Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good morning and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning we are going to be hearing testimony on S-two 23, an act related to water quality of the waters of Vermont. Welcome, Deputy Commissioner.

[Neil Kamen (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation)]: All right. Good morning, everybody. For the record, Neil Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation. Nice to see you all again, and thanks for your well wishes as we got started with the session here. So I'm here today with Bethany Sergeant. She's manager of the monitoring assessment program at DEC in the watershed management to talk to you about s two twenty three. This is a nuanced bill, although it's pretty simple. All this bill is doing is asking for the creation of a study committee. But what that study committee is to do is to bring back recommendations related to some very media nuanced area of the clean water. Act. So you're going to hear a lot about Clean Water Act requirements from myself and Bethany. And you've actually learned this material before from Michael Grady. Ledge Council did really what I thought was a master class presentation at

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: So,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: what to we're

[Neil Kamen (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation)]: give you some refresher on that material because it's kind of important stuff. I'm gonna set the high level table, make a statement about the bill itself, and then Bethany will kinda walk through the details. And we've got this is kind of a partnership presentation. All of the partners you're gonna hear from today are kind of were in alignment on the purpose of this bill and the value of this bill. Just going back to the Clean Water Act at its highest level, it establishes the goal of waters being fishable and swimmable. Should be able to fish in them, you should be able to swim in. That's actually colloquial shorthand. It's shorthand for the water should support ecological integrity, which means bugs, birds, fish, salamanders, amphibians, all of it should be able to live in their normal life cycles and reproduce and and be just as happy as we are here on the land. And they should be recreationally suitable as well. We should be able to swim in them. We should be able to boat in them. And so the Clean Water Act requires us to manage towards the ecological ecological integrity and recreational suitability of waters. And the reason we do this is because when waters are overly polluted, it affects either the ecological integrity or the recreational suitability or both. And not all water bodies are created equal. We were just chatting here about some trout waters that we know, the Flower Brook, the Meadowee River, and, you know, those are two expressions of streams that might not have the same biological expectations. A small headwater stream, you might expect to see certain critters, bugs, birds, fish living there, a low elevation flood plain large river. You might expect to see a very completely different set of organisms, in those. And likewise with lakes, and there's a component of this bill that deals with lakes. The expectations for a small pond maybe down, in the Marble Belt in Southern Vermont may not have the same expectations as Lake Willoughby up north, right? Or Caspian Lake or something like that. So the Clean Water Act recognizes this difference in the likelihood of of of how water bodies are by establishing the concept of water body classification. Classification just simply puts water bodies in classes of their expectation, right? So that that small babbling brook is recognized for what it is. Lake Willoughby is recognized for what it is, and then we create standards and and mechanisms to protect those expectations specific to those types or classes of water bodies. So this is what S-two 23 is all about, establishes a study committee to bring back essentially the structure of a rule that implements the Clean Water Act and in parallel establishes a requirement to look into how lakes themselves are classified and think about whether that can and should be done differently or whether all is well. DEC supports s two two three in its form. If it were to pass out, we would be happy to recommend the governor's signature on it, and we'll see how it evolves in this committee. So I'm happy to take questions, and I'm ready to turn it over to Bethany. Otherwise, if you'd like to hear more of the details. And Bethany's gonna take you through the details. By the way, our testimony, including a little couple figures that illustrate things should be on your site.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Do members have questions?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: A quick one. I just wanna make sure. Thank you, chair. Just wanna make sure I understood one of the last statements you made there that the government, you you and your office and the governor are okay with it, just

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: as it is? They're not expecting necessarily changes to it?

[Neil Kamen (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Well, whether or not there are changes in its current form, we support it.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. In its current form, we support it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That's thank you. Other questions? Thank you. Oh, representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: So are you gonna establish a baseline for these waters? I mean, far as where they stand in degradation now? Yeah.

[Neil Kamen (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation)]: Bethany will talk about that in much more detail. Yes.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Letting me off easy today, Chittenden.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Sorry. Oh, well, we're gonna vote. A lot

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: of testimony to go through.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So for the record, my name is Bethany Sargent. I am the program manager for the monitoring assessment program, and I'm gonna dig a bit more into the details of the the core concepts in s two twenty three. So first, let me start off by saying, in order to meet our obligations under the Clean Water Act, in order to protect and maintain our surface waters, we need a classification system that works, one that accurately reflects the management objectives for those waters and the expected conditions in order to to meet the uses, one that can be implemented efficiently and equitably, and one that provides regulatory certainty. So the core concepts in the bill, anti degradation and water classification are complex, they're closely integrated, and they're not widely understood. So I'm gonna, again, try to give you a 30,000 foot view of those concepts and describe how the state meets our obligations under both state and federal law and what some of the challenges are with our current system with the status quo. So the Clean Water Act requires states to develop and adopt water quality standards. So we typically describe those as a three legged stool. So the first part of that stool first leg are our designated uses. So you can think of those as our goals, the way that we use the water that benefits us. So you can some of those, as an example, would be aquatic biota. So fish, bugs, things that live in the water. Swimming, fishing, boating uses a public water source. Those are the designated uses. And the clean, it also requires second leg of the stool water quality criteria. And then finally, that third leg is our anti degradation policy. And I'll get more into that in a little bit. Let me start with the designated uses and the water quality standards for Vermont. So those are adopted by administrative rule. They have established our eight designated uses, as I had mentioned a handful of them, and those are the uses that must be protected and maintained. So in Vermont, waters are classified individually for each designated use. So we may have one stream that has a higher class for a particular loose like aquatic biota, for example. They also establish the class of the water, the management objectives, and the water quality criteria. You can think of the criteria as the conditions necessary to support that use as it's classified. The water quality criteria can be narrative, a statement of how we want the water to be, or it can be numeric. If you think back to my earlier testimony on chloride, we talked about the numeric water quality standard for chloride. Right? It couldn't exceed more than 230 milligrams per liter. It's a very sort of hard and fast number. In other words, we have the classification system allows us to have different goals and different, you know, manage toward different expectations in the water. So by statute, there are four classes of water in Vermont. So we have Class B2, and that essentially means that it supports all of our designated uses. So we think of that as good water quality. Then we have B1, which is essentially better water quality. So it more consistently demonstrates and achieves those uses in a better way than B2. We have A1, which is our best water quality. So we think of those as having high ecological integrity. Water is in their natural condition. We also call that reference condition. And then finally, A2, which is our public water sources. Yes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Senator Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Is this in your testimony?

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: It is. So we have a written, we provided a written draft.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. So I can just listen.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: It's a lot of detail.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Otherwise, I'd be writing. And if it's have thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Hoyt.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Can you just tell me, like, so I get in my head a little bit better, like,

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: For b one?

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Yeah. Or for b one b two. Like, what's what makes what makes a water, you know, better? But

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So one of the clear examples of that is when we're evaluating aquatic biota in our streams. So there are specific macroinvertebrates, aquatic bugs, like mayflies, stoneflies, that are very sensitive to pollution. And so when we measure the communities of macroinvertebrates, there'll be a healthy population of those very sensitive bugs and a good community composition overall. The habitat looks great. It's sort of, you can think of that as being, you know, as it would be in an undeveloped watershed. So think forest forested, Often these are in our higher high elevation waters that are very undisturbed watersheds.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: They may have more diverse or more of

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: these Be very sensitive species. Yep.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So by statute, all waters above 2,500 feet are Class A. So that's either A1 or if they're designated as a public water source, A2. By default, all other waters, so below 2,500 feet are Class B2, so our good water quality meets designated uses unless reclassified when it is contrary to the public interest to maintain its current classification, and reclassification would be in the public interest. So Actually,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's a good point to reiterate. Yes. That last thought.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: Yes. So the agency so all waters, again, sort of by default, they're below 2,500 feet, are b two unless it's found that reclassification is in the public interest. That is in statute 10 BSA twelve fifty three. So I'm gonna change gears a little bit and talk about anti degradation. So as I mentioned, Vermont's anti degradation policy is in the water quality standard. So designated uses, water quality criteria, and anti degradation policy. So under this policy, a limited reduction in the quality of a high quality water, and so that essentially means it's meeting the minimum expectations of water quality for that class. So that reduction is allowed when the agency has put that draft decision out for public comment, when there's been an analysis of alternatives and allowing that lower water quality is necessary to prevent substantial economic social impacts to people of the state, and when the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for point sources and the best management practices for non point sources are implemented consistent with state law. So those are sort of that's the overarching policy. So a limited lowering above the minimum criteria can be achieved when the agency finds that there is an alternatives analysis, that this is necessary in order to prevent that socioeconomic harm. So with antidegradation, overall, it limits that incremental water quality degradation above the minimum criteria, and that analysis occurs during a permitting process. So someone's proposing a discharge and as the agency evaluates whether that lowering if necessary, whether there have been alternatives that have been evaluated, and that this is the least impactful alternative to prevent that socioeconomic harm. And it only occurs for new or increased discharges. So it has to be a new discharge or additional pollutants within an existing discharge. And again, it must be noticed publicly, so it has to be put out for public comment. So our methods for implementing the anti degradation policy are in the interim anti degradation implementation procedure, and that was signed in 2010. So beginning in 2021, the agency convened a stakeholder group, many of the folks you will hear from this morning, to develop an anti deg implementation rule. And in that process, we learned that in order to implement anti degradation effectively, we need a reclassification system that works. So let me talk about that a little bit more. So the agency right now has water quality data that demonstrates that more than 100 surface waters, streams, lakes, meet the or water quality for a higher class, so they could be reclassified. To date, only surface waters in wilderness areas and recreation areas in the Green Mountain National Forest have been reclassified. That was in 2017. In 2022, we reclassified three streams in and around Rifton. And prior to that, there have only been three reclassification efforts, 1996, 1991, and 1989. So reclassification of these three streams in Ripton, so that was our most recent reclassification effort, was initiated by a petition petitions from the Conservation Commission. The agency in reviewing the petitions, as I had mentioned previously, was tasked with evaluating whether reclassification was in the public interest. So we had data that demonstrated they met the water quality criteria of a higher class. The petitioners obviously supported the petition and the reclassification action, but there were several landowners in the watersheds that did not. They supported reclassification, but they felt singled out. When you think about the number of waters that we have data on that could be reclassified, they asked the question, why? Why us? Why are our waters being proposed to be held to a higher standard and managed differently relative to all of the other surface waters in the state? It also became apparent that the statute that prohibits systems, on-site wastewater systems greater than a thousand gallons was also a barrier in terms of supporting reclassification. So landowners had said, I support reclassification in general, but this doesn't seem appropriate, given that the way that I've been managing my land supports A1?

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Sarah?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Wastewater systems greater than 1,000 gallons. Are you talking about actual septic tanks or 1,000 gallons per day that are actually

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So the design through

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: design flow. Okay.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So the agency also currently has four lake reclassification petitions. And this prohibition is even more problematic with lake watersheds, which are often larger and may include town centers. So we've made significant progress working with stakeholders representing diverse interests over the last several years. So S-two twenty three, the study group charged with evaluating classification, evaluating anti degradation, and the policies and regulations for those two areas and making recommendations on potential changes will help us identify how best to move forward.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Representative Norris. Thank you. Just to understand the terminology.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: Yeah, there's a lot of technical terms.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: You used the word reclassification. Does that always mean bumping up the class? And then you sometimes use degradation, that always means lowering the classification? Great. Just trying to understand.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: Yeah, it's a great question. So antidegradation is always thinking about the water quality above the minimum, so better than our criteria, and that allows lowering. When we're reclassifying a water, we would need to do upward reclassification. So it's a different process that I won't get into in terms of evaluating whether or not you can attain the designated use. And that would sort of be the equivalent of lowering the classification. That's a whole different whole different area, so not part of this. So it would in this context, it's always upward reclassification. So going from b two to b one or from b b two to a one.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Oh, go ahead. I just want to, again, make sure I understood.

[Michael Hoyt (Member)]: This bill is not addressing the upward reclassification thing, but only preventing the downward.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: It's addressing both aspects and they are interrelated. The class of the water essentially sets the floor. So antidegradation is the limited lowering from the existing water quality down to that floor. And so if you have the water body classified based on its existing condition, it sets the floor potentially higher as we should be managing our waters to protect the existing water quality.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia. Class

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: a waters versus class b one or b two. Mhmm. Getting into wastewater systems, homes on lakes that are on class B waters that have been reclassified to class A with 1,000 gallons per day, what will that do with respect to permitting and setbacks and other restrictions?

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: So right now, the only Class A lakes we have are those above 2,500 feet and those in undeveloped areas, so Green Mountain National Forest. So right now, we and I can speak to the lakes for which we have petitions. So for example, Caspian Lake, there's a petition because it meets our A1 water quality criteria. It is currently B2. Right now, any size system can be put in along the lake or anywhere in the watershed. If that lake were to be reclassified, it would prohibit installing systems greater than 1,000 gallons per day for on-site wastewater. And that is a that lake in particular is one example where there were several shoreland owners who needed to replace their septic systems. And rather, you know, than individually putting in septic systems, they were able to essentially put in a community system larger than a thousand gallons per day further from the lake. So it's an example of potential water quality benefit that was afforded because it hadn't yet been reclassified. So that sort of activity would not have been allowed if it had been a class A1. But these are the kinds of questions that the study group is really tasked with delving into. What are the management implications of classification? What's the process? How should we, as a state, be managing our waters? Because as Neil pointed out, not all waters are equal. They're not all the same.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: So this potentially could change individual systems. They could potentially be forced to use community systems.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: They wouldn't be forced. No, not at all. So right now, the prohibition exists for A waters, but many of the waters, so more than 100 waters I spoke of, there is no prohibition there now. If they were to be reclassified to Class A, that prohibition is in statute now.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks. That was a lot. And your written testimony really will help us revisit it.

[Bethany Sargent (Program Manager, Monitoring & Assessment Program, DEC)]: Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Next up, we have, Mason, and was John?

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yes, he's here, and he's coming in. Do you mind? John's right outside. Do you mind grabbing Are you willing to go? Okay. Sorry.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Thanks for helping an elderly gentleman. I appreciate it. Very kind. You too. My kind young colleagues.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Good? Yeah. Good morning, chair Sheldon, members of the committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify on s 02/23. For the record, my name is Mason Overstreet. I'm an attorney at Conservation Law Foundation. My work focuses on water water quality, climate resilience among other issues. And

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I'm John Groban, Vermont Natural Resources Council Policy and Water Program Director.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: So I think what we'll do is I'll start off with some kind of high level points. John can fill in anything I miss, and this will go into maybe a bit of further detail or try to untangle and make a bit of sense of what Bethany and Neil just recently covered, which they did a really no. You guys did a really good job, but there's a lot of questions that arise. And so I think what we'll try to do is is zoom out and kinda bring perspective to it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And if I might, I just wanna remind members, we're talking about a study committee to dive into this deeper. We're not talking about statutory changes in this bill. Just remember that as you're learning about the topics that the study committee will be taking up. There's gonna be more questions than answers for that part. That's why there's a study committee recommend.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Is study committee mandated by the EPA? It is not.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But abiding by the Clean Water Act is.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yes. No. Thank you, chair Sheldon. I was gonna say that because I fully recognize it's very easy. We start hearing some of these issues that come up that this study committee would look at, and it's very easy for anyone's hackles to get get raised or be skeptical about what the intent is. But let's just zoom out for a second. So CLF along with a bunch of partner organizations, many of whom you'll hear from, have engaged on the issues that you've heard about that are in s two twenty three for decades. John has been involved in this for three plus decades. I've been actively involved in it, as have many others. More recently, Bethany and Neil spoke about this, but I think the context is really important for this particular bill and why we're here right now is years back, as you heard from Bethany, we participated in ANR's anti degradation free rulemaking stakeholder process. You will also hear from Jeff Nelson of BHP, Warren Coleman at MMR. Warren Coleman actually drafted when he was in our general counsel, he drafted the interim anti degradation policy that's currently on the books that is need in need of replacement. So we all work together in that stakeholder group. That basically led to a proposed ANR proposed an anti degradation implementation rule in 2023, and that stalled an LCAR. The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy that year spent close to five weeks actually untangling all this. Right? This committee simultaneously also has spent significant time going back to 2023 on what I would call piecemeal issues involved here. Right? At that time in 2023, the bill that the senate committee worked on was s one forty six that passed the senate, but it stalled in the house mainly because there was a lot of misinformation. Again, it's really easy for people to get hackles up, misinformation spreads, and it's hard to have a coherent conversation about what the real intent is. The following year, if you can believe this, and again, this is why it's important to know where this bill is headed. The following year in 2024, ANR actually proposed and submitted a 2024 anti degradation rule. Right? That also stalled an LCAR and didn't move at all. And that year, there were close to half a dozen, what I would call quick legislative piecemeal attempts to try to solve this problem. K? All of that basically resulted in gridlock, stalemate, disagreement, etcetera. So from our perspective, that really underscores why S-two 23 in a study committee with the right expertise really is the most prudent path forward. And I think that's the best vehicle and use of, let's call it legislative resources and all folks resources where people can really roll up their sleeves in a study committee with the right expertise, untangle the complexities, and then propose a thoughtful, realistic solution to the general assembly for consideration. I don't wanna repeat or cover testimony that may be covered after us, but Mr. O'Grady and Senator Baingartz, when they did the walk through of bill, I think they did a really nice job explaining that S-two 23 has three main parts that the study committee is looking at. Okay? I think it's good to separate each one of these. One of them, in my kind of simple mind, I have to put things into silos. And so for the study committee, one of them is the study committee asked to look at and evaluate the state's obligations under the Clean Water Act, which chair Sheldon just mentioned in response to the EPA question about the state's obligation to promulgate an anti degradation rule. I wanna quickly say there. So the interim anti degradation procedure, right, that's on the books that Bethany and Neil mentioned, that is an interim procedure. That was developed in 2010. Since that time, there have been multiple legislative mandates by the general assembly to ANR to promulgate a rule. But again, because of all the intricacies and interrelatedness of this, ANR has not been able to do that yet. Okay, so the second thing the study committee is looking at is basically the reclassification process, and I would say the slower progress or pace of reclassification. What you heard from Bethany is there are a lot of waters in the state of Vermont with data warranting a higher classification that are essentially sitting on the books that haven't received that classification that they deserve. Okay? And that in part is due to the classification process, which is what the study committee will look at. And then finally, the study committee will make policy recommendations on the most prudent path forward to the general assembly of, again, the interrelatedness of the need for promulgating a thoughtful anti degradation rule, improving, let's call it the pace of the reclassification process, and then looking at other policies on the books, which may be slowing that process. So finally, I'd like to just make a few points just to kind of clear the air. S two twenty three is a study committee. This bill will not slow or impede housing, like full stop. It just won't. S two twenty three is not just another study committee. I think many of us in this room and probably this building, you know, any laugh or chuckle when they hear study committee. This is not just another study committee. And actually, in my opinion, this is the best situation for a study committee to really delve into the details and come back with a recommendation rather than committees like this and the general assembly at large at stalemate or disagreement really expending precious resources and time. The history here matters. When this bill was down in the Senate, Senator Beck keenly observed and acknowledged that Vermont struggled for decades with these issues, and that's been across multiple administrations and both parties to, again, adopt an anti degradation rule, reclassify waters, and speed up the reclassification process. And at the same time, we have we have a situation where there is declining water policies or declining water quality and outdated policies. And that creates real frustrations for residents and businesses, again, who may not be able to install or upgrade a wastewater system in certain areas. Now, that record shows again why S-two 23 is a good path forward rather than kind of casting blame on different sides. S-two 23 is not legislating the legislature. It's really taking a step back, gathering perspectives, evaluating how to balance regulatory certainty with strong water protections without placing what I would say unnecessary burdens on Vermonters. Most importantly, would say here, you will hear from a broad coalition of stakeholders, business, industry, environmental organizations, citizens, lakes and ponds groups, and they all support S-two 23 as drafted and are ready to take a deep dive into this and hopefully come out of that study committee with a thoughtful recommendation. Lastly, I would say a good question too for the general assembly is, is this the right time to take action on these issues? I would argue absolutely yes. We have situations with declining water quality. We have the onslaught of climate change. We have, you know, increasing pressures on the landscape, and all of these issues are interrelated. And it is time for the state to take action on antidegradation and reclassification. I'll pass it to John. Happy to answer any questions.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I don't have other questions for me.

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

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Who isn't gonna like this bill?

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Good question. So I think the folks who are not going to like this bill Well, one, let me just back up and reiterate. This is just a study committee. So there there's nothing there's there's no paved road for the study committee. This is just a study committee to basically take this out of this room and the general assembly and to really have that conversation. I think, understandably, there is the fear. I'll I'll give I'll give an example of where I live. I live in one of the most remote villages in the state from paved road. The closest paved road is eight miles. In our valley, there's a beautiful trout stream that should be an a one. Right? If my memory is correct, it's still a b two. Right? It has data warranting reclassification. Our valley would more than likely be supportive of reclassification, everyone, both sides of the aisle. And we have a very, like, I would call a real Vermont Valley, all walks of life. Right? Now the moment ANR if ANR were to come in and have a community meeting at our community hall and start talking about this, the moment that the mention of some of the involvement for the issue of the thousand gallon prohibition in Glass A Waters, that kicks off this conversation where people think that the state's taking away a stick in their bundle. Okay? Now I would say there is some misunderstanding about that. Okay? Our position, and I say our position, conservation organizations and environmental organizations, and this is where the question's not easy to answer, so I appreciate kind of your patience with me. In 1984, in the same vein as act two fifty, that thousand gallon prohibition in class a waters was the legislature enacted it into law. Okay. It was after act two fifty, but kind of the same thing. Our position has been that if there's going to be any consideration of reforming that, striking it, anything like that, that we need to put something as protective or as thoughtful in its place. Okay? But that is one of the key controversies. If that answers your question, again, is I think Vermonters say, hey. You know what? I love plain water. I like to hunt and fish in these areas. I like to enjoy the beauty of these areas. But I'm a little concerned that you are gonna take away a stick in the bundle, and so for that reason, I'm a little hesitant about reclassification. Now again, there's a lot of complexity with that, in my opinion. If we got into the intricacies of what a thousand gallon indirect discharge is, one, it's not really a discharge. Two, essentially, equates to, like, a seven bedroom house approximately. It's roughly, like, a 135 gallons. I think Bethany could tell you. So but, again, there are people on both sides of the of the aisle, as you would expect, who see both issues, right, their concerns. And so, again, our position has been the best thing to do is for a study committee to have that conversation, and that doesn't even touch on, again, the other issue is the state hasn't promulgated an antidegradation rule after multiple legislative mandates. Right? And then you've got reclassification, and and it has been difficult to reclassify waters. Right? And there are all these waters out there with data warranting reclassification. It's a really long winded response.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I know. I appreciate

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: that. I hope that helps. I hope kind of my personal value Yeah.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I I kinda in this building, I've noticed that when there's a study committee, people jump way ahead that it's gonna end up in statute. So, again, how you frame the study committee, I think will be important.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: And I think one thing I would say here is like, you're gonna hear, I'll let Mr. Nelson and Mr. Coleman kind of speak for themselves and who they represent, but they both have been involved from the permitting side with clients on anti degradation. They understand both sides of it. John here as former NR general counsel has seen it from his perspective there in addition to, you know, an environmental conservation group. But again, I think I personally see s two 23 as the most prudent path to have that conversation with folks who have the expertise on the issues and then come back to the legislature versus, dare I say, kind of divisiveness and stalemate and disagreement in this building.

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

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. John, you have a question for Mason, or do you want to? Yes. Alright, for President Morris.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: Perhaps, or it could be for the agency. What would drive, or who would initiate conversation about reclassification and what's the incentive for reclassifying to answer the question about the concern of the thousand gallon per daily discharge?

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: I'd be happy to answer that, but I really feel that the agency is probably best suited to answer it.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I would say that the law now says that you could have a petition, so it could come from outside. From citizens? Yep. But it's based on data, It's not based on feelings. Right? It's not based on what people would like to see. You have to have data that shows that the water is high quality. In talking about this issue over the years, the last example we have of a petition was in Ripton, not far from where the chair lives. I'm sure that Chair Sheldon is really familiar with that, but it was citizens like, I think, maybe Conservation Commission where people had collected data, some beautiful streams, right, coming out of the mountains, the Green Mountains and Ripton. And so that's how that was initiated. It was a very difficult process because we don't have clarity on all the issues that Bethany and Neil and Mason has talked about. But the agency on its own can also reclassify it. You don't need a petition. And I would argue and part of the discussion, and I think that the agency would recognize they have an obligation. So under the Clean Water Act, you have to manage waters to their classification. So if the agency has data that says these are A1 waters, They're required, and I think the agency wants to, that's the list of waters they have, not to wait for a petition, right, but on their own to reclassify the waters. So that's, yeah, does that answer your question? Sort of. Sort of.

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: But it gets to initiate who initiates the process and the advantages of it? In other words, if a reclassified B1 to a higher classification than the As, but it become a drinking water source or, you know, is there incentive there for

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Well, just gives them more protection. You know, there's certainly you're you're eligible for more, like, funding to protect you know, for to take actions to protect it to make sure that it doesn't get degraded. That's what means. Yeah, that's the anti degradation part of it, making sure it doesn't degrade from an A1 to a B2. But also, then I think the study group and where the hang up has been is, well, what are the actions? Like what are the enhanced protections, right? Right now, as Mason said, one protection is the wastewater limit, right? So that's one protection. Is it the best protection? Should there be other protections? Should be the different, but there has to be some protections. That's kind of the rub right now is that in our view, the procedure doesn't provide any additional protections. It would probably make Waters eligible for funding, some of the funding sources as I noted. But that's, I think, a big part of the discussion of the study group that we haven't been able to kind of break through in these legislative discussions because it's hard. As you know, just in the session going back and forth and having the legislature say, Well, these are the enhanced protections. I think the study group would bring recommendations back to the group. So does that help?

[Kristi Morris (Member)]: It does. But I I I think I can see some some pickups here where it does get reclassified to an a one or a two from a b. And could that get into the development concerns and restrictions on

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yeah, I mean, could result, you know, the balance is like all of the issues that we talk about in terms of environmental protection and these statutes or regulations is the goal is to have, fair protections that could be met, but protections, right? It's saying, and again, the Clean Water Act is saying, you, and these are not the whole state, these are our most high quality waters, right? So this Clean Water Act is saying that and I don't want to just lean on the law because I think we'd all agree. We want to protect the drought stream that Mason noted that the folks in Ripton had identified. There are there and then there's the lakes, then there's the lakes, which is a separate issue. And that's part of the study group as well. As you all could conceptualize, I'm sure right now, protecting high quality lakes and ponds are different than streams, right, than these kind of flashy higher elevation usually, you know, streams. So but there would if this is gonna work, it has to be something. There has to be some level of protections. And that's, I think, a big part of the discussion.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just to clarify, though, we have data from 100 bodies of water that indicates they would be eligible to be an a one. They still need to be managed as A1 whether we would classify them or not. State has to keep them from degrading.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yeah, that's the law.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Currently, that is the law.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: And I think you probably you might hear from the permitting side, that's where if you get into a permitting issue now, the issue comes up a lot. Was like, well, you have data. This is a high quality water. If there's somebody concerned about an activity that could degrade it, you could go into, you could get into court, have a debate about, well, okay, like the chair is saying, it's legally required to be protected. What are you going to do to protect it? And is that enough? And we don't have clarity on that right now. And it has there have been instances where as you, you you can get into these more protracted sort of appeal proceedings where you're trying to figure where judges are gonna then fast with figuring that out. If we're successful, we'll have more clarity, you know, like, so it's certainty versus like, you're already required to protect these waters. What are you required to do? And right now we just don't have clarity on that. And we want that clarity. And just like, I don't have much to say about this. Like, everyone is, I think, made provide a really good background on this. But all I'll say is that we do like, to the chair's point, we gotta crack this nut. Like, I I I made a joke about being elderly, and but it's true. I mean, I'm, you know, I'm I'm definitely I'm I'm I'm over 60 now. But thirty years ago, when the Water Resources Board was administering the Water Quality Standards, Bill Bartlett, who was the longtime administrator, and he was married to Susan Bartlett. I don't know if people remember when Susan Bartlett was the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee for many years. Bill was sort of he really spent his whole life caring about water quality and administering the water quality standards. He thought this anti degradation issue was this giant gap. We weren't implementing it. When he retired, he said that was his biggest regret. That was almost forty years ago. Since then, we've had the debates that led to the 2010 interim procedure that led, as Mason said, to several statutory requirements at the agency implement a rule. If you look in, I think it's 10 VSA 1251A, you'll see it. Think it's like there's a subsection there that says the agency and natural resources shall promulgate an anti degradation implementation rule. And so that's what our law says, not just the Clean Water Act. That's from 2016. That was ten years ago. So we do need to figure this out. And as the chair says, we're already required to protect these waters. We just don't have a program to do that in a systematic way. So if this is what it takes, I support it. We've all been the groups that are involved that are all you're hearing from today, we have been talking about this over the last five years pretty intensively. And better to do this in my opinion than seeing, I think maybe you remember some of like the bills where there were legislative proposals like attached to this bill or that bill to implement anti DEG. Anyway You can ask

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: a question after you turn off your notifications.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I do.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm just kidding.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Listen, I'm an old I don't understand this technology, and I really don't. Grew the day.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead. I think you do have a question, representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. So I kinda I I mean, I think I kinda understand what the intent of Kristi's question was. I mean, going back to you know, I've looked at this. You know, it's not expensive. It looks like it's $14,000 we're gonna spend to do this. And, you know, I really don't have, you know, a problem with this. But what kinda triggered me was your your you know, I think one of the important things is somehow to get this in here is you talk about this public and having people misinformed, you know, being mis informed or having misinformation, and taking a stick out of their bundle. You know, we just had some folks here the other day that felt like the state has taken a bunch of sticks out of their bundle. And and and to be leery of stuff like this, I think, at this point, Vermonters expect the worst because it always turns out to be the worst for them. So I think if any of this stuff is gonna be successful, whether it's act one eighty one or if this study goes further, people have to understand all this stuff and the motive behind it. Honestly understand the motive behind these things. I just think that's important.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I couldn't agree with you more. Think it's hard. It's hard to it's just not me.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: It's not me.

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: Yeah. It's not me.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yeah. It's not me. So

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: that's my concern. And that and the stick in the bundle thing really hit home with me. You know? It just really hit home with me because that's how Vermonters feel. There's been lots of sticks removed out of their bundles. And if we want programs with the attempt to do, and I think the intent is I don't have a problem with the intent. I think it's good. You know, people gotta feel good about it and they gotta trust it and they don't anymore. They just don't.

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yeah. I I I agree. I mean but we also, I mean, I think hopefully we could convince people, like I said, these are our highest quality waters, right? That people also, Vermonters do care about water quality and great fishing habitat and great trout streams. And, you you'll hear from a group that works with all, you know, lakes and ponds and camp owners, and they were concerned about degrading water quality. They have high quality lakes and ponds now, but there's they're degrading, and they want to make sure that this is a provision in the law to sort of help prevent that, you know? But you're right, you're totally with all of this. Need to

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And I think, you know, for a lot of people, that's what they're worried about. We have a camp on Lake St. Catherine. It's been in my family one hundred years. We can't replace that because the Lakeshore lot locked us out of this. The state has locked us out of it, because it is impossible for us to ever, if something ever happened there, to to redo it. Yeah. And this affects a lot of people. Yeah. You know? This is this is a is a lake that I grew up, that I knew everybody on the lake. They were all local people. There's about seven left. They're gone. And it's not because they didn't wanna be there. They just can't afford to be there anymore. So I I just me, that's the important issue that I wanna keep bringing to the the forefront of these things. I I don't think people are people everybody wants clean. I want clean water. I just I wanna be able to people should be able to afford the benefits that it brings, all people, not just well-to-do people. And some of these things over the years have taken a lot

[Mason Overstreet (Attorney, Conservation Law Foundation)]: of sticks out of the mantle.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Moving into dialogue here, so we're gonna actually take a are you finished, John, with your testimony?

[Jon Groveman (Policy & Water Program Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: I'm very much finished.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. I'm gonna take a break and