is how it is in EPA's regulations, and so they would prefer it remain with a slash. But if we were going to change it to a word, the appropriate word would be and because pair has to be both a cow and a calf. It cannot be a calf and a calf, and it cannot be two cows. So I wanted to just ask you, Michael, we need to change the slash because of rules or?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the slash is not allowed under our drafting manual. So, normally, we change it to an or. But if it should be and, then I understand that.

[Speaker 0]: Should change it to and.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. That's what I would request.

[Speaker 0]: Because, actually, this demonstrates that it's not clear to have a slash in statute.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Right.

[Speaker 0]: Because it's sort of as an and or. And which is it? And or or?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: They matter still longer. In this case, it should be an and.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This might not be helpful, but

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The the

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: statutory interpretation section that you can read the conjunctive as disjunctive and disjunctive as conjunctive.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I believe it.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Sounds like statute.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: You're correct.

[Speaker 0]: Make work for lawyers.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Just a comment on that. Would a dash be, like cow calf, cow dash calf, would that be better read if it's fair?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I still don't think it resolves the issue whether it's or or at. A way to get that point, perhaps.

[Speaker 0]: What's wrong with the and in your mind?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Just that it could be read as a cow pair and a calf pair.

[Speaker 0]: That

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: rather than the cow and the calf belong together.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But if you have the agency interpreting it, they'll interpret it as cow and calf pear. That's

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: would it be ever it's legally the best way to that one grows.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I know that the agency of ag regulatory lead was comfortable with cow and calf or leaving the slash. Okay. But an or would not make sense. Correct.

[Speaker 0]: K. Thanks. Thank you.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Seems small, but it's

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So that change would be made a couple of places, specifically under page 23.

[Speaker 0]: We started on page 17.

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

[Speaker 0]: And then here on page 23, it's again.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Why don't just moving through those sections. Section 17 is the when the CAFO discharge permit needs to be issued by ANR. That's bottom of page 15 page 19, line twenty, and twenty one. It had been 12/15/2025. They're asking for 09/01/2027.

[Speaker 0]: Alright, so I just got lost. I thought you that cow and calf needed to be changed in multiple places.

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

[Speaker 0]: And then did we skip those?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They're further on.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Oh, okay.

[Speaker 0]: You're just going to the next change. Yeah. And this is a change probably not from EPA, but from

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: this ANR secretary. I think this is both agencies, and I think EPA did review this language, but EPA probably didn't specifically request it.

[Speaker 0]: Where are we?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 19, line 21. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: A two year change. It's kind of a lot. Do we have them in on the Y event?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Who did you say requested that one?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This came from ANR in their proposal, but I believe the agency of ag reviewed, and I think EPA reviewed as well.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: EPA was pretty bad. It's done for us.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You know, I can't characterize, but I know that they reviewed the language.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Chapin?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think that the explanation for this was about the extensive stakeholder engagement that they're doing in advance of even drafting the permit rules and this sort of multi step process that they're doing in terms of stakeholder engagement and really wanting to So I think that's the explanation we got about this date change. That's true. Yeah. Still feels a little long to me. Yeah. I'd be more comfortable with 07/01/2027.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. I I'd say let's leave leave this the way it is for now. On

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 20, there is, an addition that gives the secretary of ANR discretion to require a CAFO permit. This is something that you know, remember I talked about residual designation authority. EPA and ANR have that authority to require a permit whenever this is kinda consistent with that type of authority. It may not be triggering any of the the previous thresholds, page twenty nine nine through 17, but it may be determined to require that permit because of the contribution it has to a water.

[Speaker 0]: I'm I'm not a big fan of that language. Oh. Why not?

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: I don't at the secretary's discretion, which secretary?

[Speaker 0]: It's a actually, yeah.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: The secretary now? I I don't like that language.

[Speaker 0]: Well, remember, it's it's worked out with the EPA on on standing up this program. It's required by the EPA? Yes.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: I I guess I'd like to see that then. I'd like to see that it's a requirement, the EPA. Where where could we get that information?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I can provide it. I I I think it's in two places. It's it's in what's called the residual designation authority. It's also, I believe, in the CAFO rules.

[Speaker 0]: It's authority that already exists under our agreement to administer the clean water.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The delegation agreement. Right?

[Speaker 0]: So it's already this is, like, letting folks reading this section of statute understand that this residual designation authority is something that the secretary can use, but it's also something they can use whether we put this language in or not.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's there's there's five permits that EPA has authority over, one of which is the CAFO permit. But then they have a six category of authorities called residual designation authority. Regardless of whether or not you meet with previous five, they can require you to get a permit if certain things are made, and one of which is you're contributing to a pollutant waste allocation for an impaired water, which is what this entire program is kind of looking at. Or if they determine you're just a significant contributor of a pollutant to a water, they can require you to get a permit. So that's RDA. But I think under the CAFO rules, the discretion is there for EPA anyway. I just need to confirm that.

[Speaker 0]: Discretion is there for EPA?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And then anybody that's delegated.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Delegated. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's why this is being requested to reflect the delegation and to true about the BPA's So who requested this this ANR at the request of BPA.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Is it re is it really the request, or is it a mandate?

[Speaker 0]: Depends how you wanna

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's six of one and half thousand of another.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: It's not to me.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It wouldn't it wouldn't lead to, like whenever there's a a discrepancy in the state authority, EPA will let the agency know. The agency will try to fix it, and sometimes they don't. If they don't fix it, then you're opening it up challenged by the advocates, and that's a whole other can't worm.

[Speaker 0]: Just where this whole conversation started. So we're Other thoughts on this? I

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: also had a conversation with Lori DiPietro, and she mentioned that this goes beyond what the EPA requests and even requires, that it's not in accordance with the EPA. So she asked me to argue heavily against that change to remove it.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I will I will look for it in the KFO rules.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. We can have it in. And yeah. K. Stay good. More to come.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on from there. Section 18, these are definitions in the ANR CAFO program. The first is clarifying when two or more individual farms or common ownership are con considered one for the purposes of permitting. Then you have a cow calf pair change that wasn't changed in the underlying bill, page 22, line 16. So that was four previously, but I think we'd make it an end. And then on page 23, you have, again, cow cap pairs by nine.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: What's an aquatic?

[Speaker 0]: Representative representative Pritchard.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: What's an aquatic facility again? What is that? What's that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Vulture, trout, fish, catfish.

[Speaker 0]: Rutland would be in there too. Right? Shrimp and shawl.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: They call it animal.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We had that discussion a long time ago. I didn't know if it was

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: like manatees or That's bad.

[Speaker 0]: Manatees? Yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So I thought fish.

[Speaker 0]: It's I

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: thought the shrimp were excluded because under the RAPs, the RAPs applied to cultured trout and didn't include

[Speaker 0]: You definitely refer to legislative council on this one.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But I can I can check on that as well?

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You got cow cat pairs in the top page 24. Again, it wasn't changed.

[Speaker 0]: I'm gonna have to do a search on that.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And it's in page 24, line 21. And then the next change is, the authority of the secretary of ANR, and via its section 19 page 27. Section thirteen fifty two and that. The. To establish technical standards and require a CAFO to comply with technical standards that are consistent with USDA nutrient management standards, vegetative buffers, and any other CAFO requirements that comply with the federal clean water act and enabling rules.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. You're on page twenty seven?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Twenty eight. Moving on from there.

[Speaker 0]: Representative North. Thank you, chair.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Did we take any testimony on that on that top section? Don't. Or where did that change originate? Do you know?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's ANR.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Anything specifically about that one?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I remember it. It was brief, but we didn't discuss it very much. What I remember is just still just API expense. It's management standing up. Yep.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Thank you. Yeah.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Oh, representative. Just there might be another piece that we'd like to hear from Laura on.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yep. That's right.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, just also yes. We can have them in on this for sure. And I asked to have the ag committee look at it. So we're not the we're not voting this out right now. We're working on it still. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That takes you to section 20, page 29. Again, this is still CAFO requirements, page 30, line seven and eight. It's that it ensure appropriate ag utilization of the nutrients from a norliter or process wastewater as specified in federal regulations and as determined by the secretary of natural resources. And then page 30, section 21 going on to page 31. This is in ANR's appeal authority. ANR has a default chapter for appealing an act or decision by the secretary. That current chapter referred to a memorandum of understanding that had previously existed between the two agencies. Remember last year, you changed that to a document that outlines a process for implementing enforcement of the two ag water quality programs, striking the reference to the MOU, including the reference to the document.

[Speaker 0]: Would you say that's, like, primarily because they wanted a new a new a new document? They didn't they wanted them to replace the memo or

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Adam of

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Under They wanted a and r to be clearly the entity that had authority over the Clean Water Act component of permitting. And when you looked at that MOU, there were questions about that. And so new document, not about an MOU. A and R clearly is the one that implements the Clean Water Act CAFO

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: is this the process that we're looking at now where it's moving over to ANR from the end?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You did that. The process began several years ago with the challenge to the program

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And the fact that what was alleged with the ANR was not complying with the Federal Clean Water Act because it was not permitting CAFOs and actual discharges. The advocates provided documentation of actual discharges. EPA determined that they weren't complying, and that led to this change. Yeah. That occurred primarily last year, but these are these are conforming amendments to an extent. And I think I said this last year, I'll say it again this year, you're gonna be coming back to this program for a couple of years to before everything gets resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: But most of this is driven by the EPA.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Most the whole process started because advocates challenged

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The implementation by ANR of the federal AFA permit or the federal Clean Water Act.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Just trying to understand, like, when we're dealing with the federal government, how it how it plays out. That's I'm just not questioning anything. I'm just trying to understand how this process of the federal government saying you need to do this and this is the process. So

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the federal government has its own Clean Water Act permitting statute and permitting rules. And if a state is not delegated, then EPA is the one that permits. And EPA can even permit in a delegated state. But when you're delegated, you're supposed to have a permit program that meets all of the requirements of EPA statute and rules. And to an extent we don't need to have all of the rules that EPA has for We're not farming catfish. We're we're not We don't have the huge pork farms. Know? You don't and and they're because there's different EPA rules for those different kinds of things. So what we need to comply with are the EPA rules for concentrated animal feeding operations for dairy and beef. And that's what this is trying to conform to.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So now you're moving out of CAFO. You're on page 31. You're line seven, section 22. This is that language that ANR requested amending the emergency rulemaking authority under the administrative procedure act. Bottom of page 32 going on to page 33. In addition to the grounds for emergency rulemaking, generally when there's going to be an exigent harm to public health, safety, welfare, In addition to that, an agency may adopt an emergency rule if an amendment to a federal statute rule or policy will materially conflict with or threaten the ability of the agency to implement a statutory or regulatory program required under Vermont law. But LCAR can still object to that proposed emergency rule. And then on page 33, lines seven through 10, you'll see that authority with sunset 07/01/2028. So I think representative Sheldon is the only person that's been on LCAR. And when you look at some of the agency's rules, there is significant amount of information or or requirements that that is incorporated by reference. For example, the state's air pollution control regulate regulations say this type of source needs to comply with the federal EPA regulations under 33 CFR or whatever it is. And if that was amended or repealed, that that would significantly affect the ability of Vermont to run its permit per So this gives the agency the ability to come forward with an emergency rule if that happened to have a temporary rule because emergency rules are temporary. They're only valid for ninety days. And then after the ninety days, the agency is supposed to either propose a final rule. They can they can ask for an extension of the emergency rule. But that's basically what you're allowing for, for them to continue to stand up their program even though their referenced requirements no longer exist.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. And again, I asked Chair Bayron to look at this language since it applies across all agencies.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: May ask the question? May. Thank you, Chair. I don't necessarily disagree with the change being added here. What I am concerned about is why the sunset? Why the sunset? I

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think there were just concerns and probably the agency's own anxiety that they didn't want this to continue on in perpetuity, that it needs to be reviewed. You know, that's one of the reasons you put sunsets in law to to make you come back and look in how it worked. Because if an agency really wants this or thinks it's necessary and there's a sunset, they will come back and advocate to you why it should continue. I I I think that's probably why the agency put that in to to, like, hey. Let's check back on how this is working and whether or not we need it or not.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Interesting. It happens to fall in 2028. Put that out there. I would be in favor of just eliminating the sunset. Let's just go forward. And we can always relook at something. If there's a need to specifically sunset in such a year.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Chapin.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I personally appreciate sunsets and I'm struggling with a program on the education side right now that didn't have one when it was put in about six years ago. I'm trying to encourage that committee to relook at a program that has really big impacts on high schools. And so I guess literally about five minutes have to go present that bill in education. And I just think sunsets are an important I think that forced look back, it's just too easy for future legislators to totally be on a different wavelength than advocates, unless there's somebody who really sees that. You have to work pretty hard to get this body sometimes to do something. So personally, I appreciate the look backs. I don't think we should do them all the time on every little thing, but this feels like putting rules in place before the public has a chance to comment is a big deal. And I personally think if we're removing public process, that should get looked at in a few years. And the data is sort of curious to me because it's actually before the administration changes. And so it feels less targeted at a certain administration. But I So anyway, I really believe in the even though it would be crazy if we did them all the time, this, because of the change in public process, feels like a worthwhile place to do one.

[Speaker 0]: Other comments? Representative Tagliavia.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: I agree. Representative North, we do look backs all the time. Doesn't need to be written this way. Somebody wants to look back, they write a bill. If it's favorable to the chair, they get to look back. That's just the way it works. In my short time here, I've learned that.

[Speaker 0]: Not voting on sections right now, so we will take the comments under advise. Go to the next section.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Next section is the last substantive section. It's the emissions repair program. When there was the requirement for inspection of emissions, were concerns that some low to moderate income individuals would not be able to pay for the repair of their emission systems, and there was created a program to help help provide assistance for them. The income eligibility requirements were set at the LIHEAP standards, which you can see on bottom of page 33. But the agency is proposing to move away from the LIHEAP standards and to go to specific standards and specific amounts for those who qualify under those standards. And I won't read through all of them, but you'll see what they are on page 30.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Pritchard and then Logan.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: What qualifies as a certain vehicle? Line 17 on page five. That just strikes me funny. Certain vehicles. Like

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. What It really should be vehicles that fail the onboard diagnostic systems inspection. Where what page in the Page 33, line 17.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: K.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's probably certain because it doesn't apply to vehicles unless you qualify for the eligibility requirements.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Logan? Well, that but Representative Pritchard.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: But I I mean, I I would think you'd want it to apply to passenger vehicles. Mean, I the OBD I I mean, it goes up 8,600 GVW, and and it's not specifying I mean, like, tractor fails, Emission test, does that is it not qualified for that?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Farm tractors are not motor vehicles.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: Where does it say motor

[Speaker 0]: vehicles? Three.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. It doesn't.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Line 17

[Speaker 0]: on page 34.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: 17.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's really the only place where it says motor vehicle.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: I I think that should be clarified.

[Speaker 0]: But farm tractors don't need to inspect it.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct.

[Speaker 0]: I mean, I don't know the other vehicles thinking of if there's others that do. But Well,

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: I mean, it's gonna encompass vehicles. I I it's gonna encompass vehicles up to, you know, dump trucks.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Dump truck motor vehicle?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yes. It is.

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: I mean, I think it was specifically targeted at helping lower income families, which I don't think are gonna be driving around GB you know, if it's a registered passenger car or you know, I I don't wanna be nitpicky, but I just I I don't think those folks are gonna be I just certain vehicles struck me funny. It's just Do you want me to a certain vehicle.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to reach out to the air pollution control division and have them clarify the scope of the program?

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: That's Well, some, you know, some of these folks will be driving vehicles. 1996, you you don't have to pass that. So some of these folks are gonna be driving older vehicles. So does that just Are they penalized because they're driving an older vehicle?

[Speaker 0]: It wouldn't be subject to onboard

[Representative Chris Pritchard (Member)]: diagnostic systems. Still have an emissions failure.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan? Is this under our jurisdiction, this program?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, it's air quality.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: It's air quality? Okay. So I guess in direct response to my colleague, I don't think that we're being asked to comment on the program itself. But clarification of what a motor vehicle means is fine and who actually benefits from it is fine. But my comment is more that implementing a certification process for this program rather than using another program that has staff to complete the income certification for the program is duplicative and wasteful policy. We already have staff at the Department of Children and Families who spend hundreds of hours every year certifying families for by income for eligibility for the LIHEAP program. And now we're gonna duplicate that staffing structure in another agency and waste taxpayer money so we can save a thousand bucks. It just actually costs about a thousand dollars to do an income certification for a family to be eligible for a program. So this seems completely ludicrous. I'm just I can't be any less blunt about it.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Sounds like another thing that we need to dig into. Final thoughts or questions? Representative North.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. The testimony that we took specifically on this program was very eye opening to me in that it was only about 5% efficient. Out of the $100,000 spent, only 5,000 actually went to Vermonters to help them. To me, that level of efficiency in the government program is just exemplary of over bureaucratizing things. Me, it seems like we gotta just repeal the whole thing. That's just my 2¢.

[Speaker 0]: I'm gonna ask for you and rep Logan to follow through on this section. That would be great. Thank you. We're already working together. I know. That's why I thought How long? Yeah. Representative Tagliavia.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: Since we have and I don't know the exact number, but I think there are at least five bills relating to inspection, vehicle inspections, can't this whole section wait until after that's flushed out because maybe we're just wasting more taxpayer dollars and time because the inspection process sounds like it's finally going to be getting some streamlining that it's long overdue.

[Speaker 0]: You must be referring to bills in our Transportation Committee? Yes. So, I haven't been following those.

[Representative Mike Tagliavia (Member)]: There are at least four House bills and one Senate bill.

[Speaker 0]: May be part of a follow-up on this, is figuring out where our transportation committee is. I actually I made a note that we need to reach out to the transportation committee on this as well. Logan.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Quick question. Who should we reach out

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: to to learn more about this?

[Speaker 0]: Well, we heard who did did we heard from, the air quality division. So I would circle back with the Wittenden.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I think Heidi Hales is still the director, and

[Speaker 0]: We can connect you back to that person. Also the transportation committee. Great. Thank you, Michael. Thanks.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you. We're

[Speaker 0]: oh. Sure. Yeah. Like, five minutes. I wanna make sure we have five minutes for a break.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So I'll speak to you know about the governor's executive order, and you know how the secretary of natural resources has determined that in order to implement that, he needs the agency needs to go to rulemaking. They have proposed a draft rule. What they have proposed in order to implement the governor's executive order is to include as an allowed use the construction of residential housing projects and related required utilities that are located in one of these designated areas. Then certain unmapped wetlands, capacity wetlands will not be considered wetland and would not require a permit. And then the buffer in a class two mapped wetland would be reduced. So that's what the rule is proposing, what the language that's on. Think cap I I hope they sent it to Kat soon enough that it went up.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Yep. It's And

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: so that language, it's it's draft legislative or statutory changes that would repeal the authority of ANR to adopt by rule, adopt allowed uses by rule. And it would move all of the existing allowed uses into statute. And therefore, the current permitting program underneath allowed uses wouldn't change, but there wouldn't be the ability for the agency to add additional allowed uses, including for residential housing through rule.

[Speaker 0]: So, I asked Michael to draft this language, and what I don't want to do right now is walk through it in detail, although it's interesting. I recommend you look at it. There are a lot of existing allowed uses in mostly the buffers around Class II wetland. And it's one option to clarify statutory intent around the protection of our wetland that I would like the committee to think about, and then we'll talk about at the appropriate time. So with that Sorry.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Where can we see this information?

[Speaker 0]: It's under Michael O'Grady on today's on the web page. With that, we will take a break until 10:30 when we