Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to work through changes to the federal redemption payroll committee bill with the state of council.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Michael Grady. Much of what I would walk you through is what I've already walked you through. And so I'll probably if the chair doesn't mind, just kinda do a general, like, this is section one. You you wanna talk about this. This is section two. K.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: But there are are there highlighted there's highlighted changes.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There are highlighted changes. They haven't changed since yesterday. I know I know Matt emailed me and said he had a couple of tweaks, but I I'm in five committees on nine bills today, and I have a bill on the senate floor, so I haven't had a lot of time to process this morning. So section one is the creation or the amendment to the beverage container redemption system. The definitions change is really not about scope. It's just clarifying in the definition of container that every effectively every type of material is going to qualify as a container. And there is a size limit for carbonated at three liters. So that's really the definition section.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: At the top of page two, the repealed biodegradable material, we're repealing it here, or it was already repealed?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It it's being repealed here because right now, it's in existing law that's referenced in the definition of container, where it says it it does not include biodegradable material. You're just taking that away. It's it's any material that's made up of aluminum, polyethylene, anything that's going to be a container. Moving on to page three, your line eleven fifteen twenty two, this is the beverage container deposit is not changing on line 13. It's just taking away that not less than 5¢. There has been debate about that language in the past about whether or not it gives you the ability, the distributor the ability to to raise it. Let's take away that argument and say it's just five cents. The liquor would remain 15¢. TAB, Page four as briefly noted or the committee noted the handling fee for non commingled would increase from 4 to 5¢. And a handling fee shall not apply to beverages that are covered by a stewardship plan approved by the secretary.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Austin. Just on that beverage container deposit, would it make sense to say of not I'm just wondering, is it only 5¢? Can we not move that? Can we not increase that? Can that be increased without having to go back?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that that was always the argument when it said not less than 5¢ that that somehow gave flexibility to set a higher deposit. But that's a very, sensitive issue. And, I think if you wanna change it, it should be done legislatively.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I would recommend them taking away that not less than language would would effectively take away the argument that it could be changed without legislation.

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

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So on page four, you see, a bunch of struck language first that container shall be redeemed during no fewer than forty hours per week. That's not really enforced, so it's just being taken off the books. The authority for rulemaking, it's not that the agency wouldn't have rulemaking. It's just being restructured, put at the end of the chapter as rulemaking usually is, and it's taking away these specific provisions on what the rules need to include because they're basically obsolete. And then on page five, line five, you have the provisions about acceptance beverage containers. Page five, line 12, changing a may to a shall of manufacturer distributors shall not refuse to pick up from a retailer that sells this product. Honestly, it should have been shall all along. It shouldn't have been discretionary. It shouldn't have been may. It should have been shall. The bottom of page five, the retailer may refuse to redeem, taking away the the fact that the secretary has set prior approval. There is an actual rule where ANR sets out conditions where you can get an exemption or a waiver from redemption taking that away. So a retailer may refuse to redeem beverage containers if a stewardship plan that meets the requirements has been implemented by the PRO in the state, and the retailer's building is less than 5,000 square feet. So PRO, you're a smallish retailer establishment. You don't need to do redemption. Page six, there's also the provision for the manufacturer distributor that sells directly. They don't need to redeem if they are selling directly and less than 5,000 square feet. And then a retailer that is not exempt, person operating redemption center, or any other point of redemption may only refuse to redeem those that are not cleaned or broken. And then moving on from there, if there are no questions, page six, line 11. It says labeling. Some tweaks to the labeling, allowing for the labeling under an other approved method secured to the container. You don't necessarily need it on top of the bottle cap and etcetera, etcetera. I think there's a technical tweak on page six, line 17. Refund value of the container. It says one of the following. It should I don't think the one of the following should be there. I think that's a vestige. It should say in the refund value of the container in not less than one eighth inch type size. Page six, line 19, the label shall be on the top lid of the beverage container at the side or in a fairly visible location. And then that brings you down on page seven line 11 to 13. Mhmm. This is the requirement prior to the PRO and the stewardship plan that every bay beverage container sold or offered in the state shall contain a UPC and a barcode displayed on the container. Should I move on? Page seven, line 15, this is clarifying the redemption of liquor bottles. This has always been something that's implied in the system, not really transparent. Not withstanding any other provision to the contrary in the chapter, redemption of beverage containers greater than 50 milliliters containing liquor is going to be governed by this. They have the 15¢ deposit on page eight nine two. They pay the handling fee of 3 and a half cents per container. They shall not refuse to accept beverage containers, or to pay the refund value sold by a retailer unless the container is not clean, broken, or has an exception. And then the Department of Liquor and Ladder shall not refuse to pick up empty beverage containers, pay the refund value, or pay the handling fee to a retailer subject to this section. They are going to coordinate with the PRO where they have the authority to. So the Department of the Current Lottery may coordinate with and compensate the PRO to collect beverages subject to this section at points of redemption that are part of a collection plan. So Liquor and Lottery is the one responsible for collecting liquor containers. But there's now authority for them to negotiate with the PRO to include those liquor containers in the collection by the PRO. Liquor and Lottery will have to pay the PRO for that, but it allows for effectively more efficient pickup if you're able to say your liquor and lottery negotiate with the PRO to pick up in more remote parts of the state. Liquor lottery doesn't need to go there. And and the PRO is already going. And so there there is some potential efficiency built in for liquor redemption.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Sorry. Hannah, what's the handling fee now for liquor liquor?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's 3.5. It's right there on PG line five and six.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Right. But that's new language. I guess I'm curious what it is.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it's it's it's been 3 and a half.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, this is just codifying it.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. It's just remember, it's just making something that hasn't been transparent transparent. On page nine, the liquor and lottery will be subject to the redemption goals, which have been reduced to two years or two targets. And beginning January 1537, they annually report to ANR the amount of and tonnage of liquor bottles collected in the previous calendar year and the redemption rate for liquor bottles in the previous calendar year. Page nine, you have the redemption center certification, person operating. Center shall obtain a certification. That's really only effective until you have the PRO. That's also something I need to talk to Matt about in previous versions of the strat. The redemption center certification was repealed once the PRO was set up. I don't know if they want to keep the certification. Right. So that that needs to be clarified that once once the PRO is set up and redemption centers are part of the collection plan that ANR shouldn't be certifying them.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: This does this phase it out?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'd I'd repeal it, like, maybe a year after the PRO is set up, Or we can talk about timeline. Moving on. Page 10. Line four. This is the manufacturer has to participate in the PRO. You cannot sell or distribute a beverage container in the state without participating in the secretary approved PRO. And then on or before 01/15/2027, that should probably say the manufacturers or distributors shall apply to the secretary to form a PRO. So timing, yesterday, I came in with dates proposed by ANR. I heard some testimony that they need to be condensed further. I don't know how you wanna do that. But moving on, the secretary may approve a PRO for for ten years, up to ten years. It has to be the nonprofit page 10, line 15 to sixteen, five zero one c three. It has to have the capacity to administer the plan. It can't create unreasonable barriers to small manufacturers. Page 11, line three, after approval, they have to maintain the website of all the manufacturers and brands that are covered by it. For each beverage container subject to the plan, they have to have the UPC and barcode. If they fail to implement the requirements of the chapter or approve search of plan, ANR may dissolve it. And then page 11, if no PRO is formed, ANR can form its own plan, administer it, and charge the manufacturers and distributors for cost plus 10%. And then that 10% would go into the solid waste management assistance account for providing grants to developed markets for recycling material.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Austin? Yeah. On page one, does unreasonable need to be defined? Or does anybody see something?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, that's a good question. But I will say that that language is in pretty much every EPR program, that that unreasonable barrier language. And so it hasn't been defined in other programs, but it has been implemented. And I think at this point, ANR knows how to to effectively enforce that requirement.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And then I had a conversation with Matt Chapin this morning about questions that were raised yesterday, and he's going to work with you on how does the stakeholder group engage with the PRO, some clarifying language, then the idea of fairness of compensation to the existing redemption set.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. We haven't quite gotten there yet, but I I understand, and I'll point it out where I think it would go. Page 12, line three, the PRO reimburses ANR for its cost, ANR's cost. Unlike other EPR programs where there's a set fee, annual fee to ANR, A and R is going to require reimbursement. And there's a process for that on page 12, line six through 18. Manufacturers and distributors of liquor are exempt from the requirements of the PRO. That's because, effectively, Department of Liquor and Lottery are doing it for those containers. Page 13. This is the stewardship plan. Minimum requirements are honorable for January 15, 01/01/2028. The PRO submits the stewardship plan to the Secretary. It shall at a minimum meet all of the following convenience. So at least three points of redemption per county, at least one point of redemption per municipality with a population of 7,000 or more persons that provides immediate return and how sites of redemption are or will be cited in those population, high population density or low located in centers designated under the designated downtown. That was a question that came up the last time when you did this bill out on the floor. What if you're in a town like Northfield that doesn't have 7,000 or more, but it's still a densely fairly densely populated Shouldn't there be a collection center there? And so that's what's sub C, page 13, line 17 to 19. Then you get to fair compensation. This is where you would add any week to that. Right now, it it requires the PR to describe how all locations that redeem beverage containers are fairly compensated for their participation. There's no more floor. He used to have a floor in there, but no more floor. Again, there shall not be barriers to participation in the collection program for Redemption Center except anything that ANR allows. They describe how everything's going to be sorted and and disposed of. It will maximize the use of the existing infrastructure, but it doesn't mandate that. There are collection location standards, basically where there's going to be expeditious redemption service, where it's going to be sufficiently secure, lighted, and managed, and where it's going to comply with all applicable laws. Page 15, as with every EPR program, there's an education requirement for consumers. They don't know how to use the system unless you educate them. And then page 15, line four through eight, this is where consultation with the stakeholders. This is a question I raised for you yesterday. I didn't know if you wanted tweaks to this. But if you do, this is where it would be.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And, actually, the fairness of it says it in there. The plan will address fairness of compensation earlier in the same section.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yep.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So moving on, should I move on? On page 15, line nine, it's the reporting requirements. Not less than annually, the PRO reports to ANR where its redemption centers are, the amount of materials and containers redeemed, the location of where things were recycled or disposed of, the carbon impacts associated with the program, the costs associated with the program. You're now on page 16 line one through three. Description of any improvements made in the reporting year. Page 16 line seven, efforts taken to reduce environmental impacts. Page 16, line 10, efforts taken by the PRO to improve the environmental outcomes. Page 16, line 15, a description and copies of educational materials, and then any other information required by ANR. ANR, within ninety days of receiving the proposed plan, either approves it or denies it. They shall approve the plan if it meets the requirements of 1532 for what goes into a plan. And then the secretary's approval shall be for a period not greater than five years. And then for plan implementation, page 17, line six, that should say the producer responsibility organization, Stewardship organization and PRO kind of get our synonyms of each other, but for consistency in this chapter, you want to use PRO. And they shall implement the approved plan no later than six months after the Secretary's approval. If the stewardship organization, the producer responsibility organization fails to meet the beverage container redemption rates, ANR may require the PRO to implement activities to enhance rate of redemption, including additional education and outreach, additional redemption or additional redemption opportunities. There's the fiscal audit. Yesterday, you changed that date, moved it out to 10/01/2033. For the program audit, which is every five years, which looks at how the audit is conducted or how the program was conducted. And the fiscal audit is every year about what the costs of the program are. And then page 18, line 11, you come to the container redemption rate goal. Twenty twenty nine, 75%. 2032, 80%. Beginning 07/01/2029 and annually thereafter.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Can I just interrupt and ask Matt if you know the current redemption rate?

[Matt Chapman (ANR)]: It's around 72%. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So ANR reports to you annually about the redemption rate for the following two categories, liquor. Remember, liquor is already reporting this information to ANR, and then all other beverage containers. And that report shall include shall include a recommendation of whether the container deposit for either of the beverage categories should be increased to improve redemption of that category. Not an automatic escalator, just a recommendation. If you're going to increase the deposit, you would have to do it legislatively. Rule making page 19, line ten and eleven, A and R would have pretty broad rule making to administer the chapter. Page 19, line 12, it's the antitrust exemption for allowing the manufacturers and distributors to collude, on page 20, line one through five, they can't do so in a way that affects the price of beverage containers or any agreement restricting the geographic area or sale of them. Page 20, you're moving out of the beverage container chapter, you're moving into A and R's default notice procedures. This is basically going to be treated like the notice requirements for a general permit. So you will see on page 21, it's added to the list of those that are subject to this notice requirement. There's notice to to the public. There's a public comment period on page 22. The secretary has to hold a public meeting whenever any person files a written request for a meeting So the public comment, keep the public will have opportunity to review the plan, provide comment, and request a public meeting. Page 22, line seven, section three. This is the changes to the Clean Water Fund. This is the movement in fiscal year 2030 of $1,000,000 to the Solid Waste Management Assistance account for the grants from the Solid Waste Management Assistance Program. 2031 is also a million dollars. 2032 is $750,000. Two and thirty three is $750,000. Moving on to page 23 on the twenty four year in the waste management assistance fund, this is where the solid waste management assistance account. Dictionally lives page 24 line fourteen and fifteen you'll see that transfers from the clean water fund going into that account. And then on page 25 you will see the grants secretary shall enter grant with the PRO proved under Chapter 53 the grant shall be for four years and reimburse the cost of equipment and improvements to infrastructure documented by the PRO and its approved stewardship plan. As I stated yesterday, the state has specific requirements for grants. There are there's authority in those requirements for ANR to establish conditions. One of those from this language would be that it would be a reimbursement program and not an upfront pay for the cost of the program. And then page 25 line 13 going on to page 26. Manufacturer distributor collecting beverage containers subject to the beverage container requirements reports recycling information to A and R in the same manner as recycled materials are reported. Underneath the waste management, so the blue bin people report there what they collect the PRO is going to report what they collect and their redemption and recycling information as well. And then you have the effective dates. Act takes effect on 07/01/2026. The UPC requirement is fifteen twenty four C. That goes into effect 07/01/2027. The sale of distribution without participation in the PRO is 03/01/2028. And remember earlier, you said you were gonna repeal the redemption center certification requirement. You're gonna have to include an effective date for that repeal here as well.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Questions for legislative council? Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Start on page 29 where the secretary has to hold a public meeting whenever the person files a written request. Does there have there be any merit to that request? I mean

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. I mean, it has to be about the plan. But, I mean, they couldn't say we want you to hold a meeting about the catamount.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I know. But It would have

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: to be more specific. Right? I mean

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. They they just have to to file a written request for a meeting, and and, generally, ANR will request what what the meeting should address. But it's it's not like your municipal meeting where you have to petition and you have to set forth a subject matter, etcetera. It's it's the subject matter is review of the plan.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. And you're staying with us.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Pardon? You're staying with us. Yep.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Gears to DPC miscellaneous bill, page six thirty two.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Same thing. You need a break?

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: No.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Which draft, Mike?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It'd be draft 4.4 with the February 13 date and the three forty nine PM time stamp.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Mike White was gonna join us.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Is he he's Yeah. In his room? Okay.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: I'm here. Okay. Great. 4.1.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Says graph 4.4. But when you look it up, it's 0.1. That

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: is all true in my current reality as well.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: You may. What happens to these sheets? What happens to the money that went to the water That's

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: at the end of the bill we just walked through. It's a request to divert some of that for years. I will

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: try to find it better.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Just at the end of that bill, which is a good reminder why we are going to write about that bill out tomorrow, because it has a journey to make through building the other 20s of money committees need to review it.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Well,

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Pat told me to send a new draft this morning, and I told her I didn't have a new draft. And, apparently, I didn't send a new draft. What was

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: that? You're right. Okay.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So I guess I must have reviewed 4.1 this morning. Is that true, Ben?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: No. What you reviewed was the one in the email. So that should be full color.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Interesting. Okay, so we are currently working on getting 4.4 posted.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: How are you? So

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: while Michael Hoyt joined us by Zoom this morning, I did ask committee members who might be interested in presenting this bill on the floor. Michael, we were just, are you interested in in doing that?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yes. I am.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Great. That's great. So thank you for that.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Assuming we can get through that this morning, that'll be a great learning experience. Michael, maybe together we can just sort of let the committee know the changes that we did make. One is that we don't have a final agreement on the fire extinguishers, so we are taking that out, remembering that I think I'll speak for myself, but I think we found there's compelling reasons for them to perhaps be accepted by the agency of natural resources and the solid waste management districts and the industry need to come to agreement and that this bill is at the beginning of its journey and has to get all the way through the senate, process. So, hopefully, they can come to some agreement there. Additionally, we have included a change that acknowledges dam removal as an option that the restoration folks have asked for, and the agency has agreed to some language that'll be reflected in this draft, but not the pursuit of a restoration permit in this DEC miscellaneous bill, but a commitment from the Agency of Natural Resources to move that forward in a way that they're talking to the folks about it without adding to their short term stress part of it. And then we do need to come to resolution on the request to change the jurisdictional threshold for stream alteration purposes. So that's the biggest outstanding thing that I am thinking of right now. Hopefully, now we've gotten to the latest draft being posted.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: We're getting a draft, so I'll try to take them both down. Okay.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Can we just email?

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: Well, yeah, not a good idea. I think it should be Were you looking for a draft 4.4? Mhmm. Yeah. I see it right now. From my website.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Oh, what page? Underneath today's date. Go ahead.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. It's confirmed it's there.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: You don't have the

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: top left.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Look at the top left. It's 210.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: 215.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It is there. Thank you, Kat.

[Kat (Committee Assistant)]: So you don't have to refresh your page. I had to take them all down and reupload 4.4. So refresh your edit page, and then it should be right on. Sorry about that.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Would you just like me to focus on the sections that are still at issue? So you can go to

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: page

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page 10, section 10, line 14, that's highlighted because that's where stream alteration used to be, and it was removed. So if you were gonna put stream all back in, that's a question, and that's why I'm flagging that for you right now. And all the other section numbers are also flagged because they changed because of the removal of the Stream Alt language.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, yeah. Mine still says 4.1.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. It's on a bit.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So don't

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think we set it up.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: We have to refresh the page.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: While the PDF is actually showing.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I mean, I closed refreshed Yeah. And

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: so then up the PDF button, and then you hit refresh.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I'm not sure. It worked.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It usually But it worked. I've got it now.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: You refresh the PDF in the window

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: or in the tab? That's

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: weird.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's just weird. I've never seen it.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Anyone that's watching online, what we are doing is refreshing version 4.1 becomes 4.4. Apologies for any confusion. We will figure it out. But for now, hopefully, everyone has access to draft 4.4. And going to page 10.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page ten, fourteen. This is where the stream operation language used to be. So if you're gonna continue that discussion, this is where it'll be reinserted. In this draft, all the section numbers are highlighted because you removed a

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: few sections on the screening operation.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So, you know, I think, committee, we need to kind of have a discussion now about this. And so the request was made by the agency to go to kind of a higher threshold for staffing purposes. They heard from the environmental community, and they reduced it down to 0.25 square miles from a request to go to 0.5 miles squared. And we had discussion about the ecological, like, justifications for that versus the reality of limited staffing resources, and it's a policy decision for us. How do we want to address that concern? Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I really struggle with this one. I really want to support the agency in balancing their workload, but I'm just not seeing any kind of I can't support a long permanent change to this. I could support maybe some kind of temporary solution. I just don't think we've had a conversation and deliberation on what feels like a very impactful policy change about the impacts.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Logan.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. I I think unless we have a a scientific basis to work from to justify a change, then we shouldn't be making any changes. I know that it requires a lot of our DEC staff, but the testimony we heard on Headwater's alteration was really compelling.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: None of Tagliavia, the North.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Since the DEC, I believe, does science, I'm willing to go with their recommendation.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: One five. And then North? Yeah. Basically, same thing. We paid hundreds of millions of dollars to TC, to ANR in total, to ER scientists, we should trust them rather than limited scientific background.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: I'll just follow-up on that by saying they admitted themselves that there was no scientific basis for the decision.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So limited staffing was what I heard. Representative Satcowitz.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I would echo the concerns from from representatives Chapin and Logan. Can you say Yep. I'm sorry. I I I would just echo what we heard from reps Chapin and Logan and say that it it it I find it very concerning to feel like we could be going backwards in terms of our protection of these sensitive areas. And we talked a bit yesterday about doing this well would require additional resources and what that might take. And I took that feedback very seriously and thought about it a lot since yesterday. And, you know, when we're talking about protecting our environment there, we're we're really talking about making investments in our future. Every time the environment degrades, getting it back is really, really hard, if not impossible. And when it is possible, it's extremely expensive. It's almost always better to avoid impacts begin with and to make sure we're doing things right. So if we really want to be fiscally responsible off into the future, we should be spending the money now to do it well. I understand that money is currently not in the budget, but we should be working towards making it so. And I understand that there are concerns around the burden on ordinary Vermonters in terms of what we're paying to have this done. But I would say again that, you know, when we're talking about the context of our entire state, we're not talking about really large quantities of money and the value that we get for spending this money is really, really large. So I would really like us to not go ahead with changing the threshold for jurisdiction.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And I guess I would add, it's the ecological impacts are significant and important, but the downstream effects of affecting people who are in flood prone areas and preventing exacerbating those is also a prevention affordability issue. The way I see it is protecting folks in harm's way is way better than fixing problems after they've happened, which are way more expensive. And I have heartache over this choice. Don't think we need to be in this position,

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: that we are. Representative Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: If we're concerned about protecting people in harm's way, we need to also be protecting them financially and that kind of harm that we're going to be doing as well.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Malouvi? Yeah, I'd say the protection that we're asked, the cost to Vermonters of the protection that we're offering through this program amounts to a couple dollars a year per person in the state. And we have experienced two years in a row of $1,000,000,000 worth of flooding damage while we have a federal government that is failing to fund FEMA. So it would be an absolute abandonment of our duty to protect Vermonters, I think, to not invest in protecting our headwater streams and making them less effective ecologically.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Logan, you know, fact that FEMA is not covering any plausible municipalities in the Northeast Kingdom, we need to pick up these costs. I think eventually it's going to be the state that's going have to be picking up these costs rebuilt.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Morris? Sure, thank you, Madam Chair.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: It's probably me, and I'm going

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: to blame it on me. I'm a little confused as to what we're talking about. The agency recommended changing, I think it was the 10 square mile down to point five. Is that No.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: We have a no all perennial streams right now are jurisdictional, and they are recommending reducing that to point five miles square.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Correct. So the the agency was recommending the point five square miles.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: From from all streams being jurisdictional to fewer fewer streams being jurisdictional by putting a watershed size limit on them.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And I would like to remind the board or the committee, and I'm sure you're all well aware of it, none of this legislation is going to predict or prevent the next storm that could be. We could have a storm tomorrow. What's the the agency's recommendation? I I I'd like to

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: let them make the right decision. Representative

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: North?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. The fear monitoring that we're doing here is is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do with what we're voting on here. We're just trying to clarify the jurisdiction over when they have to actually go out, do something. It has nothing to do with just the size of the watershed. Not changing. The watershed is still the watershed. Wherever the water's still going to flow the way the water's going to flow, regardless of the jurisdiction that we give ANR to go on and It's

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: over here.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I guess I don't appreciate that characterization of the discussion. I think we can have different perspectives on policy, and I don't actually want us to go down that path of branding people's perspectives. And it is. Well, I don't agree. I think incremental changes to watersheds are scientifically proven to change hydrology of those watersheds, and that's what we're talking about. Yes. It does change

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: the hydrology.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: We're just talking about Changes jurisdiction we're doing too. It will

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: And having development not be overseen and properly done changes the hydrology in the watersheds, which has downstream impacts.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Representative Tagliavia. Mother nature has done incremental changes of hydrology in the landscape

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: I have.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Millions of years. Anybody who doesn't believe me, just pull up a picture of the Grand Canyon, pull up a picture of a huge delta from a a thousand mile river, we're talking about trying to freeze Vermont in time. No matter how hard you try, no matter what you put in black and white on these pages, you're not gonna do it.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Representative Satcowitz. I I think

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: what we're really talking about is is allowing nature to do its thing and minimize the disturbance that people have on on the environment. Nature will continue to make incremental changes in all these streams and all the places where water flows as it has for since the earth was was formed. But what we're really talking about here are the impacts that people make, and we've learned so much over the last decades about what kinds of changes we can make in streams that have a bigger or smaller effects and better and worse ways of of doing things. And what we're talking about here is doing our best to make sure that when we do make changes to these streams, that we're doing them in the most responsible way that we can. Representative Chapin,

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: and then I would welcome members who haven't commented to comment.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I just wanna be clear that I think we are discussing whether or not to make a change in a miscellaneous bill right now. And personally, I would absolutely entertain and still will entertain a proposal from the administration. It could make a lot of sense. But I heard when we asked questions of their team that was here to present this, we got answers of, we don't know. We would have to go get that information. And we haven't heard any follow-up from their team. And when we asked the environmental community if they were concerned, they said, absolutely yes. At the 0.5 threshold, we have grave concerns and at the 0.25 threshold. And I haven't heard a lot of convincing arguments on either side, which to me says, A, this is a big policy decision where the stakeholders do not agree. And thus, I'm not sure it should be a miscellaneous bill. I would need a lot more information, period, one way or the other. So I just really don't think that if we're debating the policy around the table right now, then maybe that's a sign we're not ready to make a decision and it shouldn't be a miscellaneous thing. So I'm advocating not against their proposal, but just to find more time and ability to have a really deep discussion on this before we make any permanent change. Would have happily entertained a temporary change.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I like that.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: I'm sorry. You like

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I like the pause button. I'd rather see more information coming from both sides. I also want justification of the dollars and how they're spent. I don't know if you'll get more information.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. Representative Hoyt has his hand up.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Thanks, madam. Thanks, madam chair. I appreciate what representative, Chapin just said about this being a miscellaneous bill and whether it's appropriate to have something like that in a bill of this nature. I understand the staffing issues, but I think, you know, if there's a staffing issue, you deal with it by increasing staffing. Presumably, the legislature set that jurisdictional threshold for a reason. And I haven't heard anything that would make me say, oh, well, it's being changed for scientific reason. Sounds like it's it's a staff and kind of a burden on staff, and I don't know if that's an appropriate reason to change a threshold, you know, which had been set presumably through thought by a committee, you know, and by deliberation. So at this point, I I would not support, changing that threshold. Thank you.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. Representative Pritchard?

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: What I see, and I see it frequently per ear, is we have folks that we entrust to do a job. They're tasked to do it, and they're in charge of doing it. And I see time after time where they're either left out of

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: the loop,

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: not consulted, or just their opinions or what they bring forth are just disregarded. And that's all I'm gonna say. But seen it with the DC, seen it with the fish and wildlife. These are the folks that are in charge, these are the folks that we trust to do this. There are opinion ways to me heavier than this committee. I mean, when they bring something forth to us, I don't think we pay attention. We pay attention to it when it fits our convenience. And that's all I'm gonna say. I'm not even gonna We're obviously divided, and I'm not gonna change my mind. I'm obviously not You folks aren't gonna change your mind. Either we bring it forth, decide to vote on it, or we put it back on the wall. But let's decide one way or another and move on to something else.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright. I think what I hear is support for an openness to a conversation, but not in the miscellaneous bill, and a pause here, which I think represents removing the request from the miscellaneous bill, which this draft does. I'm gonna ask for a straw poll of, you know, folks who support this draft the way it's written is silent on changing the jurisdictional threshold for stream alteration, permitting. So those in favor of removing keeping the keeping the status quo for now with the understanding that we would like to continue conversations with DEC about ways of addressing understanding better what the threshold should be. So all those in favor of

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Just for clarification, madam chair. That keeps it at the current technique?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Keeps it at the current all perennial streams.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: All perennial streams.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Right.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: So all those in favor of maintaining the current perennial streams for now, raise your hand. 234. Bet you did. That.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I support and pause. So we're done again.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: 23456. I'll simply be 7.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Oh. Alright. Assuming the rest of

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: you don't, but there we are. Gonna remain silent on that in this.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm running a little bit late to my next committee. Yeah. You can skip to page 24 because you're skipping over all the CAFO stuff, and that's not changing. And what

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: sorry.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: What is new language is the dam removal public good, And it's on page 25, line 13 through 18. And there's a tweak that needs to be made to this at the recommendation of the deputy commissioner. And so instead of having the restoration project permit, the general permit, etc, this is in the dam removal standards, dam repair, creation, etc. Then prior to determining whether the public good has served under the section for an application for to raise, lower, remodel, reconstruct, repair, or otherwise alter dam, the the department shall notify the project applicant, and it should say when removal of a dam may be more appropriate. Instead of that. There will be situations where the removal is not appropriate, but there might be some situations where where it is appropriate. And so that that is one of the concerns that I think you've heard from advocates that persons applying for these permits weren't always being informed of all of their options. This would require when it's appropriate for the the applicant to be informed.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Alright. We are we have the deputy commissioner here with us. This language is acceptable to you with the change.

[Neil Cameron (Deputy Commissioner, ANR/DEC)]: Yes. Thank you. For the record, Neil Cameron, deputy commissioner.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Good morning, everybody. Yeah. Thank you

[Neil Cameron (Deputy Commissioner, ANR/DEC)]: for this. We appreciate it. This language with the modification that Legis Council suggested is fine.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Any other changes, Michael?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Pardon me?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Are there any other changes that

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, just talked to house gob ops yesterday about the emergency rule. They did not make a decision. They said or some members said they needed more time. I don't know how that affects your decision. And then on page 29, this is the extinguisher language. Already said to remove that. And then page 30, there's a the waste motor vehicle tire provision that's just effective

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: This this draft has the fire extinguisher removed?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. This draft has the extinguisher in it.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I don't see.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Page 29?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 30.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Oh, I see. On line four.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: Yeah.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yeah. We need to remove that.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But then ANR is gonna report back to you with a on an approach to managing waste motor vehicle tire piles and recycling or reuse options instead of the EPR program or fee that you were looking at in h two zero four. And then the last section is the emissions repair program, which I believe you already voted to include.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Yes. With the proposed languages language.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And so that is the bill.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Thank

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: you, members. And I guess, sure we're

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: in the

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: East of too. We had a possible vote scheduled on this bill. Representative. Via Zoom today. Are you able to be with us another time or is this the time that you would be available for us?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I think

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: I'm available

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: probably 01:30 to two, but then I've got to drive down to Boston.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Let me give folks a chance to vote on this. Are we ready to vote on this? With the proposed changes that Michael will make when he's able? So, Michael, sorry, I know you're late. If we vote this out today, would you be able to make changes before the end of the day, the ones we just talked about?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I can have a draft back in here for 06:52, 01:00. I can have a draft for

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: you then.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Thank you. Okay. And representative Hoyt, you'd be available at 01:15? Or

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I can I can make it I can make it at 01:15?

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Also, we can entertain a motion now to vote it as amended.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: We would need to walk through those, so just whole sections. Maybe just one whole section. I don't know. I guess I would just definitely want to walk

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: through So we'll reconvene and schedule a vote first thing this afternoon with the change draft. Around

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: 01:15, no sooner? Because I got a lunch

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: date. We always start at one gonna be late. We we always start at 01:15.

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Chair Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Great. So with that, we'll take a couple minutes break here.