Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Morning, members. We're on to 10AM agenda. We have before us Vermont Citizens Advisory Committee on Lake Champlain's future. Could you please introduce yourself?

[Carina Daley]: Yes. Good morning. My name is Carina Daley. I am the chair of the Vermont Citizens Advisory Committee on Lake Champlain's future. I live in Jericho, Vermont, and I am the environmental scientist representative on the committee. And we have with us three other members online and one in person. And the goal today is to introduce you to the Lake Champlain Action Plan for 2026, which I have put in front of you as a document. And I'm going to give a brief overview on the committee and our charge, and then I'm gonna pass it along to other members of the committee to share their expertise on certain priorities within our action plan. So who we are? We are a 14 member committee, Citizens Advisory Committee, composed of 10 Vermont citizens made up from diverse representation, both geographically across the Lake Champaign Watershed and representatives from industry, science, advocacy, and really across the board. And then we also have two state senators and two state representatives. We were created in 1989, and our legislative charge was to basically serve as a liaison for issues regarding Lake Champlain to the public. So we learn about those issues in our committee. We meet monthly and then prioritize those issues and comprise the Lake Champlain action plan, which we present to the general assembly on an annual basis. Our issues focus on water quality, wildlife habitat, flood resilience, and human connection to the landscape, so public access. What else? Yes, we have So in addition to the Vermont CAC, there is also a New York CAC and a Quebec CAC. So it's really designed as a citizen body surrounding the whole lake to guide the lake itself. And I also want to say that although these issues are focused on Lake Champlain here today, I think a lot of these issues are representative to other watersheds across the state. So I recognize that many of you are not within the Lake Champlain Basin watershed, and that's okay because I think the issues really transcend those watersheds. So it's really just to share those issues with people and learn about them. And I will say that Lake Champlain Basin does comprise more than 50% of Vermont, the watershed itself. So it's a really big watershed in the state. So it sometimes may feel distant here in Montpelier, but we flow directly to Lake Champlain. So with that, I will pass it over to Breck Bowden to introduce our first priority, which is flood resilience. Brett, you're muted.

[Breck Bowden]: Yep. Thank you. Can you hear me now?

[Carina Daley]: Yep.

[Breck Bowden]: Great. Thanks for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. My name is Brett Bowden, and I, I regret that I can't be with you in person today. I'm a retired professor of watershed science and planning from the University of Vermont, and I was director of the Lake Champlain Sea Grant, a NOAA funded program that focuses on improving the health and the environment and economy of Lake Champlain. I'm a member of the Vermont Citizens Advisory Committee from Burlington. I'd like to guide you through the first of our four top priorities to advance flood mitigation and climate resilience. You can find this priority starting at the bottom of page two on our action plan. As you know, Lake Champlain is a large lake, but the land area that drains into it, its watershed is much larger. In fact, unusually so. Thus, any large scale activities on land eventually affect Lake Champlain. This can be a challenge, but it can also be an opportunity. Over history, our activities on land have severely stressed the lake. Compounding these challenges, more recent climate changes, multiplying the stresses on the lake. In the last fifteen years, the Lake Champlain Basin has been impacted by all 25 declared FEMA disaster events. In fact, during that period, Vermont experienced the seventh highest number of disasters in the country. This includes the multiple floods that we faced in 2023 and '24. And then more recently this year, the basin experienced severe drought and record setting low lake levels. As the frequency and severity of extreme weather events like these increase, swift action and investments are needed to ensure our communities, environment, and economy are more resilient to climate change impacts. While these are daunting challenges, management of our land activities and landscape characteristics also present important opportunities. Paraphrasing our action plan slightly, we suggest five high level that will help address flooding impact. First, restore and conserve headwaters, river corridors, floodplains, wetlands, soils, and riparian buffers. Second, invest in our agency staff and empower them to work across agencies and outside organizations. Third, support funding for research and implementation that will restore natural stream processes that will keep Lake Champlain healthy. Fourth, invest in sustainable agriculture, forest, and working lands initiatives that reduce phosphorus runoff to our waters. And finally, in public and private infrastructure to meet modern standards and withstand future flooding. Let me focus briefly on just two examples that may relate to deliberations in your committee. As one example, agriculture agriculture often comes under fire as a source of problems that threaten Lake Champlain, particularly for losses of sediment and phosphorus from farm fields, which may ultimately create harmful cyanobacterial blooms in Lake Champlain. But farmers are concerned about water quality too and wanna minimize these losses as well. The erosion of nutrient rich soil is a significant economic loss for farmers and spreading manure that has been diluted with rainwater on wet fields presents serious operational problems. So programs and practices that help farmers reduce soil and nutrient loss would be welcomed by everyone. State funding to support these programs and implement these practices is essential to sustain our vibrant local farm economy and to reach our climate and water quality goals. This need has become more urgent because of reduced federal support. Our committee thinks that the Farm Security Act S 60 passed by the Senate last year is a good way forward. The Farm and Forestry Operations Security Fund created by this bill would help farmers recover from weather disasters like floods and droughts and in doing so, would help to protect Lake Champlain. As a second example, let's consider the transportation sector. There's ample evidence that nature based solutions are cost effective measures that mitigate the multiplicative effects of infrastructure development and climate change. Examples include efforts to rightsize culverts and bridges, dam removal to restore aquatic organism passage, and flood restoration to increase flood resilience and public safety. These are often complex projects that require substantial funding and collaboration among state agencies, local organizations, and communities. Investments in these approaches would help to address several of the opportunities that we identify in this flooding priority area. A good example is H467, currently in the House Transportation Committee which would require the agency of transportation to help municipalities upgrade infrastructure, improve stormwater management, develop a system to track flood response equipment across the state, and procure equipment to remove debris that would otherwise get into rivers and eventually into Lake Champlain. As you deliberate on these and other bills, we encourage you to consider the strategies enumerated in Vermont's resilience implementation strategy. Any bills that advance these strategies would advance our action plan to help protect Lake Champlain. Thanks for your attention to this first priority to our plan, and I'll now pass the floor over to Bob Fisher, who'll address our water contaminants priority.

[Bob Fisher]: Hello, I am Bob Fisher. I am the water quality superintendent for the city of South Burlington, and I am from Barrie. I have raised my family. I have four Spaulding graduates, three UVM graduates. The oldest is a doctor at Dartmouth and a University of York graduate. I owe a lot of money on Parent Plus Loans. Regardless, I am here to represent the municipality somewhat. I'm here to speak on contaminants, especially chloride, I see us fell on the same exact path as phosphorus. You know, I run a large wastewater facilities except for this is going to impact a lot more people. When we put a lot of phosphorus things on, in fact, wastewater, some farms, etcetera. But this will be something really we'll see. There are five impacted streams already. I was a former federal fishery biologist many years ago. They are already reaching critical levels for the macroinvertebrates. EPA will step in. There will be a TMDL like on Sunnybrook. You could stop putting salt down now. It's all legacy salt even just like phosphorus. It's gonna continue to go up. I'm mostly here to ring the bell to say that you're not really here to advance things. New Hampshire has a program. A lot of it is private salt. You know, if you own a mall, you fall, break your leg, they sue you. You know, you want to New Hampshire does have a program where they the state takes on some of the liability if you go through a training. But mostly used to say that, you know, it's getting very salty out there and and Colchester would have Sunnybrook in it. Mhmm. Same as South Burlington has too. You know, I'm not saying just to stop salt. I am also a Killington freestyle coach for twenty six years or I have one in the Olympics this year and I had two in the previous. I drive one zero seven down to Killington every Saturday and Sunday except for during Irene when for twenty six years. So, you know, I see the value of not crashing into people. Nonetheless, my first house was in Lake Tahoe where I lived out west for twelve years, and you could see an eastern car from a mile away, which was mine, generally, because it had rust all over it. So just putting that out there that it's coming, you've got to do something, can't just stick your head in this hand. Beyond that, I would mention PFAS. I run the two wastewater facilities. We provide a 5% mix with our biosolids. I tie air quality and water quality together. I basically put out drinking water and when the when the, when lieutenant governor did a tour, I drank the effluent, which I probably do, and I would recommend that. Nonetheless, it is basically drinking water. We're putting back into the river. When the river turns chocolate, it's just a lot of money. This is gone. Now, where since I'm putting out point oh 3% of the flow. Nonetheless, I'm very proud of my staff and all that we do. We put out point o four phosphorus from both facilities last year. That's about equal to maybe 10 failed houses of septic systems. That's 24,000 people we take in Colchester also. You got every American male is the average American male poops about one pound a day. Female are about the same but they're slightly smaller. You have to about one hundred and eighty six pounds. I'm probably quite a bit above that. And it's gotta go somewhere. So currently you know your options are landfilling but Burlington goes to Chateaugay but they're going to close that down. At the moment, like I'm saying, I go up 5% mix. I go five miles down the road to ECI. We trust every thousand yards. The trans uses it as a fertilizer. On roadways, it doesn't go anywhere near people and we've never had a hit above background levels. So it's less, you know, it's equal or less than normal soil background levels. And you can stop, but then I'll have to haul it all the way to Coventry or somewhere, huge greenhouse gases. You'll have to pull in phosphorus from trains on Canada or somewhere. You still gotta grow the grass and stuff at a parking ride or an airport. So that's another one of my stakes. And we have limited time, so I will move on to our next person, which would be

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I believe it's.

[Andrew Milligan]: I believe that is me.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. Andrew. Okay. Go

[Carina Daley]: ahead, Andrew.

[Andrew Milligan]: Okay, thank you. Hi, my name is Andrew Milligan. I am a member, citizen member of the CAC from Charlotte. I'm an ecologist, with recently retired from a more than thirty year career with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. And I am going to talk a little bit about our priority related to aquatic invasive species or AIS. As I think you probably know, AIS are a significant threat to Lake Champlain as well as to other water bodies in Vermont. AIS impact native species, aquatic ecosystem integrity, recreation, water quality, infrastructure, and ultimately property values. And once AIS or aquatic invasive species are present in the lake, as you can imagine, they're very difficult to remove and very costly to manage. So it's really important that we try to prevent them from getting in to begin with. And that spread prevention relies on early detection of species and the pathways in which they are coming in, rapid response, with partners to all new threats, and a really widespread public education program to make sure that users of the lake and neighbors to the lake are aware of the AIS issue and what they can do to help prevent their introduction. Lake Champlain currently has 51 documented aquatic invasive species. And while that may sound like a pretty high number, our neighbors, neighboring water bodies have even higher numbers. The Hudson River now has 122 documented aquatic invasive species, and the Great Lakes tops them all with 184 documented aquatic invasive species. So, and just a little bit more detail, in Lake Sham, the breakdown of those 51 aquatic invasive species is, 13 of those are plants, 36 of those are animals, and that includes invertebrates, and two of them are pathogens. And I'm happy to break that down even further if you're interested. Just to give you an example of the pathways of introduction of aquatic invasive species, I'll talk to you about the recent round goby that has become a threat to enter Lake Champlain. It's a species that was introduced from Eurasia through ships that came into the Great Lakes and then discharged their ballast water into the Great Lakes. And from the Great Lakes, the, round Gobi migrated through the Erie Canal, down the Mohawk River, and now to the Hudson River where it's in the vicinity of the lower locks from the Hudson into the Champlain Canal. So it's right knocking at the door as it were, to the to Lake Champlain. It has not reached the locks in the Champlain Canal where it, is in the Lake Champlain watershed yet. So there's a huge effort to try to prevent that from happening. One thing that's also happened with the round goby, I think it's the first species where, we've been able to use environmental DNA or eDNA to actually track the progress of the species. And you can do that simply through water sampling. And that has really introduced this new approach of using water sampling in the lake to really understand the distribution and presence of other aquatic invasive species. So, to address this, Vermont really should continue to increase its investment in consistent staffing and funding for its aquatic invasive species programs, including for management and for monitoring, boat launch stewards at all of the key boat launch stations, boat wash stations, and making sure that we are able to complement and influence the cooperative work underway in New York and Quebec. The state should also consider a new funding source involving a mandatory boat decal program for motorized and non motorized vessels. This is similar to programs in Maine and New Hampshire that have been implemented. A mandatory watercraft inspection and certification program, and comprehensive watercraft decontaminous decontamination stations, placed around the state, including high profile stations at key access points. And Vermont really needs to keep up its strong partnership and advocacy with New York and Quebec for the management of the canal systems, which are the major entry point for AIS into Lake Champlain. And finally, we encourage, we think that, VTrans should be encouraged to partner with Vermont DEC and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, as well as the Lake Champlain Basin program to strategically locate decontaminant decontamination stations on roadsides throughout the state, really make it a much more visible program that, gets our residents and visitors aware of, and helping to address this issue. And with that, I will pass it to Lori Fisher to talk more about expanding equitable public access and recreation.

[Lori Fisher]: Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Lake Champlain Citizens Advisory Committee, and apologies for not being able to join you in person. My name is Laurie Fisher. I'm a CAC member from Williston, having served on the CAC for several decades, and I'm the recently retired executive director of the Lake Champlain Committee, a nonprofit dedicated to lake protection and stewardship. The Vermont CAC views investment in recreational access to Lake Champlain as essential to stewardship, equity, and the lake's long term health. Access is both a matter of geography and equity, where access exists on the landscape and who is able to use it. People protect what they know, and they can only know what they can reach. When Vermonters can walk a shoreline, paddle, fish, or swim, Lake Champlain becomes personal, and that lived experience builds care, responsibility, and long term public support for clean water. Equitable access to the lake is also critical to Vermont's economy. Outdoor recreation accounts for roughly 5% of Vermont's gross domestic product. That's second only to Hawaii and continues to grow. Sustaining investment in recreational access to places like Lake Champlain while also expanding non motorized and low barrier shoreline opportunities supports Vermont's outdoor recreation economy, reduces user conflicts, broadens participation, and strengthens stewardship. Lake access in Vermont is managed by multiple state entities, including, Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Recreation, each with different mandates and funding structures. Vermont Fish and Wildlife in protect particular is funded through a combination of federal dollars, the state general fund, and department generated revenues such as fishing and hunting licenses and boat registrations. Because a significant share of both federal funding and license revenue is tied to motorized and traditional uses such as hunting and fishing, this structure has understandably influenced how access sites are designed, managed, and prioritized. At the same time, license sales have declined and lifetime licenses have reduced annual revenue even as recreational use of the lake has increased and diversified and management responsibilities have expanded beyond what those traditional funding sources were intended to support. Access must also be truly accessible. Cost should not be a barrier, and access should not depend on owning a car or a boat. Walkable and bikeable access points, free or reduced fee options, and simple shoreline facilities are essential if all Vermonters across income levels, ages, and abilities are to build lasting connections to our waterways. Geography matters as well. While there are multiple Vermont state parks along the northern and central portions of Lake Champlain, the South Lake, and that's the, the portion of the lake below the Champlain Bridge, has no Vermont state park. Although this is a more rural region, the people who live there still need reliable public ways to access the water. Addressing this gap is critical to achieving equitable stewardship across the entire lake. If we want a cleaner, healthier Lake Champlain, we must ensure that people can experience it firsthand. Stewardship begins with access, and access requires intentional ongoing investment. Thank you.

[Carina Daley]: Thank you. And I'll just close. I did want to direct your attention to the Venn diagram on the front of the action plan, which I really think highlights the complexity and interconnected issues that face Lake Champlain. And I think it's a really good description. And I also wanted you to see on the second page in the dark blue here, this column, these are all of the other The ideas and priorities in this action plan are not new. And a lot of these ideas have been identified in the past and have been topics of our action plan in the and they align with many other planning documents within the state. And those documents include the Vermont Conservation Design, the State Wildlife Action Plan, Vermont's Climate Action Plan, and the Governor's Resilience Implementation Strategy, and Lake Champlain's Opportunities for Actions. I also passed out I didn't have enough copies for all of you, so I apologize and please share, and I'm happy I will deliver some more later today. But the State of the Lake report from the Lake Champlain Basin Program for 2024. So that's an additional document and has a lot of really great resources in that as well. So that came up as far as questions and other testimony last week. So I wanted to share that. But thank you so much for your time and happy to answer any questions if there's not.

[Bob Fisher]: Okay. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I I thank you so much. I haven't been able to sleep knowing you guys are coming into testimony. It's so exciting. Thank you. So I live in Colchester. I live right on the Bay, and I've just seen a huge increase of moorings kind of spreading out through the Bay. And I know that's not your jurisdiction, but just wondering what your thoughts are and if you're concerned as I am.

[Carina Daley]: I think that's a really good point, and thank you for bringing it to our attention. I wonder if any, I know both Breck and Andrew have boats on the lake. I don't know if you guys have, can share anything about the increase in moorings on

[Bob Fisher]: the lake. Obviously there's weight boat issues.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. And there's weight boat. Yeah. I was going ask if you want go next.

[Breck Bowden]: Yeah. I will mention that the town of Colchester did a carrying capacity study, but it was I think several decades ago and that has not been revisited. So, I I think it would be valuable if a new assessment was was done. I'm I'm not aware of an increase in the number of of moorings there. I I know that one of the marinas extended it it's number of slips and there was a replacement of an of a a lot of moorings that were in front of the old ISS club if you if you recall. But I I think some of the to me, some of the greater concerns are some of the are the shoreline development that's likely to occur as a consequence of the new sewer line that went in there. And as Bob mentioned, the increase in the use of wake boats and the impacts of that on shoreline. I don't want to dismiss the moorings question. I think that that's a question that ought to be revisited. What is the carrying capacity for the for the bay?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And just on the way for it, I noticed I was reading something with it. There was a public comment opportunity, and they weren't calling it wake boating anymore. It was like kind of water or activities. There's a new name because there's so many. I feel that it's new activities besides wakeboats on the lake. I one of the things I noticed was that they all they have to be clean, cleansed. And I was wondering if that's a different type of cleansing than all boats need to be cleansed with? That come into, let's say, Mallis Bay or a new body of water? Or do is that the same thing?

[Breck Bowden]: My understanding is that's the same thing if if as the is done by the stewards at at the boat launch locations. But if someone else has more information, please add.

[Andrew Milligan]: I'll just add that, I think it is the same program, but I think it also points out a real issue, which is it's not just the introduction of AIS into Lake Champlain. It's the 51 species in Lake Champlain being spread to other water bodies where those boats go after they are in Lake Champlain. And so those station boat wash stations are really critical, sometimes more so for the boats coming out of the lake than as well as those going into the lake, because that that can be a real problem.

[Carina Daley]: And I also we had someone from the responsible wakes Vermont lakes present to the CAC. And in that presentation, we learned that the ballast water from wake boats really is hard to empty entirely. That water that is once the ballast is filled, it's really hard to decontaminate that. So that is another added risk with the wake boats. It's interesting you've mentioned the new name, so I'll look into that because I Representative

[Speaker 0]: of Tagliavia Fields. Is there any research, or does anybody know about something that could be added to the residual water in those weight boats to decontaminate something like peroxide? That

[Carina Daley]: is a really great question. Good idea. I have not heard of anything. Obviously. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I don't want more chloride, but peroxide. Yeah. Possibly. Has

[Carina Daley]: anyone else heard of anything related to that? I had not.

[Andrew Milligan]: I'm not aware, but we will absolutely follow-up and let you know.

[Lori Fisher]: Yeah. Yeah. I'm not aware either. I do know that in terms of the wash stations, having, high powered and hot water is is really critical, and those are the most effective decontamination stations. And what we have now, there's a dramatic range, from garden hose to those high powered stations.

[Speaker 0]: Just to follow on, the reason I brought up an oxidizing liquid was maybe just to be able to pour a certain amount in and let it slosh around to get into the hard to reach areas. That's the only reason I brought it up. Representative Pritchard. Yeah.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: So thanks for your presentation. So I'm looking at your handout here, and I just have a question on the south end of the lake because that's that's in my area. It looks you know, it talks about, I know the Meadoway and the and the Pulte, so that that's the main feed on that end down by Whitehall. And I'm looking at the phosphorus and it looks like this trend was from '91 till present. That's thirty years and there's no change. That's a heavy ag area, which really are we not testing that water? And I think that would be be crucial. And if and if we are testing that water over this thirty year thing, really makes me question. I really wonder how much phosphorus is is created in that area. I mean, out of all the places, for maybe moving up towards Orwell and Benson, which is still in this area, It's heavy ag. And, you know, in a lot of testimony I've seen, you know, farmers are questioning ag's the problem. We've got a thirty year trend here that shows nothing. Shows it show. And it shows things are good all the way through. So my question is, that input being tested? Has that been tested? Because it's a little contradictory on page if you go from page five to page 15.

[Bob Fisher]: So I would off the cuff say that that would be a Vermont DEC question because obviously we don't do the testing. And once again, this would be somewhat of a guess is that it was sort of it could be somewhat related to the success of wastewater in the last, you know, once the limits came in, 8565% of the phosphorus going in like Champlain and the 85 was from wastewater plants. Now, it's 3%. There really isn't much down there.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: But wastewater is irrelevant in this section That's that's

[Bob Fisher]: what I'm that's what I'm saying. May have seen the reductions to the other place. A lot of that driven by the wastewater reductions. While there is very little wastewater introduction here. I mean, I'm not saying for sure but I can say that's gone, you know, the study from three, it's three to 4% of the input is from wastewater now. It was 65% in 1985. There probably was very little wastewater impact or so. Once again, you'd have to talk to DEC and their scientists.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: The reason it stood out to me was because, you know, if it if this was a six or seven year trend, I could maybe accept that because this phosphorus removal is is is you know, the action that's put in has has changed that. But thirty years, it really makes me question the severity of it, at least down in that that neck of the woods.

[Breck Bowden]: Could could I just make a a comment? Just with respect to if if it's being measured, it it it is. So that whole part of the lake has been monitored. That's why we why we have this data available. Just to be clear, are you looking at figure seven in the state of the lake report? Is that

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: I'm I'm on page Five. I'm on page five under clean water and it breaks down Missisquoi Bay, Malice Bay, Main Lake, and South Lake, which would be, you know, South Bay and Whitehall, New York up through Benson Landing, through air, I mean, Orwell, it's all it's all the narrows of the plate.

[Breck Bowden]: Unfortunately, I'm looking at an online version of of this. I'm not sure we're looking at the same the same thing, but I would draw your attention to figure seven in the state of the lake. It's within the clean water within the nutrients section, and it it shows an image of the lake with a whole bunch of grass around the around the sides. And I see South Lake B on there, and and you'll you'll notice that there is a dotted line on all of those graphs. That dotted line is is the TMDL level, and and you'll see that in recent years that the South Lake is peaking up above that that level. So there are concerns about phosphorus getting into the the South Lake area and that it is above what the TMDL recommended levels are. So, it to answer to one of your questions, phosphorus in the lake and phosphorus in the tributaries coming into the lake has been monitored over those thirty year period of time. The reason that it is reasonably flat or a reason that it is reasonably flat may be that we are implementing agricultural practices that are intended to control phosphorus to the lake. So, maybe that's good news but the fact that it's still peaking up above that dotted line And so we have those orange peaks in there every once in a while, suggest that we still have work to do to bring phosphorus down.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. But

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: seeing this, it it it kinda contradicts itself in a way that this report, and I would just say that again, this is a thirty year snapshot. Is that not true?

[Breck Bowden]: Yes. It is.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. I do wonder if that's why the EPA became involved. I haven't been in a committee long, but I'm wondering if that's why the EPA got involved and insisted that GAAG not be regulated by agriculture, but by the ANR. Does anybody know if that was an issue because of the phosphorus in the Southern Lake? Do you know?

[Carina Daley]: Yes, I definitely think that that is why. We're looking at the CAFO permit now for concentrated animal feeding. Certainly, the condition of the lake has been an issue, and ag is one of many sectors that are contributing to the problem. So we're working on how best to manage those discharges.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I just thought it was a very bold move to move it over to a and I, and I was thinking that there's somewhere an issue that's not getting resolved. And when you look at, you know, charts, it is at and I'm not blaming anybody. It's just, you know, best practices, you know, definitely need to be implemented. Right. And we

[Carina Daley]: we I should mention who's on our committee who's not here today is Hillary Salmon from the Pulte Mei Meteowee Conservation District, and she could give you a laundry list of all the good things they're doing down on in that part of LA.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Oh, I'm aware of Okay.

[Bob Fisher]: She's done great work.

[Carina Daley]: That's great.

[Bob Fisher]: Yep. I would just like to say that it's all of us. It's not just that.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: That's for sure.

[Bob Fisher]: It's all of us. Many inputs, many sources. And sure we all need work, but ag, you know, I want a a Vermont of concentrated urban areas with farms and you know, around us. I don't want New Jersey with sprawl everywhere.

[Rep. Rob North]: Mhmm.

[Bob Fisher]: And I continue to see that. 55% of Vermont are on weight are on septic. That's the highest in the nation by percentage. And it keeps going up. Because a lot of people aren't building in. They're building these giant big mansions up on a septic tank. Well, that all goes to wastewater plants. 99. 3%. I think they're in a closed last field. 100% go to the wastewater plant. So, it's their problem too. You can be like, oh, I'm not involved but you know, I can put filters on all sorts of things. We continue and improve our treatment. We put a very good treatment but if you're on septic, you're basically just, you know, poke the soil. That's That's it. Hopefully, you got good soil and it's not a failed system. Very quickly, a late Lake George, who had money. That's the first time I've heard of this. They did a survey of their all the septic tanks along the lake. By standards, I haven't seen this since the eighties, 10 to 15% are failing by federal standards. 53% failed on the initial time through. These are all extremely expensive houses. A lot of them pretty new right on the Lake George short run. 53% fail. So, I mean, mallet space sure is a very good thing Mhmm. Even if it is coming to my facilities, which

[Lori Fisher]: Thank you very

[Speaker 0]: much. Representative North and Pritchard.

[Rep. Rob North]: Thank you, chair. Bob, I have a quick question for you about the municipal wastewater facilities. Thanks for the good work you're doing. Thanks for getting the phosphorus from 65% down to 4% in terms of the the CMBL. Question about what all contaminants do you test for, though? Clearly, you're testing for phosphorus, but what else? PFAS, I'm sure. Right?

[Bob Fisher]: Yes. We test for a a real large suite of tests. We do the five zero three metals for all the bile solids. We do nitrite nitrate, phosphorus, E. Coli. It's a fairly broad arsenic, cyanide. It's a fairly broad list. Can I ask about the specifics about chloride? It's a good question. We I'm not the lab person. I don't think we do, but I could get back to you.

[Rep. Rob North]: That's a problem. A lot of wastewater comes through the facilities that come off the streets and whatnot in in urban areas.

[Bob Fisher]: Not so much in South But yes. Because we are not a combined system in cell phones. We're very lucky that I was the chief operator in Montpelier for ten years prior to 2015. And, yes, that is a correct statement. No. Because it's a newer system, we are we don't have Particular system. Yes. My particular system. We're we don't have CSOs and we have we were the first stormwater. So, we have a separate system. Right. So, most of that is not but we still have an I I and I. Well, when we had the huge drought here, you know, four, three months ago, four months ago, that was the best I and I study I've ever seen in my life. Every wastewater facility in the state now knows what their wastewater flows are. I mean, lot of them don't have the money for the engineering, etcetera, but there's the numbers right there. We saw flows from the nineties and, know, cell protein's got a little bigger since the nineties. So we still have flow coming in from rain and infiltration inflow. But it was a really not a good thing, but it was a good thing for data.

[Rep. Rob North]: Yeah. Or is it a good thing

[Bob Fisher]: to test for? It would and we may and I'm sorry, I'll get back to

[Rep. Rob North]: you then. Yeah. What about pharmaceuticals?

[Bob Fisher]: So, that's a hit and miss. They have gone through. We have worked with UVM. I'm actually giving a UVM tour at 10:30. 11:30. Hopefully, I have to start without me. And they had the state had it has gone through and done a few a few rounds of that. I know it was even interesting that you could actually see the fit that the there was less cop wastewater plants take about 90% of coffee as it goes through but because UVM so many people drink coffee that it actually can see it drop in the bay as the as the school's out. I wonder if the fish are getting all jittery. Yeah. Such a joke.

[Rep. Rob North]: No, I've just I've just heard from a tour at the Middlebury facility. Yep.

[Bob Fisher]: I used to work there in 2002.

[Rep. Rob North]: When they empty septic tanks, when you empty a septic tank of somebody who's been on cancer treatments, your septic system is dead. I've seen ones full of needles. Yep.

[Bob Fisher]: I, anyway, I try to resist taking as much as I can. Many of them like Montpelier, they need that revenue. Richmond especially needs the revenue of taking in Septage. But if I was on a septic tank, I'd be concerned because as our limits go down, the first thing I'm gonna cut off is that I the citizens of South Burlington should not have to pay increased cost for we don't have septic tanks, hardly. Why if we, you know, we've taken something that puts us over one of our limits, that that's poor stewardship on my part for the citizens. So it become it's becoming more and more limited where it go.

[Rep. Rob North]: Pharmaceuticals kinda hit and miss about pesticides.

[Bob Fisher]: Pesticides. I know we've done rounded that. I don't think that we routinely test for that at all, that I know.

[Rep. Rob North]: It's a quick use of some.

[Bob Fisher]: Yes. You could there can always be increased. And and testings each like we do our whole effluent toxicity testing. That's decreased now to twice a year. So you basically, you know, see how it affects the river. There's there's a lot of tests that I would think about that we do right now. Appendix J, it's a whole bunch of grease, oils.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Sorry, not the lab person. Sorry. Thanks, Bob. Pritchard.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Representative Pritchard. Yeah. So I'm still hung up on this little graphic here. So I'm looking at, one of the things that we've discussed is legacy phosphorus So trying to understand what is legacy and what is It's pretty hard time. Yeah. It's pretty hard. But if you look at again, if you Breck, as a if I'm looking at this correct, there are precipitous drops in phosphorus, huge drops in phosphorus on the chart that you show. In 1990, from '90 to 2000, the phosphorus levels decreased. There was a little uptick, they decreased again. There was a little uptick. And from 2000 to almost 2020, there was no it it was below those levels. So I'm trying to think what what causes.

[Bob Fisher]: Well, I I can't I don't I don't want to speak for Brett is actually more of an expert and so would Andre on this but don't storms. I've seen we've had the presentation maintenance. You've gotten some of the large storms. We've gotten a quarter of our our two or more of the total day yearly flow in a day or two.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: So, it's certainly increase those levels. Yeah.

[Bob Fisher]: So, as the storm, that also tears the port, tears up the legacy, you know, the stuff that's in the dirt and everything. So, as the storm so that's I always say, you know, once again, the river turns brown. I do a lot of work and it's but the storm intensity seem to have increased somewhat and that some of a lot of the loadings come in large chunks at once. Sorry, go ahead.

[Breck Bowden]: The ups and downs that you're seeing in these graphs, in all of these graphs is a consequence of the annual conditions of of flow. So if we have a very wet year or if we have a very dry year like we just had this last year, that's going to affect the total amount of sediment and phosphorus that's being transmitted by rivers into the lake. So, that's what's called the tributary loading. When you hear people talking about the legacy phosphorus, what they're referring to there is that a large portion of of that phosphorus that's being loaded in every every year drops out as sediment into the bottom of the lake. But it isn't gone at at that point. It's still there, and it can be resurrected by natural processes that are going on in the in the sediment. So you have the the new phosphorus being brought in by the tributaries every year and then you have this legacy phosphorus that's a part of the sediment that's being resurrected and the two of those add together to promote the growth of of good algae but under the right conditions, it can promote the growth of these cyanobacteria. How much of that occurs in any given year is going to be a consequence of how much rainfall you had that's delivering sediment and phosphorus, how warm it was in the lake, how windy it was in mixing the waters, and so year to year we will get differences. What we're looking for is trying to pull those phosphorus levels down in all of the regions of the lake where it's above the dotted line so we can keep those concentrations below levels that have been determined to increase the risk of cyanobacterial blooms.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Which in this part of the lake seems to be very, very good. It isn't a problem, which is so interesting. I mean, on your chart, it says it's good with no trend.

[Breck Bowden]: Well, could you tell me what figure number that is? Maybe that would help me.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: It's on page five and it would be right on the line that says cyanobacteria blooms.

[Bob Fisher]: It's under ecosystem indicators.

[Carina Daley]: Yeah. It doesn't have a number for a figure.

[Breck Bowden]: Okay. Unfortunately, we're looking at different I'm looking at an online version, not the version you have, so I'll I'll have to look that up and get back to you.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Tanklebia. Question about you brought up a 53% failure figure. Yes, for Lake George. Yes. I think that's two questions. One, my first question is about that. What were the reasons for failure?

[Bob Fisher]: That's a good question. I only know what can you answer that, Laurie or anyone?

[Speaker 0]: And were they obvious enough for people to realize that their septic systems were not working as designed? Once again, I would guess not. Okay. They

[Bob Fisher]: probably do not. Unless it's ponding or you can see it quite obviously, you probably aren't.

[Speaker 0]: No. Okay. Fail. And one other. But I, that's a

[Bob Fisher]: New York State. Can see so

[Speaker 0]: I I don't know if I can answer the first one. What their metrics were? And one other with respect to water treatment. What oxidizers if any do you use in water treatment? Okay so the majority of the state still uses chlorine. They use but they

[Bob Fisher]: have to dechlor. We use ultraviolet disinfection. You have to have very clean water to be able to kill it with UV like we can. Montpelier also has UV where I came from. But traditionally we all had chlorine gas. And then in the 80s or so they realized that there weren't any fish. Our macroinvertebrates for a mile or two down all the wastewater plants. So in the eighties, they then made everyone deflore. We then use sulfur dioxide to take the chlorine back out before it went out to the river. The chlorine gas is I used to get the chores here in Montpelier. I won the governor's award and whatnot. Nobody cares. If I lose one of my tanks and I kill everyone in Montpelier, suddenly I'm the bad guy. You know, so we switched. Everyone got rid of the gas and now they're using bleach basically and then they still have to dechlorate. Well, no one knows we're there. It's the most expensive thing a citizen owns generally. That you actually own once again, flush, it goes away, the thing comes on, it's on, you're happy. But there's a lot going into it. I gave it

[Speaker 0]: to our Lieutenant Governor. He was impressed. I always encourage you to come. I'd be

[Bob Fisher]: glad to get it toward anyone. I'll give you a

[Speaker 0]: tour to UBM class. Thank you. Any further questions or comments from the members? Yeah, I know.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So, the whole focus, I think, for the legislature and the administration is on housing, getting housing built. And being on the environment committee, I'm very cognizant of the fact that there's a tension in terms of, and I noticed at wetlands, you know, that you're, you know, terms of restoration and also climate resilience. And I don't want to ask you now, but I'm just wondering, are you thinking about how to balance it? Because we do need housing, and we do need to preserve our environment, and just to have you think about what are the priorities if we have to choose. I don't want to put you on the spot now, but I'm just hoping that we can hear from you about that.

[Carina Daley]: Okay. Thank you for bringing that up, it's definitely something we've been tracking and taking, you know, having presentations on and learning more about and it's a real issue. I recognize that.

[Speaker 0]: Representative, can follow on with the housing and water treatment. How is the planning for expanding water treatment with respect to housing? Is the capacity built in first?

[Bob Fisher]: Yeah. So virtually everyone funds their stuff off the SRF list. The IUS or IUP intended use plan is never has anywhere near the money to help all these facilities are extremely expensive upgrades. I just had a bid opening. We bonded for 34,000,000 and I had 24,000,000 left after doing some upgrades at the other one. It came in at 45 and $38.05. Yeah, I got some real issues. Montpelier bonded for 19 and theirs came in at 34. Everything is going to be the roof. Copper, Steve, roof. I got miles of copper. Everything is just going up. And the cost is incredible. I just got back from Boston from New England Water Environment Association. We got 3,000 members. I was the 2023 president, only the second from Vermont since 1929. It's it's no different when I go to Washington Water Week and I would meet with Senator Sanders and everyone else. I'm like, I'm not here like the nurses and the firemen looking for money. Yeah, I am. And there's a dollar and everybody wants that dollar, no money. It's all good not in the legislature.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: You so much. Thank you. You. All the questions.

[Andrew Milligan]: Thank you.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you all. Thank you.

[Lori Fisher]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: We're waiting to take a break. I can walk live.

[Bob Fisher]: It's gonna be perfect. Plan is only twice, and it should be freezing

[Speaker 0]: for five.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I've been saying Okay. Yes. Committee will go off. Right? So I'm fine. I mean, I Yeah.

[Breck Bowden]: Well, if you should have asked us questions, I haven't got a bio. Right?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Please come back

[Speaker 0]: by