Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are going to hear from the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds next. Welcome.

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me. My name is Pat Swazi. I'm president of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds. The federation is a statewide coalition of volunteer lake associations. Since 1972, we've been dedicated to fostering environmental quality standards and preserving Vermont's lakes, ponds, and their watersheds. We represent over 50 lake associations from around the state consisting of thousands of volunteers, boaters, swimmers, anglers, property owners, and all who love and care about protecting Vermont's lakes. So Mason and John have tried to sort things out a little bit and and reduce the confusion, and I'm here to increase confusion again. Sorry about that. But I'm gonna focus on lakes, which are sort of, as I think John and Mason both mentioned, sort of a a special category within this larger discussion of reclassification. So like many others, we certainly support this bill. We've been working on reclassification for many years. I'm gonna give you 13 more reasons to support this bill. K? So if you just bear with me, it won't take that long, actually. And here's the 13 reasons. Caspian Lake, Coal Pond in Jamaica, Coal's Pond in Walden, Echo Lake in Charleston, Maidstone Lake, Newark Pond, Lake Raponda in Wilmington, Lake Rescue in Ludlow, Seymour Lake, Shadow Lake in Glover, South Pond in Eden, Lake Willoughby, and Harvey's Lake. In 2021, the agency of natural resources determined that these 13 lakes were eligible to be reclassified as a one waters. A ray a one reclassification, this is one of the questions that was asked earlier, would better protect water quality, require earlier state intervention if phosphorus levels rise, and enable priority access to funding for restoration. So all important reasons why we wanna see those reclassified. Of the 13 that I listed, four of those lake associations with the support of their municipalities petitioned for reclassification in 2021 and early twenty twenty two. And those four are made, stone, echo, CASBN, and shadow. Since 2021, these four petitions have remained unresolved because of a set of legislative and administrative barriers. As a result, the other nine lakes deemed eligible in 2021 declined to file petitions and further work on reclassification stalled. And you've heard some of the reasons. We worked on legislation in 2023, 2024. Various things have been happening, but everything has been stalling. Recent data for three of the four petitioner lakes, and that's this year, show a rising trend in phosphorus levels. Given that phosphorus is a major contributor to cyanobacteria blooms, such rising levels are a real concern. And this is one of the things that should they rise above I think it's 12 parts per billion. I think it's around that of phosphorus. The state would have to intervene immediately. Of course, what that intervention would consist of, exactly how that's managed is part of what the study committee needs to look at. Anyway, why is the delay? Why the delay on the petitions? Why the delay on this whole thing? Part of the explanation, it's important to note that if a lake is reclassified as a one, its entire watershed is reclassified. That means all the streams and rivers as well as the lake in that watershed get extra protection, which is a good thing. Right? Except there's a catch, and you've kind of heard about that. A one classification comes with some limitations, and those apply to the entire watershed. Limitations that were originally meant to protect lakes for a of a one and protect a one waters have actually become an obstacle. And I'm gonna give you an example. We've already Bethany, I think, mentioned the Caspian Lake thing. I'll just I just wanna tell you a little bit more detail about what they did. In 2022, seven property owners on the shores of Caspian Lake worked together to replace their individual failing septic systems with one shared community system. The new system is situated farther from the lake, about 300 feet back, rather than the 25 to 30 feet where some of those old systems would have been. By replacing this, these old and outdated failing systems, the new combined system work, better protects water quality, ensures that wastewater is not leaking into the lake. However, due to the size of the system, it would not be allowed in an a one watershed under the current regulations. So this is the problem. They better protect the lakes now, but there'll still be two lakes. So as mentioned, the thought was that this thou it's the thousand gallon limitation that's in statute was was created to, you know, reduce larger development in these a one watersheds. Here's the problem. We have these high quality waters within large watersheds. And in some cases, those watersheds include entire towns. So for example, Seymour's watershed is enormous. In fact, it's not only Seymour. It's Seymour and Echo Lake, and it includes the town of Morgan, part of the town of Holland. It's huge. And yet it is the watershed. And if Seymour and Echo, both of which are high quality waters and eligible to be reclassified, were reclassified, there'd be a problem because of the towns. So if town needs a school, they need a bigger septic. They couldn't have it. You know? So we can get into this going around in circle type of thing. And yet leaving these lakes at b two level doesn't make sense either. Classified as b two, these watersheds are open to all sorts of activities and development without the guardrails provided by reclassification and consistent antidegradation rules. So this is where we get into this this tangle. And in an already complicated situation, another complication to note is that the 13 lakes I mentioned earlier, although deemed eligible as a one, were required are required to have their local volunteer lake associations file a petition to be reclassified. It's So not sort of this automatic thing. Petition has to be done, and the petitions are lengthy. Must include full research and data on the state of the lake. So that all has to be put together, letters of support. It's a big process. Even if the petitions are acted upon, which, of course, they haven't been, agency procedures then opens a lengthy rulemaking process, which is another whole. And I'm sure Bethany will describe the rulemaking process, or I can describe it too. We've been through it a few times. And that is another lengthy with public hearings and public comments and lots of other things that have to happen. So it's a it's a complicated it becomes a complicated process. And did I mention, like, associations are volunteers, and they're the ones who are doing this? Our amazing lakes and streams are important contributor to the state's economy as well as being necessary for the health of our environment and our citizens for providing unparalleled recreational opportunities and, of course, providing drinking water for thousands of Vermonters. It's critical that we take steps to protect these waters from deteriorating and from such scourges as cyanobacteria blooms. Degradation of these lakes would be an irreparable loss economically and environmentally. And as John Brodman mentioned earlier, the cost of restoring some of these waters is enormous. What we need is a thoughtful and coherent policy, a clear set of recommendations, and an implement mental plan. To get to that, all the aspects of the issue, legislation, anti degradation rules, administrative procedures, water quality standards, economics, environmental protection, land use, they all need to be explored together because they're all part of this. This study group is designed to do just that. Brings together the many perspectives and knowledge bases needed to develop a full understanding of the issues with everyone in the room and with time to more thoroughly explore these issues than can possibly be done during the legislative session, a solution is possible, at least we really think it's possible. Certainly, what we've been doing or actually not doing over the last few years has not worked, so it seems sensible to try a different approach. We all have the same goal, ensure both the health of the state's freshwater resources and the health of the state's economy. It's time to make some real progress on creating a system that helps us reach that goal. I'll just add that, you know, this is an economic issue as well. And, you know, you know, there's always questions about land use, about what would happen with these you know, with potential limitations if if a watershed is is reclassified. So we really feel like this is complicated enough, and we can't do it. You know, it's piecemeal when we try to do it, you know, administratively. It's happening over here, and legislation's trying to happen over here, and it's not working. It hasn't been working. So we're asking for the study group to really dig into all of the issues. So thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Thank you for your testimony.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: Representative Austin? Does every lake have a a lake committee? And if they don't, what who keeps track of the water?

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: So not all the lakes do have lake associations. Many of them do. Certainly, the bigger lakes, see more echo. You know, many of the big lakes that, you know, you could probably name, do have volunteer lake associations. If there is no lake association Nobody you know, the state does some testing, but, you know, the state staff does not is not there doing you know, they're not creating a greater program to, you know, check boats before as they go in and out. There's nobody there to to check the water, participate, for example, in Vermont invasive patrollers, to watch for invasives coming in, to, there really isn't. So we you know, part of what the federation does and is working on doing is trying to, help lakes that don't have associations to create an association. Again, it's volunteers. So, you know, it's hard to get volunteers and and get people. And, certainly, we're trying to get out there and inform, lake communities where there isn't an association, of the resources that are at least availed and to provide at least as much support as we can. Sometimes we find a few people, maybe it's not an association, we can find a few volunteers who wanna at least do some of of the work. You know, our volunteers do participate in the Vermont Invasive Patroller system where they're trained to look for invasives. The lay monitoring program where volunteers take water, you know, water sampling, and that way the data is collected about that lake. And we try to get people involved in those kinds of programs even if there's no association, but it's, yeah, it's an uphill battle Thank you. To be honest. Yeah. But we have as I said, we've got we already have over 50 association members, maybe 52 now. And there's a few that we know are not members, but we're working with.

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: So Just

[Speaker 0]: a quick point of clarification that's probably, for Bethany. The example that I've heard many times is the limit on the septic capacity at the Caspian Lake property owners. But couldn't those people take their thousand gallon limit and pool them together for a community septic? Would be nothing stopping them under an A.

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: So, yeah, so a community system would require a larger system, so it could potentially prevent such a system if the watershed were class A.

[Speaker 0]: But it could be allowed if people said we're giving up our thousand and putting them together.

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: No. No. No. It's an absolute prohibition.

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: Yep. That's that's why so the the one that Caspian did, seven households gave up each of their thousand gallon possibility because they reached separate households to create a community septic, which is only about 4,000. I think the capacity is about 4,000 for those seven properties with newer, you know, newer technology. I mean, they're using newer technology than sort of what you typically picture as a conventional septic. Now there's newer technology that can be used that makes the discharge even cleaner than it was, and you don't need such a big capacity. But none of that would be allowed in the a if it's an a one watershed.

[Representative Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: Okay. Thanks. Representative Tagliavia. With respect to that system that you're talking about with the seven property owners, is there evidence currently that the system is effective? It's working to the degree that if it was or is an A1 waterway to show that, yes, we could or should be looking to change the flow rates if we're gonna have community septics like this to allow more of these to happen?

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: Well, I think some of the data is negative.

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: So yeah. If I may, so the the systems themselves are designed not to discharge to surface waters. Right now, all of the lakes that Pat mentioned are V2, even though they meet the higher water quality. So right now in these watersheds, you can put any size system in and it still supports the A1 water. The prohibition that exists in statute now would prohibit the installation of a system with a design flow greater than a thousand gallons for any reason. It doesn't allow any sort of consideration. Oh, well, this is replacing, you know, four or 450 gallon design flow systems, which I think is the average for, like, a four bedroom, you know, like a normal typical house.

[Representative Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: Yep. Now, I'm just curious, we're looking at doing a study, would this be a case study to show that, okay, we have evidence that there are systems working so that we don't need to have the concern that's already written into the statute.

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: We we already feel confident that those systems aren't impacting surface waters.

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: And I think I I guess what other thing I would say is since that's been in now for three years, and, course, we have to you know, we look at the water quality data too. So we're not seeing it. We're not seeing the phosphorus level rise. So some of it is, in in a sense, a negative proof, if you will. We don't wanna see that that phosphorus levels and other pollutants going up, and that water sampling's going on. And it takes years. It does take years, frankly, of collecting data to see what the trend is. But, happily, we're you know, CASBIM is starting to see a creep up. We're not seeing a creep up just now. We'll see. And there's some new there's some new testing going on that might be more helpful. I'll mention the caffeine testing. So, Mark Mitchell, who works for DEC, is collecting data using, caffeine because caffeine only comes from humans. And if it's in the water, it's come it does not, septic systems don't filter it out. So if it's in the water, that's understood, or at least the the the theory is right now that it would be a proxy for problematic septics. So he's has a set of lakes that he has begun collecting caffeine data on to see if it's in the water. And so we're looking at that. That's new. That's just I think maybe we're in their second year, do think? I think we're in their second year, maybe third year, but we're still we don't even have the twenty twenty five data fully analyzed yet. So that's something, again, that we're hoping we can it can be another way of maybe catching that potential septic problem earlier than watching a phosphorus level start to rise. So it's, you know, it it's it becomes complicated because we're relying on this data. We can only gather it in the summer, and then it has to be analyzed, and we have to wait several years till we see trends happening.

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: So

[Speaker 0]: Are they finding any caffeine?

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: Very little so far. We have you know, so far, he has not we're we're hoping that we're gonna, you know, hear from him this summer again, analyzing what he what he collected in 2025 and looking at 2026 data. So far, we're not seeing big problems on the legs where he's been collecting the data. But it's it's an interesting an interesting possibility of another way to maybe track this problem early. But we have to see. And and compared to other states are doing it, so, you know, we wanna see what's happening in other places too. So we'll we'll be back with the report on that in a couple years,

[Speaker 0]: I think. K. That's interesting. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, have Jeff Nelson joining via Zoom.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: Good morning. Can you hear me alright?

[Speaker 0]: We can.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: Okay. Thank you. So my name is Jeff Nelson. I have been a principal with VHB, which is a regional engineering and environmental consulting firm with three offices in Vermont. I've been working as a professional water research scientist in Vermont since the 1980s. Much of my work has been with Vermont ski areas and other regulated entities, small and large over these years working on permitting, monitoring, and assessment for a wide range of water related projects. I have testified between numb before numerous legislative committees on water policy topics over the years and participated actively in, such a number of stakeholder group processes on on water issues. Regarding this bill, I too support the approach of establishing this study committee, and I'll keep my remarks brief and try not to restate what you've already heard. I think Mason did a great job, explaining the tasks that would be assigned to this work group, which I think are exactly the right things that the work group should be focused on. I I think that, you know, the the challenge that we've seen here in not being able to solve this, illustrates the fact that this work group has to come up with a balanced approach that recognizes the need to protect kind of resources that Pat was just speaking about, but also that provides, an understandable framework for permitting of projects that meet standards. And, one of the challenges that we see with the existing twenty ten interim procedure, which as you've heard, Warren Coleman, will be speaking next, was the the primary author and I was very involved in that stakeholder process when that was developed back then, is that that procedure predates a lot of the current DEC permitting framework for different kinds of discharges And, we run into, circumstances and one of the cases that I like to refer to is the the doghouse example where you could get involved in doing a very elaborate analysis for something that is a very small, structure, and it just doesn't make sense. And so getting this cleaned up to a point where we focus on the projects that that do need careful analysis, and they may need some additional protective sideboards to make sure that the waters are protected, but at the same time, causing landowners and, permit applicants to spend a lot of time and and money and effort on things that aren't going to help water quality nor are they going to help, projects, whether they're housing projects or other kinds of projects be able to move forward. So I think that having the study group and having it comprised as the the bill does, gets the right people at the table who understand the issue and who would work to come up with a way to address. We've talked some this morning about the thousand gallon limit, and, you know, the challenges that that poses particularly for the lake watersheds. But, you know, if that were just taken away and nothing else was done, then there could be some concerns about degradation. And so what are the right side boards and how do those get crafted to still allow projects that are appropriate to be able to move forward, but at the same time, you know, not create, you know, problems where the water is going to be become impacted and degraded. So I think that, you know, we've we've drawn some ideas out in the past, that are technical as to how to approach that. And I think that, you know, this is something that the study group can take the time to dig into And, to look at some of these lake watersheds as as case studies as we just suggested for, you know, being able to come up with small community systems that not only protect water quality, but improve water quality because you're dealing with replacing older outdated septic systems that may be either failing or could fail and, you know, coming up with something that is is state of the art. And I think one of the things that that I didn't hear mentioned in the prior testimony is that if you look at the current, wastewater rules that DEC has implemented, you know, as as Bethany said, these systems are designed not to discharge to surface waters. And those rules are, you know, very, I guess I'll use the word intricate in terms of the engineering standards and the criteria of how they're designed. And they really work. Mean, we've we've been involved in the design and assessment of these permanent of these permitted wastewater systems for decades. And the the goal of protecting water quality is achieved when a system is designed per these standards. And that, I think, is really important to understand because, obviously, if you're talking about older systems that may be, you know, thirty, forty, 50 years old, there's no particular standard that they were all designed to. It's all it's all different. And so this, you know, being able to come in and where it's desired by the landowners and the communities to put in these small community systems, in these a one lake watersheds makes all the sense in the world. But figuring out what the right ways are to do that, but at the same time have appropriate protections in place to keep the A1 quality is something that I think this work group, that's going to be a key focus. That's that's something that I think, you know, with the right group of people, which I think the way the the bill constitutes the committee, that that can and and will be achieved in my opinion. So I'd like to keep it at that, but I am certainly happy to answer any questions that, committee members may have.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, thanks so much for taking the time to join us. I guess I'm curious if you have high level, can share some of those technical solutions you might know of or if anyone else knows what other states have done to address these concerns, because I'm sure we're not the only people who've had them.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: Sure. Well, as I said, we had written up some ideas about, what I would call the protective side. Actually, I should give the credit to Mason because he came up with this this term protective sideboards. If we get rid of the thousand gallons, what would be an appropriate, way to ensure protection of the water quality in lieu of that? And, some of the ideas that we had and, you know, with that we'd we'd like to be able to vet with the work group would be, for example, having some greater protections as far as construction stormwater, making sure that, you know, that there isn't runoff of silt and and soil into a lake during the process of say building a house or larger, a larger system. So, you know, like that would be an idea of a protective sideboard. Maybe the threshold for operational storm water for creating, dry west and parking lots would need to be looked at, as a way to further reduce the runoff from those impervious surfaces or looking at the practices for roads, whether it's state highways or town roads that are currently implemented and maybe there's some tweaking that might need to be done within these A1 watersheds. But you know, I think one of the things that you have to keep coming back to is that, these waters are a one already, and the roads and the houses and the facilities are there already. And so even though some of those things aren't perfect, they are ensuring one way or another that those waters stay a one. And so, obviously, you know, we don't wanna come up with a whole litany of new restrictions that aren't needed because, you know, right now, as Pat spoke of the 13 reasons, those waters meet a one criteria, and those watersheds have, development. It's that that's that's, I guess, chair Sheldon, the the real challenge here is figuring out that right balance, and I feel like that's where this work group can really hammer that out.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for that. I I guess, you know, where I hope it goes is our most developed watersheds are also our most impaired watersheds. It's not like a surprise there. And that's like the crux of what we're getting at here is what is the prevention that's going to keep us from having to then, or to avoid going back like we have to in our developed watersheds to fix things at very expensive cost to everyone, not just the folks who did the development. That's that's the we're in. So we need some new solutions before, you know, kinda going forward. I I I think this is great I'm supportive of this this approach that we're talking about today, and I'm excited to talk about those potential solutions. But it's gonna be complicated.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: I agree. And I think, you know, one of the things that, you know, we hope will be the outcome of this is that, you know, the reclassification of those waters that are eligible for it, will be able to proceed without resulting in all of these unintended consequences such as the inability to put in a community system to replace failed septic tanks. And raising the floor, I mean, Bethany and others have talked about the floor, the water quality standards, and the classification represent a floor which you can't go below. So right now, if it's classified b one, that floor is relatively low. If it gets but the water actually meets a one, speaking about these lakes, for example, the idea is by doing the reclassification, the floor gets raised as it should because the waters are meeting that higher standard. And so, that intent, chair Sheldon, is to avoid the very scenario you just talked about, which is that, you know, getting that floor raised to where we're protecting this higher level of water quality, is intended to prevent that degradation so that, you know, I'm not saying development cannot proceed at all, and that's it, but that making sure that development, whatever development may occur within this lake watershed, for example, is done in a way that ensures that higher floor of water quality is maintained over time.

[Speaker 0]: Further questions for mister Nelson? Not seeing any.

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: Thank you. Sure.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: Appreciate the opportunity. Take care.

[Speaker 0]: And next up, have Warren Coleman also by Zoom.

[Warren Coleman, Former ANR General Counsel]: Good morning, Chair Sheldon and members of the committee. It's nice to see you. Thank you for the time this morning. Luckily, I get to bat cleanup here and and don't won't add won't need to add a ton to what's already been said, but I I will just say it's been mentioned a couple times that I had the privilege of authoring the interim anti deg procedure that we've been operating under since since 2010. And while I'd like to think it's served us pretty well over that time, things have changed. I think that's was really the subject that you hear that you heard Pat and Jeff talk about. The number of waters that are, you know, that are slated and their monitoring indicates that they should be should be reclassified. Those are, you know, that a lot of that was not in play, say ten, fifteen years ago. So now we've got multiple things that are all sort of tugging, tugging in various directions that we need to sit down and figure out. I think that last the last discussion that Chair Sheldon and Jeff just engaged in is exactly exactly sort of the crux of the the crux of the issue and what we need to what we need to tackle. Just as background as to why I'm here. You know, I was at A and R for ten years as general counsel, and then have been in the private sector representing the the business and development community for the for the last fifteen. And this is just I'm coming to you more as a subject matter expert on it because it's something I've worked on for a long time, not necessarily on behalf of any particular client, but the anti deg does cover the policy and implementation does cover, you know, a huge variety of permits, whether it's we're talking about hydro relicensing or wastewater treatment plants or storm water discharges or, you know, really any of the A and R discharge permits. Touches on that. So it's important to it right. And unfortunately, it's a complicated area of law, but I think it's something that we, the time has come to take that implementation procedure. The agencies with, you know, I participated in that group several years ago to redraft it. It's much cleaner, it's much clearer, it's much more user friendly for everybody, the regulated community and the agency and others. We're not starting from scratch, I guess, is part of the point there. The rule is not a huge departure from what we've been doing or sort of the current implementation, interim implementation procedure, but it's much clearer. It's really this other piece that you all have been focused on and talking about today that adds sort of a new dynamic that requires, I think, all of us to get together in a room to figure it out and people representing different perspectives and interests. But I think everyone shares the interest, as Jeff was just saying, of celebrating the fact that we've got these water bodies that do deserve to be reclassified. They meet the standards to be reclassified and a number of them are in areas where there is development. So there is a way for them to be compatible. They are compatible, and we need to just figure out how to formalize that and formalize the protections for that going forward so that there's there's clarity for there's clarity for everybody, and we don't find ourselves in the situation that you mentioned, Chair Sheldon, of dealing with things on the back end and trying to repair things because it's far more expensive to do. So that's that's really what I that's really what I wanted to say. I think the the the members of the the committee, the way things are are specified in the bill hits the right mark. It's, there's a lot of work to do for this group. Chair Sheldon, I hope you will be one of the members of the, of this study group. And quite frankly, hope I get to be part of that study group and continue to work on this issue with you. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions, but I think the prior witnesses really covered the substantive issues quite well.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Thanks for your testimony. Sure. Members have questions for Warren or others in the room? Representative Austin?

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: I just wanted to get go back to Pat, and anybody can answer this, but those those lakes that don't have association, and they do become degraded. Who pays for that cleanup? Who pays? Who's responsible to fix it and pay for it?

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: And can you have an answer? You can go ahead and leave it Sure.

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: Yeah, I spent, so again, Kamen, Deputy Commissioner of DEC. I spent fifteen years of my earlier career working on lake issues identifying lakes that were legally polluted and identifying means to, you know, help address them. So the state has programs to deal with water quality generally, and whether or not there's an active association, the state still cares about water bodies that don't necessarily have an active association. A good example is a place called Tickle Naked Pond. Oh, swear to And back in the day, I got a flag from a resident living there. There was only like seven or eight camps around that lake, but it's got a nice little beach that people from Wells River come up to and use also. And that lake, they said, hey, this is really green, it's kind of nasty and smelly, all the things. So I went up there, did an initial assessment and ended up realizing that we needed to do a full scientific evaluation of this lake. We did that, we determined that it's one of those very few lakes in the state for which a phosphorus inactivation treatment, like we just did at Lake Carmont was appropriate, very few lakes for which it's appropriate, but the science said this was one of them. Notwithstanding the fact that there wasn't an association there, just a loose band of interested parties, the state went forward and through our planning process and through our funding processes, made that happen. So the state, the department works on all of the water bodies, whether or not there's an active association, Where we really have the partnership opportunity for an active association is in some of the monitoring work, some of the AIS work, invasive species, sorry, or introduced species. So yeah, I'll stop there.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: Well, again, I get back to the lakes that aren't being monitored, okay, and probably maybe going into degradation. Don't think you're saying the state, not the municipality is responsible for that?

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: Yeah, so do you want to talk about Kelly's work?

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: So we have a team of lake scientists who monitor lakes throughout the state whether or not there is an association. So we have a spring phosphorus monitoring program where we'll have staff assess water quality right after the ice goes out. And then we also, as Pat had mentioned, have our lay monitoring program, which is a partnership program with lake associations or just volunteers from the community who assist with our water quality monitoring.

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: I think what's often missing are aquatic invasive, both patrolling and discovery of that and prevention. There's a number of flakes and fawns that have public boat accesses, but don't have, say, breeder program to inspect boats and that type of thing. A lot of it, even at tickle naked, it isn't often initiated by someone local who may call the state. Even if there's no association, they can call the state and get your attention. But there certainly are outbreaks that we are aware of that need some activity to happen there. And they are not lakes that are impaired like that one was, we don't think. It just says we don't think, because we're trying to get at least the people who live there, even if they don't want to create a official association, to join the lay monitoring program and the invasive patrol work program to understand what's in that lake and what's going on there, because they don't know. And I've spoken to another group and they say, well, that's very clear and clean, but they don't actually know because they haven't been in any of the programs and nobody's been actually sampling up there. Nobody's taken any samples for fifteen years. Which one? It's woke up pond. So what can you say? Can you

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: estimate what the cost? I'm sure it's different, but what are the costs for if a lake is impaired? What are the costs?

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: Oh, well, the tickle naked pond instance,

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: there

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: was some watershed level work done, probably less than $1,000,000 worth of that, standard road maintenance work on public roads and then some private road interventions that were coordinated through our basin planner up there. Then I think that treatment was, I'm not sure if you remember X and three, when we were transitioning between each other, I want to say it was about $750,000 Lake Carmi, millions. You know, the intervention that we just conducted in the fall was a $3,700,000 project, and I'm very proud to have assisted with others in seeing that happen. Can't wait to get up there.

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: If I may respond as well, I mean, to the earlier point, it's much more cost effective to for example, when you're doing a development to design stormwater control at that time versus going back to developed areas and remediating whatever development occurred, that impact on a water body. And so while the alum treatment is a very unique situation that was exceptionally costly, there were millions of dollars prior to that investing in clean water practices to help restore the watershed in order to reduce nutrient loading to that lake.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: And is that federal funding or state funding or both?

[Bethany Sargent, Vermont DEC (Lakes & Ponds Program)]: It's a combination.

[Pat Swazi, President, Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds]: Do you know if

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: we still are getting that federal funding?

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: Sure, may recall Emily Bird visited with you and walked through the whole funding portfolio, Clean Water Fund, which is Vermont water money, State of Volume Loan Fund, which is federal money.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: Okay, thank you.

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: A lot of money comes from associations raising. A lot of the money comes from the lake associations as well that raise money for a lot of these projects, because you usually need matching funds for a lot of its grants and funds. And those are donations? Pardon me? Those are donations? Donations and various fundraising efforts. Septic socials.

[Kamen, Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DEC]: Septic

[Unknown (likely committee member or witness)]: socials. Begging from neighbors.

[Unknown (environmental advocate/subject-matter expert)]: Mason, can I add one thing too, Sheldon? I would just emphasize this is the importance and kind of hits on the importance of anti degradation because the whole point of the anti degradation policy in the Clean Water Act, it's the lever to make sure lakes don't get to the point you're talking about. I appreciate and respect the reference to Lake Carmine. Let's remember Lake Carmine is on what I call the bad list, the three zero three D list where EPA gets involved and there's a cleanup plan. Anti degradation under the Clean Water Act again says we don't want to see the degradation of those waters. We want to continue to maintain and achieve water quality that's being set designated. And this once again is why not knocking warrant at all, we can all laugh about, but that interim policy on the books is no longer serving Vermont well, so we've got to solve that at a minimum.

[Representative Sarah “Sarita” Austin]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The old ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Further questions? Not seeing any. Thank you all for joining us today.

[Jeff Nelson, Principal at VHB]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: We will adjourn for the morning or for the