Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon]: So, folks, we have a few bills coming over from the Senate that we've introduced three recently. An act relating to water quality of Vermont is one of them. It's got a vague name. It is a study committee to look at the state's anti degradation policy. And what I wanted to see if folks had thoughts on it or other witnesses they want to hear from. We did hear from Green Mountain Water and Environment, which is a group that represents our water treatment plants and possibly, I guess, wastewater and water treatment plants. So they want to come in and testify that they would like to be part of the study group.

[Larry Labor]: I thought it would be good for

[Amy Sheldon]: us to hear from them, for all of us. And I guess I'm curious if members have questions or thoughts on this bill. Representative Chad, maybe yes.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Pretty sure I didn't see or hear anything with respect to JFL doing some sort of analysis to find out what kind of cost they're talking about, and I don't mean cost of the systems, I mean cost to the homeowners, whether they be lakeshore associations or individuals, so we have an idea if this study makes any suggestions. Right out of the gate, we know what kind of expense we're talking for the average homeowner who may be subject to these regulations, if they're suggested.

[Amy Sheldon]: Okay.

[Ela Chapin]: To think about how it

[Amy Sheldon]: works relative to maybe currently, there's a procedure that people are subject to. So I think what you're asking is what what is the cost to a watershed to the people who live in a watershed of going from b one to a one? I don't really

[Ela Chapin]: know what

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: you're asking. Water no. To change like, we heard testimony from someone, and I'll holler at names, but there were seven property owners who abandoned their single wastewater treatment, and they put a community wastewater treatment in it. It didn't meet the gallons per day, but it apparently looked like it was going to work. So, maybe looking at that, keeping that in a study, and going with the higher gallons per day, I can't remember what that was, but looking at that cost that, you know, pick a lake, whatever lake it might be, and find out how many it might be and what the actual cost would be to do this conversion, especially if it was gonna be as a preventive measure. So we had an idea. So Pritchard used his example of having a camp, and what would the average lake shore owner, who's maybe got a camp that's been in their family for a hundred years, what are they looking at, cost wise, for this?

[Amy Sheldon]: Okay. Just to try to still kinda understand. Because that leak is still a bee, they were able to pool and create a larger system. And this study doesn't look at changing anything. Looks at how to implement an anti degradation policy, A, through rule and transparently as opposed to through procedure, but then also right now if you're an A, there is a restriction of 1,000 gallons per day on-site septic.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: So I'm still not grasping which cost you would That cost. You're going to the antidegradation to go from b to a will prevent something from losing dropping

[Amy Sheldon]: it.

[Larry Labor]: Okay. That that's that's what

[Amy Sheldon]: I said the first time. So the cost of losing the opportunity to have a larger septic tank. But this is also looking for how to not have that be the constraining sector. You're saying you want that

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: in the study? I would like to see Jay give us an analysis, of course. I don't know

[Amy Sheldon]: if they'll be able to, unless you have a very specific sample.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: It just it seems like we've come across some statutes that after they go to rulemaking, the unintended consequence is the additional cost to the economy, and I think that needs to be considered.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Yes, I'm just wondering if we could also look at the cost if we don't do anything. Just what it costs to clean up, because we have a lake in St. Albans in terms of ag runoff that's costing millions of dollars. And because the EPA has come in, the EPA came into Mallets Bay and said we had to put a sewer in and no one wanted it because of the cost. And now it's costing Colchester citizens thousands of dollars to fix it. Yeah. So, I mean, I think we have to look at things as investments to avoid costs.

[Ela Chapin]: Representative Chapin. Just to problem solve here, I guess I'm wondering, so number five on page three says, recommend legislative amendments and identify any rules, policies, or procedures that may require revision to implement the study group's recommendations. Are we maybe just asking for some fiscal analysis of that? I think that's I guess I'm curious. I guess I would think that that wouldn't usually happen in the bill. It would usually happen when we get this report legislative leadership or I don't even know. I've never personally requested something of JFO, but isn't that something that often a chair or someone would request of JFO? I guess I'm just trying to understand whether it is appropriate to put it in the bill or a JFO report on I think

[Amy Sheldon]: he's seeing we can do something now. But If

[Larry Labor]: if there's a way

[Amy Sheldon]: to related to these wording in the

[Ela Chapin]: they're recommending to us gets a JFO fiscal note. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: I think that would cover it for me.

[Larry Labor]: Can't can't say anything because we don't know specifics, but whatever their notes are. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon]: I don't know. I've never seen that happen.

[Ela Chapin]: In a bill. Usually, request for the fiscal note would come after a receipt

[Amy Sheldon]: of So the

[Ela Chapin]: just making that observation, but also if we know we want it, is there a way to fill it into the bill? I don't know. You can ask about your case for that. Yeah.

[Larry Labor]: The physicals no. For the study is what? 14,000? Is that what it was? I think. I think it is. Yeah. A couple of recommendations on the study team membership. The section six clearly identified for representing environmental advocacy groups. I think section five is intended to represent an industry, but I'm wondering if we could clarify in section five that the

[Amy Sheldon]: You should say what page

[Larry Labor]: you're I'm sorry. Section five under subsection will be on page two. Thank you. Yeah. I'm wondering if we can add phrase to number five there that just says that are not on and have not been representatives of nonprofit environmental advocacy groups. Number six is specifically look for two people from environmental advocacy groups. Those could be, I think, more fives intended to be not that. Let's just make sure that it specifies There are not have not been representatives of nonprofit environmental activist parties. And then also numbers one and two, they're supposed to be representatives from the House and Senate, if we could say one from each of the major parties or at least both not from the same party, but even that. I would prefer to say one from each of the major parties. That was on the previous page, page one. Think there's one and two in terms of the list of membership. So on line 18 there on page Yeah. Page one. I see it. Two current members. Yeah. House. That'll be quite right. Are not members of the same party or preferably that are the two major parties.

[Ela Chapin]: There are three major parties.

[Larry Labor]: Yeah. I know. I know. That's why I struggle with exactly how to word that. I wanna make sure we get a and I'm trying to be respectful for you. Understand that there are one or two parts, but more than two parts represented. So trying to figure

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: out a word that to ensure we get

[Larry Labor]: but few broad things.

[Amy Sheldon]: Representative Logan.

[Kate Logan]: We typically in study language like this do say who are not members of the same party.

[Amy Sheldon]: Yeah.

[Ela Chapin]: I don't don't have a problem with that. Which one? I'm sorry. Lost track of that last slide on 18 page

[Larry Labor]: and mine 20 on page one. It's very bottom page one. Thank current members of the house and two current members of the senate. Just wanna make sure all in the same party. Got it.

[Amy Sheldon]: I guess on your first thing on number five Yeah. That have not been I mean, there are certainly we heard from two consultants, one of whom I know for sure has a history of working for the agency of natural Resources but has been representing businesses in this building for longer than he worked there. Are you presuming to eliminate someone like that? I wonder a little about I I get your point.

[Ela Chapin]: Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon]: But I also have concerns about how you get there. And I Right. Really haven't seen any gamesmanship in that arena before. I see a lot of very straightforward acting when we have these committee, study committee. I appreciate the input. Yeah.

[Larry Labor]: You understand what I'm trying to cover. Just make sure that number five doesn't turn into just more of nonsense.

[Amy Sheldon]: Don't think it will, even based on who we heard from the other day.

[Ela Chapin]: Okay.

[Amy Sheldon]: And I guess, Representative Tagliavia, to your point, I feel like maybe you could put in a request to UVM's research division because I think the thing between you and Representative Austin, if want to explore the cost to the individual versus the cost to society, which is sort of what you two are considering, which I appreciate, that it's actually a larger study than this group would have the resources to pursue. That to your other point, that the legislature that takes up any potential changes would ask JFO for a fiscal note on those changes after the recommendations came back. That would be my suggestion.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: The reason I suggest it is because I think it would be good to know those numbers just going in, especially if this study was going to be recommending some sort of a change to statute. Be nice to know what the additional regulations of the Miranda policy.

[Amy Sheldon]: They're not so, also, just to be clear, implementing we're anti degradation through procedure today. The only adder would be is if your water body was officially upgraded, but we also know that if it's meeting class a standards today, the agency has to has to make sure that what they approve still meets class a water quality standards, whether or not public process has occurred to officially do it. So there isn't really an adder. It's like from an economics point of view, is it an opportunity lost? That's what you're looking for. But the flip side of the opportunity lost is this is the cost to degraded waters. Did you had your hand up?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Is this an EPA? I thought this was an EPA.

[Amy Sheldon]: The Water Act.

[Ela Chapin]: Yep. Right.

[Amy Sheldon]: This is happening now. This is a steady thing.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: I feel like we spend a lot of money repairing things that we should have been doing, like 10, I mean the ag, you know, the CAFO. You know, that's costing us, I don't know, thousands of dollars in water quality and in farming. I just, it bothers me that I'm paying money when people are saying to me, you need to do this now or else it's going to cost this much if you don't, and then not doing it. I just resent having to pay for things that could have been prevented. It's frustrating to me. I look at climate change. I look at this thing with the gas now with the oil. I think we've been saying this like for forty years that this is gonna happen and now it's happening. And now, it's costing $4.50 per gallon of gas. And we're trying to avoid this. I'm sorry, just don't get me poetic. It's expensive.

[Kate Logan]: I just wanna say I appreciate you saying that repeatedly in this committee. Why it's a really important sentiment to keep in mind when doing environmental policy. So thank you.

[Amy Sheldon]: Alright. Any current final thoughts? We will, Thursday, hear from Green Mountain Water Supply. We can ask for two members not from the same party.

[Larry Labor]: Yeah. I would appreciate some language on five there to make sure it was starting to six. Another example you brought up was somebody who previously worked for the agency of Natural Resources, probably call that an environmental advocacy group I hold.

[Amy Sheldon]: Well, I guess I'm curious, who is that for you? Is VBSR an environmental landscape group if you're a business who's in businesses for social responsibility? I guess that, to me, feels very you want to bring some language to the committee, you should do that. Should do what? If you wanna bring some language forward Okay. That we can talk about. Representative Chapin.

[Ela Chapin]: Just I'll just share. I, like, I understand your concern that somebody making appointments or multiple people making appointments could bring bias into this by what you're talking about. But I personally think it would be a huge shift in common procedure when of these membership based groups are set up in statute to be like, and this person can't also represent any of the other types of things, because often it's like, you need two builders and you need somebody with an environmental background, and you need somebody from a municipal entity. If we started doing like, if you did that for five, why wouldn't we want to also do it for six? Sure that the nonprofit environmental advocacy organization people don't have potentially some bias towards business and stuff. I don't know that I'd want to go down that path of trying to make sure anybody on a committee has only one interest ever in their background. We don't have enough people in Vermont play so many different hats and so on umpteen boards because the highest percentage of profit organizations in the world. I guess I just, I think that it's, I understand your concern, but like the chair said, that's not been my experience. I've sat on these boards, I've helped appoint people on these boards for the state, and I've never really seen that play out in a way that people are construing the position to actually be more like a different position. I've never seen that. I'm not worried about it. And I think it would actually really be a departure from the norms of how our body does this work in statute. And so I feel really reticent to build that in. And if we did build it in for five, I think it would be only fair to it in to all of the commissions. And I just frankly don't think that there's people in Vermont that only have one hat on.

[Larry Labor]: Yeah, there are very few.

[Ela Chapin]: So anyway, those are my thoughts.

[Larry Labor]: Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Ela.

[Amy Sheldon]: Looks like Mike has joined us via Zoom. Hi, everybody.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Hi, Mike. Hi.

[Michael Hoyt]: I'm not sure if you've heard any. We're winding down our discussion of S two twenty three, and if you have questions or concerns that you are aware of now, could feel free to share them. No no concerns right now. Thanks for letting me know where we are, in the agenda.

[Ela Chapin]: Sure.

[Amy Sheldon]: All right. With that, we can shift to S-two 18, an act relating to reducing chloride contamination.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia]: Another

[Amy Sheldon]: reprise, This bill remains very similar to the one that we passed out of this committee last year. And then the real thing that happened on the senate side, I think, is that the judiciary found a solution to, the legal part of it. And we've walked through that with our legislative counsel. And in fact, our judiciary committee just heard from Michael on those changes to it. I saw him check-in, but he went the other way after. So I think he, like, was gonna stop by and give us the update. But, anyway, they just took testimony on it or heard it from Michael. Members have questions on this or further witnesses. We've heard a lot of witnesses on this topic last year. If not, we will consider a vote on this tomorrow, depending on what we hear from our judiciary committee.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Can I just get clarity on the incentive? Because I think it's a little bit different than on the other bill that we were looking at for people to do the training.

[Amy Sheldon]: You're talking about the legal part of it? Yes. Well, I think that I'm not the person to provide that. If you want more clarity than what Michael did, he did walk us through it. You could look at his testimony again. That would be my recommend, or, talk to him directly. Okay. And Ela was also to be the reporter of this last time. So are you ready to do that again?

[Ela Chapin]: I'm ready for a year. Make some updates. And I did take a couple of notes, Sarita, for my report about the change in the liabilities. Great. Okay.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin]: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Sure.

[Amy Sheldon]: Thanks. Bye. Alright, any other thoughts or questions on this one? All right. Well, with that, I guess we'll break till two when we are going to hear from the Agency of Natural Resources.