Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And do you wanna We're live. Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are gonna shift gears to eight seven seven eight, an act relating to dam safety. We have a new draft of that. I don't know, representative Chapin, if you're prepared to do history lesson a little bit, how do we get to what we're about to

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: walk through?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes, I'd be happy to. Thank you for that opportunity. Yeah, just there's a fair amount of yellow on this, but it's mostly sort of relocating some items and just giving Michael and I sat down with the director of the EM, Eric Florent, was most recently testifying on this bill and asking some questions about structure and clarity. So we sat down with him, walked through the bill, really put some better language around just what will be in an EOP, plus the last item you'll notice is like, and whatever else they deem is important to put in the EOP, and just some more clarity to the report. And so I don't think there's anything really all that new here that we've been discussing, but some rearranging and clarity. And I'll turn it over to Mike.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael Agreed. I was just gonna start with the same basic statement. Structure of this bill is the same, but some of the substance within the structure has been moved around and or clarified to address the concerns from VEM. So it as represent Chapin noted, there's a lot of yellow, but it's it's not necessarily because things substantially changed. It's because either the language was clarified for VEM or or things were moved. With with that said, section one remains unchanged. That's still that authority clarifying that the governor and the director of the EM has have the ability to order an evacuation without the approval of a municipality's all hazards.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Power.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Then on page two in section two, you still have the the pilot project. It still is the requirement of the EM, division of emergency management, in coordination with DEC to conduct the pilot under which emergency operation plans for two state owned dams that have been classified as high hazard potential shall be developed. One of the dams shall have a population at risk of 1,000 or more persons, and the other shall have a population at risk of a 100 or more but fewer than 1,000 persons. But fewer than 1,000 is highlighted because the editors didn't like it not having an upper limit. The page two, line 10, the set of EOPs, and that's from the previous draft. It was the set. You're not just doing two individual plans, you're doing plans for each of the municipalities within the inundation zone. And that's what's clarified on page two, line ten and eleven. The set for each dam shall include an EOP for each municipality in the inundation zone of the dam. What you are no longer seeing is that there's no longer a specific requirement for a regional EOP because as the director of the EM pointed out, all of the municipal plans together form the regional EOP. And there's further clarification about how they connect later on when talking about mutual aid as part of the EOP. Moving on on page two, line 12. In preparing the EOPs, there's a directive for VEM to coordinate with those that generally are involved with creation or interested in creation of the EOPs. It's gonna be your regional municipal emergency management, your municipal officials, emergency responders, RPCs, state and regional search and rescue partners, including Swiftwater Rescue and other relevant interested parties. I I was I did see, or I was told that there might be a request to add into this those that are, at a state owned dam, you can have privately owned hydroelectric generation. So you would probably want, in those cases, to have consultation coordination with those entities as well in developing the EOP, especially since later on we're gonna connect the EAP to the EOP for purposes of

[Dylan (Green Mountain Power representative)]: things like your inundation.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So so moving on from there, the ability of the the division to hire a contractor, including a regional planning commission, is remained. But but Commissioner Foran wanted to get some clarity about what he could use a contractor for, and it would be to complete the requirements of the section of everything. If if they can hire somebody to do everything under the section, they can do that, including one or both of the EOPs required under subsection A. And then you will see where the large amount of highlighting is, page three, lines three through 20. This is in, what is going to be completed under the EOP, not just what's going to be in the EOP, but how effectively the process may work in some instances. So page three, line five and six. It shall be coordinated with each dam's emergency action plan. Remember, the emergency action plan is developed by the dam owner and shall utilize each dam's emergency action plan inundation map. So that will inform the division in their EOP. They don't have to necessarily recreate inundation maps. Page three, lines seven through 10, they'll identify planned evacuations and evacuation routes based on possible inundation scenarios, including how to evacuate those vulnerable populations, such as those who are medically vulnerable or need access to special specialized medical. They'll also identify where individuals shall evacuate to such as a shelter, higher ground, or reunification location. They will page three line three through 15 engage facilities that house vulnerable populations, such as schools and shelters and senior living communities and the plan development. They shall, as I referenced earlier, page three, line sixteen and seventeen, plan for the use of mutual aid and state resources. Does everyone know what mutual aid is? Yeah. And coordinate such use between municipalities downstream of the dam. Page three, line 18 to 20 address how to implement the use of pre event communication and early warning systems to alert persons in the inundation areas, including the use of Vermont Alert System. The director was concerned about making recommendations to specific municipalities about early warning systems, especially if they didn't follow-up on that recommendation and his concern that that would put the state in potential liability. So this isn't a recommendation to address how they could do it. You know? What what type of equipment is there? What type of pre event communication can be used? Etcetera. But not a recommendation to specific municipality. Moving on to page four.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Austin has a question.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Can we just insist that they do it, that they have to do it, that they have to have a warning system? They have to find a warning system if they're in, like, you know, at a high risk dam?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I mean, if you wanted to require every dam owner in the state or every

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: With a with a high risk, with a very high risk.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That that I think, is something that you have the authority to require with some caveats. Federal dams, no. Probably not preferred dams as well. So but then so the DEC owned dams, potentially, yes.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I get that a point. And how many would that be? Just so you know a number.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh. I know. I think we heard this.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: 77?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's 77 high hazard dams, and then I think all of those 77 are DEC dams, so that would exclude the federal and the FERC DMs. Check. Now how many of those are population at risk above a 100? I think it was

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: 33. 30 something? Three.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. So we could say to those 33, you need to have some kind of warning system.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you would have to have it in every municipality, and that would be in for the in the EOP for that. Mhmm. Or you would have to make some determination about which municipalities in the EOP would need it.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Am I the only one that's, like, concerned about this about

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: having No. But I I I strongly suspect it's the kind of thing that should come out of this EOP. The process will say, like, what is how is it that we're gonna notify people? And then I would assume that comes out of this.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: And no one's worried about the spring. No one's worried about a rain event this spring that could To the extent that we

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think you'd have it up and running by this spring. Maybe not even next spring.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: There's another section under recommendations that gives a little bit more to this, but I I would just say we're not really requiring municipalities to do anything of any kind in this bill. This is voluntary. This bill is a directive to the DEM to undertake a process to engage municipalities voluntarily to develop EOPs. There's doing something like requiring municipalities to do something would be a radical change. This

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: out there that I'm concerned with the DEM into this, like, five years. Are you

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: talking about BE? Vermont, I've already seen it.

[Dylan (Green Mountain Power representative)]: I think it's department.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's right. It's been interchangeable, accurate.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Emergency management. Like, five years ago, four years. I'm just gonna put that out there. I feel like this should definitely be in place right now. So that's my concern. Just let you mark

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: the record. It would be a worthy pursuit for you as a legislator to research and bring a bill in and work with them and to figure out what that means, really, on all levels. How does it work physically and logistically and dollar wise?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I just spent all weekend reading about dams and reading reports from the Association of Dam Safety officials and reading reports from the Association of Dam Safety. It's very, there's a lot of data out there about what needs to be done, you know, to save lives, to make sure people don't die in the dam. And I'm just responding to the Texas floods, you know, that one town had a warning and one town didn't because they couldn't afford it. And I think, I don't know, 30 little girls were killed, because the town didn't put the alarm system. So I'm just that's that's I'm sorry, Michael, for your time and happy to

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's okay. I I do have a couple of points. The department is supposed to be coming out with dam safety rules that are going to apply to all DEC applicable dams. I don't know what those rules say yet. It's possible that they could have requirements for for pre event early morning, but I I don't know. They've been delayed somewhat, as I think you know. And and second, the the flooding in Texas was wasn't dams. It was Right.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: No. It wasn't, but it was flooding.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And and so Right. And I don't know if you've ever seen a flash flood out west. It's like I I was caught up in in one in Wyoming, and it was, like, concrete moving through through a valley, and, like, there was nothing I was. Could've done, I think, that.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Even if you got the warning three hours earlier than

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you Maybe. You

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: did something

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: because were with us.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I ran away. But I couldn't really run away because the river like went like that. It was up against the mountain. Anyway,

[Dylan (Green Mountain Power representative)]: I digress.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Climate change has changed the picture, and that we haven't kind of caught up to that. So, okay, that's all. I won't say anything more, but thanks for bringing it up. On

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: page four, you give the department some additional authority to an umbrella clause, whatever additional provisions that they deem useful in developing the EOP or for inclusion in the EOP. And then page four, line three, they they submit to you. This is effectively their main report. But they're gonna give you copies of the EOP. So this, the EOPs are sets, remember. So they're gonna give you copies of the EOPs for the two dams, a summary of the process of developing the EOPs, including whether the division completed the EOPs with division staff, contracted with RPCs, hired other contractors, a summary of how the division or the division contractor coordinated with municipal officials, state and regional search and rescue entities, I'd add the hydroelectric facility owners here as well. Page four, line 16, the cost of the EOPs completed under the pilot project. Page four, representative Austin, a summary of early warning and communication systems municipalities may use may use to communicate recommendations for request for evacuations, including the best use of the VT alert system. And then a scope, timeline, and budget for the division to develop an EOP template or training or and training on EOP development from municipalities. So that's what you get as a part of the report on the EOP. But then on page five, as part of that report, you also get other information. You get page and this is largely unchanged from from the versions you've seen before. They'll recommend how the EOP should be completed for all state or federal dams in Vermont that are high hazard potential and have have a PAR of a 100 or more persons, including how to prioritize them, whether the division can complete or contract for completion of the EOPs by 2035, whether they can complete an EOP for a federal dam or whether the division may only assist those local entities. There's a question of field preemption, especially FERC and flood safety dams, and whether or not the feds control safety and whether or not you can mandate who does the EOP for those dams. Whether what it would cost for the EM to complete the EOPs for dams with the population at risk of a 100 or more persons or what it will cost for the division to contract that out. And then recommend how EOPs should be completed for high hazard dance with a populated population at risk of fewer than 100 patients. And then on page six, recommended potential funding sources that are available not just to the division, but to individual municipalities that could be used to complete or contract for completion. Recommend how to best educate municipalities, RPCs, emergency service providers about the need for need for importance of EOPs. Recommend whether and how an EOP should identify structures that persons would reasonably be expected to occupy and how to geotag these structures for purposes. Remember, there was a mandate that the division do that in the previous draft, they basically said, we'd rather recommend how it's used instead of trying to mandate that. And they recommend how often the division, RPCs, or municipalities should conduct practice emergency response for the EOPs and ultimately for all EOPs prepared for dance and state. The appropriations remain the same 250,000 for the Department of Public Safety for the division of emergency management to complete the pilot project and a $125,000 to DEC for their role in completing the pilot project. And then the the act takes effect on passage Because of the appropriation, when you pass it out, it will go to approves, but I don't think it will go to finance. There isn't a fee or a revenue source.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're not the senate.

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We need great questions? Seems much clearer.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I also want to say about the appropriations, it's going to get hit with the contingency funding clause. It's a new requirement, not part of base budget. That's what they're doing for every every new program with additional new appropriations. It's taken out and put aside. I've asked GFO how that's gonna be handled, like what role agencies or alleged counsel have when that's taken up. He said it's unclear as of now that they'll do their best to involve, you know, representatives of the committee and ledge counsel and their discussions about The decisions that they're gonna have to make.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Talk about through the appropriations process. Yeah. Alright. Thank you, Michael. Thanks. Is the devotional music today?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: No. I'm reading at home. Oh, but you're doing

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: be there. Thank you. I think we're set with you for Okay. Just the changes to the bottle bill, and then we'll see if we get a redemption center in or something. We're stay tuned.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I should make the changes requested by Chris Rutts? Yes. Should I make the change requested by Dylan as to constipation with owners of hydroelectric facilities?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not aware of this request.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: This is

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: part of the damn bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. What do you wanna just say then out loud, Dylan, what your request is?

[Dylan (Green Mountain Power representative)]: Yeah. Sure. For the record, Dylan. So I'm with Leon. I'm from GMP. I think what mister Brady is referencing is the inclusion of the owner operator of that hydroelectric facility in cases like, for example, Waterbury Reservoir where it's a state owned dam, but there's a generation facility that's owned, in that case, by Green Owned Power. So it makes sense to have them included in your list of entities consulted in that Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. Thank you. Yes. Of course. Yes. Great. Is there a discussion on this bill that people wanna know? How are you feeling about Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'll just mention I'm gonna run it by Eric Forend one more time before tomorrow morning now that we have a restructured bill, I'm expecting to hear back

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: from him before tomorrow morning. And I think I

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: think that will be positive because I talked to him about it this morning, he was pretty positive about it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So Great. Yeah. This morning.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. I'll just say I really appreciate the department's willingness to take this on, not really knowing anything about it until December. I do really appreciate that. It shows people there's general agreement that this is a really important thing to keep moving forward on. So, anyway, I will get any further feedback from him hopefully by the end of the day today. We are hoping to take a vote on this tomorrow.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Send it on its way. Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. So is it safe to assume that Vermont Emergency Management will consult with national organizations, like the Association of Advanced Safety? Is that a safe assumption?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I can

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: speak to that. Mean, Brian speak to that? I guess I don't know that I would assume that for this pilot project. I do believe, and I've had a number of conversations over the past four months with Ben Green at our dam safety division, that they are actively engaged with national partners as they work on some substantial new rules that are about to come out sometime this year in draft form that I think we will all have been well prepared for given this conversation, but there's some substantial change to how DEC will be able to regulate dams under their jurisdiction coming. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. We have a little bit of time and we have the budget discussion scheduled for this afternoon and tomorrow. I had to start it the other day. Curious, Representative Pritchard, if you've done any work on finding things you might want to propose for Mengta. We have done, yes.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: K. Our letter is due tomorrow.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: have a draft that we can look at before tomorrow?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: No? Not

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: yet. We're working on it.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. We've each been working in parallel, so we can Yeah. Oh, great.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. So we'll have something for tomorrow to talk about.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. I think it would be helpful to take testimony from DEC on the Healthy Homes Initiative.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe we could try and get someone in. Do you know who that is? Emily. Emily Berg or Emily? Yeah. Yes. Let

[Unidentified Committee Member]: me remind myself.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Anyone else?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Do you want to get some more information about the ARAP funds and how to deal with that, or

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do you think I just talk

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: with Trevor and let him bear that out?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's up to you.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Don't know that I driving somebody in here from DEC is going to help that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: all that much. Let's see

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: if Trevor can pair that up for us. There was some concern about some carryover funds. But it didn't show up in carryover presentation. Right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: From carryover, like, ARPA funding? Yeah. Right. Yeah. Like, one time ARPA funding, been

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: expected to last for a while, but

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Oh, yeah. I thought, yeah, I heard you say it, ERAP. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And A RAP. A RAP. A RAP. The A E R A P program that

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: came in, the ones that made a change in the world. That's how we found out about it, because they came in.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, the vehicle emissions. Yeah. Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Right. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Colloquium, really, known as vehicle emissions. Okay. Well, AERAP was an acronym. You're right. Automotive Emission Repair. You're just showing off as the budget guy.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And then I haven't had a chance to talk with Chair James, but we were talking about that greenhouse gas reduction piece of funding needed in order to implement. And the recommendation was that we add that to our budget letter because we have jurisdiction over the ANR budget. But there are other parts of the ANR budget that we don't comment on. And so it seems like it would make more sense for that request to come from house energy and digital infrastructure after speaking with the rep representative school about it. I'll chat, share James, and then it may end up in our letter. Anyway,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not sure. It could be in theirs. Okay. Others, things you want in the budget letter?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: If you finish the draft, can you send it out tonight? I won't finish it tonight.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You won't

[Unidentified Committee Member]: finish? No, but you'll have it first thing in the morning. It won't be very long.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. We're looking at less than two pages at this point.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: There isn't much in here I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: don't think we even need to say.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah, probably.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But same to my version. We both started drafting separate.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Oh, interesting. Yeah. So, we'll get something to you first thing

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: in the morning. Great. All

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: right. With that, we can take a little break before and be on the floor for Ela's