Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead. Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to now be talking about s two twenty three, an act relating to water quality of the waters of Vermont, with the first hearing a brief introduction from senator who introduced it, and then our legislative council.

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: S-two 23, the main thing to know is it's a study. As we were in my And sitting in the senate natural resources committee last year and listening to testimony from lakes and ponds, I became kind of alarmed by the degree to which our lakes are deteriorating. The the environmental integrity of our lakes is deteriorating. And I know how important they are to every virtually every single Vermonter. And so I began to think about what, you know, what do we do to turn that corner and to sort of reverse the decline or try to anyway, how to deal with the decline. And, of course, I realized this is the more I began to get into it that it's actually pretty complicated, all the the whole apparatus around lakes and around our waters. And so began to think ended up thinking about this, with Michael's help and others people and Jared's help and others. But what we have right now is kind of the worst of both worlds where the lake the our lake health is declining, and at the same time, the regulatory apparatus is very unpredictable. So for somebody looking to do some to build even something fairly minor, like an Escharia at a certain elevation or whatever it may be, because we don't we've never implemented an antidegradation rule and because our classification system has been effectively defunct for the last ten or fifteen years, I don't know how a long time, Somebody we don't have an anti degradation rules we were required to do years ago, we're operating under a temporary or an interim procedure. And the interim procedure, for from the perspective and by the way, applicants, people who represent business community were involved in putting this together. So this is a bill that comes from both the environmental community and the business community because what they have because there's no there's no anti degradation rule and it's only the temporary procedure, our interim procedure, is something that's unpredictable. When they when they apply for something, the answer is unpredictable and it may vary depending on when and where, and it's not transparent because we have never adopted an anti degradation rule. So we're living under a matter which where you are, whether you're a potential applicant or whether you're somebody who cares about the solar lakes, you've got the worst of both worlds going on right now. What the bill does is put together a study committee made up of kind of everybody I just talked about. You can see who who's in it, and

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Mike will go through it

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: in more detail. And then just ask for the committee to report back, to do a handful of things, develop an inventory of the waters of the state with the existing classification designations, assess the state's obligation under the clean under the Clean Water Act, including, you know, why we don't well, we've never had an anti degradation rule, why why one's not happening, and identify and about and evaluate regulatory and statutory frameworks, rules, procedures governing class a waters, and evaluate whether the existing water classification system in the state and related statutory and regulatory frameworks protect the ecological and provide regulatory certainty. So it's, again, this is a study group that seeks to answer those questions, it has people from sort of no matter where you are on the spectrum is involved in trying to put this thing together. So that's the

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's great. And did it, how did it pass through the senate?

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: It passed through the committee unanimously, and I believe it passed the senate unanimously. Yes. Yep. Yep. Do members have questions for senator Baldwin?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Ela.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Just the EPA, do they align with this? I mean, I they also keep an eye on our waters. I'm wondering

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: Yeah. I think they I'm not sure that well, Michael can go in. Mike Michael's a real expert on this, so I don't purport to

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: be I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: can wait.

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: Out. Okay.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: I'll wait.

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: That's that's good. That's a good idea.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This has been an issue that's been hanging out for a very

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: long time, so I really appreciate that you're introducing something that hopefully will move us forward. Thanks for joining us.

[Unidentified Senator (S.223 sponsor)]: Thank you. I'll stick around for a few minutes.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Michael Grady, judge counsel. I'm gonna be working off the as passed by senate. I didn't check the committee page this morning, but I've got Scott that up there. So just a general overview to supplement what senator Bongard said. The the state is under multiple obligations under the federal Clean Water Act. One of those obligations is to adopt an anti degradation policy, which the state has done, and it's in the Vermont Water Quality Standards. But there isn't what's called the implementation rule, directive transparent requirements for how when you are applying for a discharge or an activity that could contribute to a discharge in a watershed, how you implement anti degradation. And that's further compounded by the fact that the state hasn't been updating its water classification. There are many waters that qualify, for class a designation. So a higher management standard to ensure that those uses of those waters remain at that higher standard, but they haven't been reclassified. So if you're a developer, you're just somebody that wants to build a home, and you're looking to build in a water that is currently classified as class b but actually meets the class a standards under the anti degradation policy in the state water quality standards, you're not supposed to do any activity that's gonna degrade that class A water beyond its current uses. But how would you know that? It's not rated Class A. You don't have an anti degradation implementation rule, which they have been required to do for almost twenty years but have not done. I don't know why EPA has not raised that issue. EPA has raised the concern in the past about the implementation of anti degradation, but I don't know why they haven't furthered that concern. So you have this this system that is also very focused and and fungible. It's not about looking at classifications of the water based on what the water is. It's based on just its recreational or basically on its traditional uses. So you look at a stream the same way you look at a lake. And but they're potentially very vastly different bodies of water. And other states do their classifications and do their management with specific standards for lakes different from other bodies of water. So with that as kind of a and I I don't wanna impugn the agency because I think the agency does the best that it can with the people that it has, staff that it has. But this some of these have been on the table for a long time. The anti DIG implementation rule, about 20. The last classification rule I can remember was maybe fifteen years ago, maybe more. And, you know, there is the the water quality standards have to be updated every three years. They're they're generally on schedule with that. Sometimes they're a little late, but they're generally on schedule with that. But do you have an opportunity with this study committee to direct what you want to see, the information you need to see if the current regulatory program is working the way you want it to. And so that's what the study committee does. It's gonna be called the water quality lake classification anti degradation study group. It's going to its purpose is to basically address all of the things that's listed in its its hours and duties, which include reviewing the existing classified waters of the state and candidate waters with water quality supporting reclassification assessment of the antidegradation requirements, examination of the regulatory framework for class a waters, and examination of the current water classification for lakes and ponds. So that's the that's the general directive, and it gets into greater detail in a minute. And then based on their evaluation of those of those tasks, they are going to recommend to you legislative or policy policy changes to strengthen environmental protection, provide regulatory certainty, and support public uses of state waters. So I'm now on page one, line 16 in the membership of the group. There are going to be 11 members, two house members, two senate members, moving on to page two, secretary of ANR or her designee, a DEC, water quality scientist or technical staff member, Two persons representing business industries or or other or development that interact with water quality permitting, including anti degradation, including water for classification. One's gonna be appointed by the speaker, one by the committee on committees. Two persons representing the environmental advocacy community, one by the speaker, one by the committee on committees, and one person representing the Federation of Lakes and Ponds. So then you get to its powers and duties. So develop an inventory of the waters of the state with existing classification designation. That's probably not gonna be that hard. It's they they probably have most of the waters the state already inventoried their classification. But they're gonna include on that inventory those candidate high quality waters with water quality data that that shows that they meet or exceed their current classification. So most are classified b, but there are many that can be classified as a. They're then going to assess the state's obligation under the federal Clean Water Act with respect to adoption of an antidegradation rule to implement the state's antidegradation policy, including an evaluation of state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements and any barrier for them complying with the directive. And why are they not adopting the implementation rule? Page three, line five, they're gonna identify and evaluate the statutory regulatory framework, rules, policies, etcetera, governing class a waters, including whether modifications are needed to facilitate reclassification. Reclassification has to be done by rule. That can be difficult. Do you want it to go through full rulemaking because of the public participation so that the public that could be affected will know about it? Or do you want the agency to have greater flexibility in reclassification so that they are actually recording what the water quality of water is and and therefore having it managed according to the class system?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, Michael, I have to just check on something that I think I understand, but I need you to I need you to let me know if I do. My understanding is that if the data shows a b meets a class a, the regulation of that stream is is actually as an a, whether it's actually been formally reclassified or not. Is that true?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That that is the regulatory theory and regulatory requirement. That's what antidegradation is. It's like it's antidegrading of the water and its current quality. So if it is meeting all of the standards for class a, it's not supposed to be managed in a way that would allow the degradation of it so that one of those uses does no longer meets class a. How does someone know that

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: know that? How does the agency deal with that now? Do we know?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's what the implementation rule is supposed to be about. They have the procedure. It's, like, two pages long, whereas the actual anti deg rule is pretty darn long. And so how

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How can it

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: be long if we don't have it?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the amp the antidegradation rule, and then there's the antidegradation implementation rule.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you have the standards for what antideg is in the Vermont water quality standards, which is a rule. And so that meets the federal Clean Water Act requirement that states have an anti degradation. But how it's implemented also partly a requirement of the federal clean water act, but it's also a statutory requirement in Vermont law. There is no implementation rule. There's an implementation procedure. And the agency says that's good enough and that they follow it, but I don't know how.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the EPA hasn't commented on whether that's good enough or not in twenty years.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Not not that I know of.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: We're just talking about the classification of the waters as being going as potentially going through a rulemaking process.

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: When

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: we talk about the classification of other analogous parts of our landscape, like maybe wetlands, is that also through rulemaking, or is it just decision by, like, the secretary?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So wetlands partly is by rulemaking. If it's a class class one, then it has to go through rulemaking because that's the highest standard, and there's very little activity that's allowed in a class one. But in a class two, the secretary has authority to make a determination based on multiple factors of whether or not an unmatched wetland needs protection as a significant wetland. That does not go through rulemaking.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Doctor Austin. Yep. Just for me, can the study committee look at the impact of chloride in data centers on water in the study? Can you

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, it's not specifically directed to do that now. This is more about the regulatory framework and not specific application of the regulatory framework, which is really what those two Mhmm. Would be. Should I move on?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard then Tagliavia. Okay.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. What so I guess I'd like to know what what kind of what kind of criteria would take a class a water to a class b water? What what what failures would cause it to go from a to b? So don't understand what what the criteria is for any of those.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So one of the criteria for class a, it's uniformly excellent and for use as drinking water. So potentially without treatment in some cases. And so maybe a use is allowed that that degrades it, so it's no longer available for drinking water without treatment, and now it needs treatment. And you've just degraded that water. You've added an extra management requirement for that water that wasn't there before and wasn't supposed to occur.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: So how does how is that determined? Does somebody test it to say, oh, yeah, you can drink this. This is class a water.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You're they're supposed to test those waters on a two to three year schedule, and they're supposed to assess whether those waters are meeting all the uses. And if they're not meeting the uses, that's when they're determined to be impaired, and they have to figure out what's causing the impairment. If you have just a class b, you're just you're just you're just managing it to class b. Now if it's meeting class a already, they're supposed to to be applying class a to it. So it remains class a. So it remains class a. But I don't I I don't see the transparency in that, and I don't know if that's actually being done.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Do class b waters ever go to class a?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They're supposed to, and there are there are many that qualify. But the last time a big classification was proposed, it was in the White River. The last time I remember, it was the White River. And it it was a rulemaking, and it became a debate about what science supported what. So whether or not the agency science supported reclassification of certain segments from b to a or whether the advocate science supported that. And then you're in front of LCAR, and they're trying to determine whether or not the rule is arbitrary or consistent with legislative intent, it it was it was very difficult, and it stalled. It stalled because of that debate. And that, ultimately, the the basin plan for that that water went forward without classifications, which it's not supposed to do. But the general assembly gave that approval so that the planners in that area could figure out what they could plan for for development and activity, even though they didn't have the updated classification. And that's that's, like, that's maybe one of the things people you talk to is, how do the regional planners use that information, class a, class b, the basin plan, to develop their regional plans for development and activity within a watershed. Because they do. That information is informative on how they develop the regional plans.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you know if the senate took testimony from them?

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: don't believe they did.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I'm sorry. I missed where that was, the example you were giving about the

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: What river? What watershed? It was the White River.

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: We're we're talk thank you. We're talking about the past twenty years and how these classifications haven't happened or the rulemaking classifications haven't happened. How much development has happened to cause this to be so much of a concern? Are we talking about a handful of developments? Are we talking about hundreds of instances?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I think, potentially, any development can create a problem. Any any development.

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Meaning even one site?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's possible. I mean, there there. When I first started, the one site that was at issue was then called the Kmart parking lot in Kmart shopping mall in South Burlington. It was one site. It was just one parcel, but it was contributing to an impairment of the stormwater impaired water. And that site, just in and of itself, was significant in that contribution and led to litigation, which almost stopped permitting in the state because of that contribution and because there wasn't that regulatory framework for regulating that at the time. So one site can be impactful.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. Did you say it almost stopped regulating in the state? Yeah. Because we didn't have the permitting.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Because we didn't the state did not have a permitting scheme that would allow for permitting in a stormwater impaired water. 13 impaired stormwater impaired waters at the time, Franklin County to Rutland County. So maybe not the entire state, maybe just on the western side of the state, and how that would have been done. And there was there basically was a court decision that said there could not be stormwater contribution that that resulted in a net discharge to that water. And so we had to come up with a you had to come up with a scheme that led to net zero discharge in order to allow for development in those impaired waters to go forward. The state did not have that at that time. And so EPA set up sent up a facilitator. I was here till three in the morning, was dreaming about it. It was all consuming until the legislature got to a point, created an interim, created a standard that ANR needed to meet. They had to meet it by rule. And that's kind of the basis of the stormwater management today.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for the history. Yeah. Well, it's helpful.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So let's move on. And what else the study, the working group's going to do? They're going to look on page three, lines 10 through 14, about whether the existing water classification in the state protects the ecological integrity of the state's lakes and ponds adequately addresses current and potential threats to the water quality of state of lakes and ponds and provides regulatory certainty. As I said, other states have systems that are based on on the lake. Sometimes it's based on the size of the lake. Sometimes it's based on the location of a lake, like high mountain or or in in general development areas. Or it's about what it does, whether or not it provides high quality aquatic biota or aquatic habitat. And so there are different ways to specifically regulate and classify lakes that this working group could look at.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Satcowitz. Michael, you

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: just said that other states have done this kind of work before. And is it when you mean when you say other states, is it, like, basically all other states? Or

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not it's not all other states.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Sounds like it's coming ultimately, like, this is rules that are supposed to be created because we're to comply with EPA. So wouldn't that cover

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yes. The rules are created to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act. The Federal Clean Water Act says all states have to have their own water quality standards. And those states have adopted those water quality standards for lakes, just for lakes, either by statute or by rule. So it's complying with the water quality standard requirement. But they also have water quality standards for rivers and streams. In Vermont, you have water quality standards for all surface waters.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So so I guess what I want I guess I'm curious about how how much of a outlier Vermont is in terms not having these these rules in place after all this time?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I wouldn't say that that I would say your the state is likely more in the majority than the minority. You know? The states that I know of that do it are Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin has a system. Illinois has Illinois has a system. You know? But, you know, Wyoming doesn't. And so you have to kinda look at I haven't looked at all 50 states.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Does New York I mean, the waters that we share with New York and Canada, do they have

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I New York has something, but I I can't remember exactly what it is off the top of my head. And Canada is not subject to this at all. Canada has strong regulatory scheme.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Pritchard?

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: What is the definition of ecological integrity? Is there a baseline is there a standard for ecological cysts?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I I do not believe that there's a specific standard for it. I think it's it's really goes back to anti Dag and and ensuring that the lake is being managed so that it it doesn't degrade.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: The lake today, the lake a hundred years ago?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's the thing. It's supposed to be the lake as it evolves. Right? You you let it evolve up, but you don't let it evolve down.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: Do you degrade as we get older? I highly degrade. I just wanna understand that I mean, it's like these terms drive me crazy because they're just they're warm, fuzzy feeling that nobody can ever define what what ecological integrity. I I just don't understand what that means. I I I don't think the person that puts it down on the paper understands what it means, but it sounds good. So

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: so I empathize because when you look at the water quality standards, there are hard and fast facts, effluent limitations, maintaining certain factual thing. But then there are some that are not. They're called narrative standards. Aesthetics. Aesthetics is a standard. How do you come up with a data point that defines aesthetics. And and so

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: define it, and how I define it may be, Jeff. Right.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And that's why there's a narrative standard in the stand in the water quality rules about how to govern that. And so they would if they're gonna look at ecological integrity and recommend changes, you're probably gonna have to come up either with a hard and fast standard for what that is, you know, effluent limitations, no degradation of aquatic habitat, fish population, etcetera, or you're gonna have to come up with the narrative standard because it's too difficult to come up with with the hard and fast battery.

[Christopher “Chris” Pritchard (Member)]: To have that standard before we wrote it into a bill?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's kinda what this is about, about whether or not there should be different standards for the different types of water. You know, should there be a different standard for lakes? Because they are functionally much different bodies of water. You know? Lake Champlain has a has a wave. You know? It has a tide, and it's really weird when you experience it. But it has it has its own dynamic. And how that's not really taken into account in this. Lake Willoughby is so deep that it's nobody really knows how deep, but it means that there's different ways and aquatic habitat and biota in it. Shadow Lake and Glover, it's like, it is literally like crystal clear. And it probably should be managed to maintain that to for going forward hundred years.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So this is a study group that is gonna get to these questions.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I'd like to finish walking through the bill. We have senator Warren here with us for the next thing on the agenda.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the study group has the support of ANR and Ledge Council. It reports to you 12/15/2026. The ANR secretary calls the first meeting. They elect a chair at the first meeting. It ceases to exist 02/15/2027. Members, both the legislative and the nonlegislative, get compensation for up to eight meetings. You can meet more than eight meetings, but you will not get paid for those extra meetings. Then there's a contingency clause. As I think you all know, when bills that are creating new responsibilities with appropriations in them are going to the appropriations committees. They're putting contingencies in so that if some if there's no specific appropriation, something doesn't happen. Here, this committee still goes forward. It's just that there would be no reimbursement of the members if there is no appropriation for that. So this committee is is basically going forward. The contingency is whether or not members get compensated or not. That's an old senator Kitchell move right there.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

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

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome, senator Watson. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We are

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: looking at the bills that you the committee has sent us.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Yes. Oh, so glad that you're doing that. Shall I just jump in?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I'll just say we're gonna be talking with you about s two twelve, an act relating to potable water supply and wastewater system connections as the lead sponsor.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Super. Thank you. So s two twelve, has its origins, from a study of that came out of act 47 of 2024. It brought together a group of stakeholders to discuss how to make water and wastewater permitting simpler, more efficient, less duplicative, and understanding that this is a topic that has been worked on multiple times over the years, and there have been different solutions. And so the study group came to a conclusion well, actually, maybe it might be useful to just recap a couple of those previous solutions. One was because if if you're if you're building a development and you have to get a water or a wastewater permit in a place that has municipal water and sewer, then you have to get the municipal permit as well. And municipalities tend to have a deep understanding of what their connection requirements are. And so there it seems like there's an opportunity there to streamline that process, particularly with the state's permit as well. So the one of the previous attempts was to allow full delegation of water and wastewater permitting to the municipality. You know, if they have a level of of sophistication, perhaps they could just take it over. And then it it turned out that a couple of municipalities did try that. I believe it was Charlotte and Colchester, took on that delegated authority but eventually found that that because it came with everything, including, you know, all the septic connections, it turned out to be too much. And so they those municipalities ultimately relinquished their delegated authority back to the state. There's another part of statute here that says that specifically for downtowns that the state has to defer to a licensed engineer provided that the town provides a letter to say that they have enough capacity. Apparently, no town ever took us up on that offer. So we're at the at the study committee. They made the conclusion that we could benefit from having partial delegation to a municipality to to do some of these permits instead of all instead of being required to do all of the permits for water and and wastewater. So that was the conclusion of the study, but it didn't get taken up right away. And as as a result, the water and wastewater division, drinking water division of of DEC came up with a different plan, which was to create a general permit for water and wastewater connections. And I'm gonna let legislative council describe a general permit as to what that entails, what that means. And along with that, they were going to put to put out to to bid coming up with a manual. So right now, all of the requirements around the connections are described in words. If you have a manual in which you can use pictures, it can be significantly clearer layperson even as to what these connections ought to look like. So that's that was the direction that they were going in the absence of any legislation last year. But then through our committee testimony, which we we started with a bill that was just to realize the the desires of the committee to come up with a partial delegation system, but then heard about this general permit idea and came to find out from our legislative council that they the they lacked the authority to to develop a general permit for these kinds of connections. So that so both of those things are embedded in this bill. So it does create the option for a partial delegation. We did hear from one municipality that said that they were interested in that, and it also directs DC to develop a general permit for drinking water connections that ultimately defers to a licensed engineer who is, you know, who who is very familiar with, these kind these kinds of connections. But, I would say, there is a may in there that is important because we thought it would be, the drinking water division, and we agreed with them. They said that for particularly large or complicated connections or large projects, that they would still want to retain the right to have a more thorough review. So that is baked in there as well. And then it does also direct them to develop a manual. There was some discussion around capacity, we we landed on that a a definition of capacity would be a part of the guidelines of the manual. There apparently, the the definition of capacity changes from one municipality to another and can be relatively complicated. So just one flag there. And then the bill also removed some some of the language about full delegation and the the downtown deferment to licensed engineers that was ultimately not used. So I think that is it. There is If I have flags I don't have any flags here to say we should look further into this. Though, if if one comes back to mind, I will email you.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: We'll we'll let you know.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How did it come out of your committee?

[Senator Anne Watson]: It came out five zero zero.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Past the floor of the senate?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Past the floor unanimously. I'm trying to remember if it was roll call or voice vote, but it was was not controversial.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Yes. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. How's your time out, Michael? Now you're back in the hot seat.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'll I'll just provide a little extra context. ANR, DEC, potable water supply and wastewater system rules and statute require set forth when, a permit is needed to build a wastewater system, build a well, septic system, indirect discharge system, etcetera. The that statute and those rules also require that same permit for a connection, when you're going to a new or modified connection to a new or existing public water system of a municipal wastewater system or municipal public water system. When you're building, you're gonna connect a structure to a water system or a wastewater system in a municipality, you need a potable water supply or wastewater system permit. Now there has been a discussion objection to that permit for a long time from municipalities. They think it's too expensive. They think it takes too much time. And they also approve connections because it's a land use tool. It it allows municipalities to to effectively direct when structures where they're gonna build their lines, how they're going to to provide for development along those lines, and connection is is a tool that they use in that regard. But ANR has an interest that the legislature has recognized in ensuring that those connections are done properly so that there isn't failures of those lines, that there are failures of the systems because they've been overused or overconnected, so because of lack of capacity. So INR has always maintained the desire and the need to approve those connections in the interest of public health and the environment.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Were you finished? That's a great summary. I don't want to interrupt you, but I have questions.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have a question, but I don't

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead. You're not I'm done.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. You know, senator Watson brought up the definition of capacity, which I'm not sure I've heard that necessarily under question. But over time, I feel like we've taken mixed testimony on the reality of who's keeping track and whether anyone is actually really keeping track of capacity of particularly our wastewater systems. I think it's but I'm curious about water and wastewater. Who's keeping track?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the system itself, the municipality or the public water, you know, regulatory entity in your municipality, is supposed to manage those systems so that they operate functionally and don't have unpermanent discharges or or don't provide or provide drinking water in a way that meets the safe drinking water federal safe drinking water act and state drinking water standard. So they they do need to manage their capacity because if you don't have the the system to pump your drinking water out to the end of the line, you're probably not getting the drinking water there in a form that meets drinking water standards because it sits or it doesn't get in the volume that it needs to be. And you might need to put in a distribution hub later on in that line. The fact of the matter is that municipalities don't always know where everything is going and where there might be leakages, especially for water, where there might be abnormal pressures on a wastewater system. And so one of the testimonies in the senate was don't mandate what capacity is. Guide us on how to develop what capacity is. Because the mandate of the capacity isn't gonna fit from one town to the next. And so they want guidance instead of a mandate. Stay. It was it was Karen Horn representing the Green Mountain Water. I can never remember their name. I

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: know who you're talking about.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And so that that that is definitely a con that is a concern that came out of the study committee that senator Watson referenced about, you know, if you're gonna go to a new standard, hour and capacity is going to be a criteria how to define that because it's it's different. It's different from town to town. But with that said, you can't have on permanent discharges. If you have a CSO, you're supposed to be in under the CSO rule on moving to retrofit that. If it's drinking water, it has to meet the Safe Drinking Water Act and the state's drinking water quality standards. You might need disinfection byproduct. You might need further treatment along the line. You might need pumping stations. Those are all things that they're supposed to be monitoring in their system to ensure that it meets state and federal requirements.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I'm not guess I'm unclear why they're they're not really different from town to town. They they have to meet those standards. How they meet them might be different. Is that is that where is that the difference we're talking about? Like, functionally but I I guess even if I don't get it, how were they different from town to town?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Some towns don't know where they are.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That doesn't mean they don't have to meet the standard.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: They do need to meet the standard. Right? And but they to say that they absolutely meet this standard for capacity, that's difficult for a town to to determine. And and and if it really in the end, they need to meet those they need to meet the discharge. They need to meet the the safe drinking water standards. And if they're they're meeting those, they're effectively meeting capacity, but you need to be able to evaluate that when you're doing a connection, when you are doing development. And that's what the agency is gonna provide them guidance with. And it's also why it's still within the agency's discretion to require an individual permit. If there's going to be a significant development, you know, Chittenden County, 400 unit buildings are going up, you know, Maybe A and R needs to do that as an individual permit and to ensure that that system systems has the capacity for that connection. And and then they'll be able to to do that evaluation on their own. Hooking up in a in a tri town water to a new three housing three unit housing development, they could probably do that by a general permit.

[Michael “Mike” Tagliavia (Member)]: Thank you. Those are good examples. Representative Tagliavia? You've said something about 400 unit housing develop. In the initial permitting, there's nothing questioning whether there's capacity in the municipality ahead of permit? Well, that's partly what the rules do. They require you to

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: determine that that there is the ability to to do the connection. And and your discharge permit requires you to have the capacity to handle what is coming into your facility. And your drinking water permit, you have to meet the drinking water quality standards regardless of who's on your system. Right? And so the end results are really the drivers. You need to manage your system in a way to ensure that if you're doing connections, that you're still meeting those ends. And that's not as easy as it sounds.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe another way of asking that is where is that happening? Or the before a developer even I mean, they're at they must be out there checking with the town just anecdotally even say, like, do you have capacity to do this?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should be part of your plan. Yeah. It should be part of your municipal plan to where you have in your system capacity for connections and future development. You should also know, say, wastewater treatment plant, you should be managing that to what's called a margin of safety so that you can have pressures on it and it doesn't lead to violations. But you also need to build into that some development buffer. And that's what happens when when you build a new wastewater treatment facility. I mean, the last one I can remember, like, new new was South Burlington, and they build in, like, a 60 no. It's, like, 40 to 50% buffer to allow for new development. But they're probably gonna have to build another one at some point too because their two facilities won't be able to handle additional development in a way that provides that margin of safety. And that's what these people that run these, honestly, I think it's a job that doesn't get as much attention and praise that it deserves, way that they run these facilities and those things that they have to deal with.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the things we take for granted that can make happen for us.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm definitely always gonna get water out of my tap, and if I have to boil it, then I'm really angry about that. Right? And, you know? There it is. It's still Right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Totally agree.

[Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Representative Austin? Yeah. Did they discuss any regs about difference between developments that are close to bodies of water? Is there any discrepancy there?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if you're close to a lake shoreland, you have to manage your impervious surface that meets the lake shoreland standards. Yes, there are standards for septic. There's setback requirements. There's sizing requirements. If you're gonna be over 6,500 gallons, you have to go to an indirect discharge permit.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will hear from the on-site program next week. They were they're our next step in our deep dive into ANR programs. Actually, I'm thinking we should take a break right now before you begin the walkthrough. Sure. Let's break till 10:30, and we could