Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Goodbye. Good morning. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are taking up s two twelve, an act relating to potable water supply and wastewater system connections, and we welcome Chris Cochran to help us put this in context.

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Good party. Thank you, madam chair. For the record, my name is Chris Chris Cochran. I'm the director of community planning and revitalization, and I work for the Department of Housing and Community Development. I'm mostly here to be the historian. I think this, field passed before many of the members were involved and just to give you a little context on kind of the why and how we got here. I'm not a wastewater engineer technical specialist. I I the focus of our work is supporting kinda downtown and village center revitalization, and my interest came to this I will try not to get into the weeds, but there is a provision called priority housing project that that allowed an easier path for projects that are located in designated centers, so downtown, the village centers, neighborhoods. So in exchange for providing affordable housing, there was a benefit, an act two fifty benefit for these projects. We were asked to do some research on kind of, is this incentive is this regulatory incentive working? So we did some extensive out outreach with stakeholders just to answer the question. We talked to large and small developers. And what we learned from large developers was that, yes, the incentive is working. It is producing a lot of housing. But the frustration that we heard from them consistently was that there was a lot of trouble that they were seeing with their approval of their their connection permits, water and wastewater connection permits. It was important, you know, to them to raise this because I won't go into too much Act 50, but you need all your state level permits before you can apply to Act two fifty. And there were significant delays on getting these connection permits, and so the projects couldn't go forward until every permit was was approved. That issue has been raised and has been flagged, and Brian can tell you more about it. Permits are timely now. But but as part of this conversation, we also talked to a lot of small scale developers. So somebody who wanted to build an accessory dwelling unit, somebody who wanted to take a larger house that they had, that they were not using the extra rooms and create a duplex or a smaller unit within their building, That triggered a requirement for them to get, you know, an expanded water connection permit in many jurisdictions. And I think what was disheartening to them, these people were trying to be you know, proactively solve our housing crisis. The first thing that they've heard was, well, you're gonna have to hire an engineer. You're gonna have to get a new connection designed. You're gonna have to go through a local permitting process, and you're gonna have to go through a state permitting process just to get the connection. So their idea basically was basically quashed by this, like, wall of requirements and cost that you needed to just to do the right thing, to build a unit within a building that you already had, you'd like to maybe earn some additional income, create a housing unit for somebody. So that all experience and background led to a senate bill called s one o, I think, from 2002 oh, 2022. I'm sorry. Got my numbers wrong. It passed the senate, came to this committee. This committee took testimony, and it got very confusing. There was a lot of people coming in different sides of the issue and kind of the benefits of the state's regulatory review versus the discretion of the local communities. So, ultimately, this committee chose to kick it out to report. So a working group was created led by ANR, and a a pretty good group of stakeholders came together, I think, two summers ago to figure out a better solution to this tiered permitting system to allow higher capacity communities with the technical expertise to have true delegated authority. The state would maintain its its authority where important and Brian can tell you more about that. But it was generally agreed that this was an easier pathway to saying yes without compromising any of our environmental quality goals or regulations. So, again, Brian will tell you more about the technical aspects just kind of to let you know that we hear a lot about, you know, permitting being the problem for housing. Housing is a complicated issue. There's financial issues. There's labor issues. There's mortgage rate issues. There's available land issues. There's a lack of infrastructure issues. This one permit correction improvement process alone is not going to solve our housing cross our crop housing crisis, but it's a step in the right direction, and it will make things a little bit better, particularly in these communities that have higher capacity. Kinda getting into the the bill and the structure of our existing, you know, double permitting. Again, you have to get a local permit, then you have to get a state permit to approve this connection. It's by design. You know? This was done by intent. And what we found in our working group is it's just not working very well, and there's opportunities to make it better. ANR does have the ability right now to delegate permitting authority to municipalities. In effect, it hasn't really worked. I think only two communities, I think Colchester and Charlotte, took up this delegation authorities. They found it to be too burdensome. The the the work involved, the requirements that came with delegation were just not worth the benefit they see. So they ultimately turned back delegated authority because it was just just this bill recommends just a kind of a targeted general permit approach. So communities that meet ANR's requirements would be allowed to to review these connections. State oversight would remain. Public health and environment protection environmental protection do remain the priority. I think there is a reasonable amount of process improvement with state oversight checks and balances in there. A little bit outside of the jurisdiction of of this bill, but I mentioned it in a sense, so I'm gonna mention it here. The state's water wastewater in in ground disposal rules are are very old, and I think they shape a lot of our policy. They stand to be updated. I think it would help improve a lot of process and provide some clarity, especially in areas where we're trying to to build housing in and around our centers if these rules were modernized. I don't know when the last time they looked at them, but one of the discussions is a lot of work. I understand the reluctance to do them, but I think it's time. And finally, you know, a point I wanna make is, you know, capacity is the real challenge, and nobody can answer you answer the question about where capacity exists. ANR does monitor capacity at the treatment plant. Municipalities do do have a sense of what their capacity is in their sewer and water system, but there's not clarity on what the definition of capacity is, and there's not clarity on where we have sewer and water infrastructure statewide. And these are critical bits of information data points to help us understand where housing can be developed, where there's constraints, and where we need to make significant investments. And, again, it's outside the scope of this report, but I'm just flagging it. It's like, if we really wanna solve our housing challenge, the right place to build housing is where we've invested in sewer water capacity. If we don't even know where the capacity exists, it's really hard for us to create the housing in the areas that are ready to accept and receive that housing. UVM has done some great work recently, kind of gathering a lot of municipal data on where sewer and water pipes exist. They have grabbed data from ANR to kinda build a better map, but responsibility relies with nobody to really map this. UVM kinda jumped into this space because nobody was really doing it. So, again, outside the scope of this report, but it's something that we really need to tackle as a state. Because if you can build in areas that have existing sewer and water, it's it's cheaper, and cost is a real issue. If a new home costs $600,000, most people can't afford that. So if we can know where our capacity exists, even at

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: the high level,

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: red, yellow, you know, I think that would be a helpful indicator. I think that's all I wanna say. Happy to answer any kind of high level questions, but you've got a technical expert here from ANR, and we can get in he can give you the level of detail you probably need next.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Do members have questions?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Representative Tagliavia. So do I understand you and what you said was that we should be looking only to be building where there is

[Bruce Douglas, Wastewater Program Manager, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division (ANR/DEC)]: No.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: No. No. Wastewater?

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: No. I'm saying, you know, we need solutions in every part of the state. Absolutely. There's two parts to that question. Our our in ground disposal rules for for septic systems are are complicated. And I think if you wanted to make it easier and clearer for people to develop in rural areas where these in ground disposal systems are needed, I think there's opportunities to improve that process and make it more predictable and more affordable. In in communities that have sewer and water systems, the state has made a huge investment. The federal government has made a huge investment in this infrastructure. And in many cases, it's not being tapped because we don't know where it's allowed. And the only point I'm trying to make in that is we've made this investment. We're not maximizing our return on it. If we can make more connections to these areas, these systems that often struggle because they're not self sufficient to pay for their own sustainability, their improvements, we're getting more value out of the investment that we're that we have already made. We can get a house in these areas usually cheaper because building a septic system and drilling a well has gotten really, really expensive. And although there's costs in creating and designing a new connection, it's it's easier. And the goal is, again, affordability of this house. You know? If you have all these infrastructure costs and you have this existing infrastructure that's being unused, we we need to tap into it.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just also wanna add, you said state, federal funding, and local

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Who have these systems have made them happen.

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Yeah. And it's the biggest asset they have. You know, this is the biggest, most expensive thing that they own. They're very careful with it as a consequence in how they make connections to it. So I think but I think we're just not maximizing our investment. And stepping back from me again, my my well, the work that I do for ACCD is all about, land use and smart growth. And these areas, it does make sense to concentrate growth in areas where you have existing infrastructure because it supports a larger state land use goal, and it also supports broader economic development. If you live closer to where you work, your community is more vital. You're spending less time in your car commuting. I think there's a lot of other ancillary benefits to ensuring we're maximizing investments we've already made. So sorry, that was a really long answer, but

[Bruce Douglas, Wastewater Program Manager, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division (ANR/DEC)]: Well, if I can follow-up. Is it

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: you you brought up smart growth. Mhmm. Is it smart for me if I wanna live in a rural area, To build in a rural area if I decide it's best for me?

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: It's your decision. It's your land. It's whatever you wanna do. I live in a rural area. I'd commute to Montpelier. It's my choice. Nobody's taking away your ability to choose and develop in your own lands. What I'm saying is we've made investments in in areas that have sewer and water, roads, infrastructure, buildings for hundreds of years. And if we're trying to solve our housing crisis, adding more housing there may be more cost effective than building in a rural community. I made I live in an, you know, I live in an old village center. I live in an old old village shore. Sorry. The cost for me to prove improve my barn were significant. You know? The cost to expand my sewer and water system were significant. It's just, you know, it's just a reality. We all have our choices, and choices come with with with benefits and costs.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: So I assume the answer to this is yes, but I'm assuming it is like a mapping of soils across the state where you put septic Yep. And and alternative septic?

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Yeah. It's outside of my and Brian can probably tell you more about it or he's got people there is a statewide map of soil soil suitability, but it's just a general indicator.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: Mhmm.

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: And you have to do actually, on the in test bits to figure out if it does actually perk. But it's just a general characterization of soil types. It's a struggle with point, but it's not gonna tell you. Right. You can absolutely put a septic system here. You can put a septic system about anywhere. It's just at what cost?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And respectfully remind members that we're talking about s two twelve and escalating all the water supply and wastewater system connections. We could stay on topic. That would be great. Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: So thank you, madam chair. Thank you for your testimony. I apologize for being two minutes late. Very interested to understand the you talked about capacity. Mhmm. We have current data that indicates where we do have capacity because what what I keep hearing, a lot of times, we're already overcapacity. I mean Yeah. So it's

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: a better question for Brian, but it depends what you mean by capacity. Is it the capacity of the pipes? Is it capacity of the treatment plants? Capacity to have new houses? Yeah. Treatment plants, there's good data on it. They know what comes in and what goes out, but but it's only one part of the puzzle. Yes. And unless you have that other part of the equation solved, it's really hard to know. You know, just because your plant has capacity and you have an available site, it doesn't mean that, you know, that pipe's too skinny. And without major infrastructure upgrades along the road, can you make a new connection? You know? So and that's what I'm trying to get at is we really need to define what capacity is to provide us meaningful information about where development can occur.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think it might be a good time to segue to the Agency of Natural Resources.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: I would love to get out of the state.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can answer the technical questions.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: Thank you so much.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Thanks for watering me in. Oh, yeah.

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Oh, actually, we we support this bill. I I you know, it is it is a good incremental step in the right direction. Incremental steps are meaningful steps. You know? Would we do more if we could? Yeah. Absolutely. But this is a this is a move in the direction.

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

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Morning. For the record, my name is Brian Redman. I'm the director for the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division at the Agency of Natural Resources. Also with me today is the program manager, Bruce Douglas. Hello, Bruce, yourself.

[Bruce Douglas, Wastewater Program Manager, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division (ANR/DEC)]: Good morning. I'm Bruce Douglas, the wastewater program manager in the Drinking Water and Groundwater Protection Division.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: And Bruce is going to offer the technical expertise for questions from the committee. Thank you for the invitation to come and testify on S two twelve, a bill that the agency of natural resources supports. It's okay with you, Chair Sheldon. I'd like to touch on a bit of the history. Already do that. Leading us up to today, identify a couple of key components of the bill from the agency's perspective and then leave some time for questions. Okay. Starting off with a brief history, this topic has long been debated in the legislature going back probably almost a decade and possibly even longer. But I'm going to fast forward and focus us more on modern history and starting in 2023 with the passage of the Home Act. The Home Act, as Chris has already mentioned, required ANR to establish a stakeholder group comprised of representatives from municipal public works, engineering consultants that are active in the practice, environmental groups, league, the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The stakeholder group was led by myself and Bruce, as well as several other staff from ANR. The charge of this group was really to evaluate the connection permitting process, specifically identifying any of the areas of redundancy with the stated goal of reducing administrative burden and cost. The outcomes from the stakeholder group were included in the administration's housing bill last session, but ultimately the connection language did not receive testimony and did not make it through the process. What did make it through the process was an appropriation of $50,000 to develop a design manual for water and wastewater connections, which you will see referenced within s two twelve. Following last session, ANR continued to look at the options to move the connection permitting process forward. The approach embodied in s two twelve represents the this work and some of the key principles from our stakeholder engagement process, most namely improving connection related technical information, ensuring transparent and consistent data and records management, and including improving pathways for municipal review while using the stated goals of reducing administrative burden and costs for applicants as a guide to this work. I understand the committee's received a walkthrough of this bill already. Okay, great. So I'd like to touch on a few key components, if I may. The first and really the heart and the core of this bill is the general permit authority under Chapter 64. This is on page four of the bill, starting on line 12 for those that are are looking at it. This is really the core and the heart of this bill from from our perspective, and it provides the direct to the agency to issue general permits for connections. Functionally, this will shift connection permits from receiving individual review and individual permits to receiving coverage under a general permit with individual authorizations based on the certification provided by the licensed designer or the engineer. The licensed professional will be certifying the project meets the technical standards and the requirements of the rules and the conditions of the general permit. Vital to this framework is the development of the guidance manual for water and wastewater connections. This is the work supported by the $50,000 appropriation mentioned above. This guidance is important to improve the clarity and accessibility of standards and requirements related to connections and is a critical resource to support the general permit frame. To give the committee a sense of scale in terms of the volume of these permits, on average, the program is issuing approximately two twenty five connection permits on an annual basis, while the total program volume averages 3,000 permits a year. That volume in the single program is larger than all the department volume of all other of all of TTC's permitting programs combined. So it's a very high volume program. That time is of essence and and of priority for the program.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So just to move in on those numbers a little bit, the permits for connection is two twenty five. 3,000 is sort of including all wastewater permits.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yes. On-site wastewater systems, septic systems, less than 6,500 gallons, and private drinking water, wells, supplies.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Private drinking water?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Okay. That's the full scope of

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Public drinking water being permitted locally?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Public drinking water being permitted through under the Safe Drinking Water Act in state and federal regulations. I believe you heard from Ben Montross and Sheila Larson from my team last week. He's the program manager for the public drinking water system.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So that's but I just these 3,000 permits are

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: they don't not post. Yeah. So it's it's a little awkward because it's really, the the heart of the program is the septic system regulations, and then on that is the connections as well as portable what we call portable water supply, so anything that's nonpublic.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very helpful. Yes. Representative Pritchard.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. So the permit let me understand. The 3,000 permits, is that all the permits, or is that all the permits for 6,500 gallons less?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: That's all the permits approved for chapter one of the environmental protection rules. So we're talking about the the first environmental protection rules to to be enabled in the state dating back into maybe the sixties or the seventies as public health and subdivision. We heard the Colorado story last week. Yeah, so it's very foundational. So there are all the permits that are issued under this chapter, which is chapter 64 in Title 10. So it's septic system permits, it's up to 6,500 gallons. Once they hit threshold, they transition into what's called our indirect discharge program, large capacity septic systems. So those are key areas often municipal infrastructure, municipal wastewater infrastructure. That's not a direct discharge. It's an indirect discharge. So that that program is is focused on those. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We view the shift to a general permit framework important from the perspective of program sustainability and prioritization of resources, but we also see this shift is really important to improving outcomes by bringing that technical information forward and improving it, and also possibly shifting our resources a little bit more out of the middle of the permit process to the front of the permit process in the back

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: of the permit.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: And as as Chris stated already, this is all under the guise of improving permit processes to enable housing in the state. The bill also establishes broader general permit authority for other activities permitted under chapter 64. For an activity under the current language, for an activity to qualify for a general permit, the secretary must determine that act the activity is considered low risk, low impact, and low complexity. While we don't have any specific proposals for additional general permits at this time, for any new general permit that we would issue, the public would receive opportunity for reviewing comment under title 10 chapter one seventy, the environmental notice bulletin. As a matter of practice, the program will also engage stakeholders in the development of any general permit that we would we would, issue just for the to get that engagement and to improve the ultimate product that we put out. The second area of focus in the bill that I'd like to highlight is the municipal delegation for connection permitting. Currently, state law and regulations allow for both what's considered full delegation and partial delegation to municipalities for water supply and wastewater permitting. Full delegation allows a municipality to implement the full scope of the wastewater system and potable water supply rules, which I just described, which includes on-site wastewater systems, septic systems and the water supplies. There have been two communities in the history of the program to receive full delegation, that's Colchester and Charlotte, and both have returned the programs to ANR. S two twelve repeals the option for full delegation, and that's that's the agency supports that repeal. With respect to partial delegation, section four of the bill provides replacement language that allows ANR to delegate connection permitting authority to municipalities. The option for partial delegation and the associated requirements are consistent with the finding of the stakeholder groups, the state stakeholder group on the connections man on the connections process. To date, no community in Vermont has been granted partial delegation under the current program. While we don't expect many municipalities to avail themselves of this program, the new partial delegation program will address some of the historical impediments, and we would expect some interest in the program from a limited number of municipalities. And we are supportive of creating that pathway for for local entities that have the expertise and the desire to do this work on behalf of the state. On page nine, line 13, you'll see an administrative processing fee. One of the unique and important aspects of these permits is they quote run with the land. It's critically important to the program that the data and records management associated with these permits are one consistent on a statewide basis and two publicly accessible online. The program receives a lot of inquiries from real estate agents and title attorneys regarding these permits, and it's very important for us to keep this process consistent, accessible and optimized.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So can I just ask where the $100

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: fee comes from? Sounds like a nice round number. What's the basis for it? There's work associated at the agency with managing the records and the data. So we've it's an estimate that we used to keep it as not an impediment to a municipality wanting to do this work, but also recognizing that this will require work and maintenance from the agency. It's storage of the information, it's receipt of the information, it's posting of the information. Really, the pandemic, we're essentially a 100% electronic operation in terms of getting the documents into the agency and then transmitting that information into our data management systems along with payment. So the lift isn't significant, but it's in recognition that it's not nothing.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How much of a full like, how much staffing would it require? Do you I mean, I know you don't know who's gonna sign up for this, but the bigger towns, I assume, are the first to do it.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yeah. I the the two so the historical issues that Chris spoke about were in the city of Rutland. I don't know if they have interest in taking on this program. Obviously, it's second largest city in the state. So that would be a number of connections. The city of Burlington, I think you're hearing from Megan later today, they in South Burlington, there is some interest out there. Our goal in setting this program up would be to make that as easy and as efficient as possible. We use something called ANR online, and it's a mechanism to pull the data in across and then map it to our database so we can manage it and post that information online. All of our permit information is publicly available. So real estate agents and title attorneys, you know, it's in the land record or it should be, but they go to our website. And we just want to make sure that we keep that process consistent and optimized. Otherwise, it could get very burdensome. Okay, the third and final area of focus is on the revised fee schedule. Section five of the bill establishes a new fee structure for the general permits for connections. The fee structure is tiered in a similar manner to our existing fee structure based on the design flow of the project, with larger projects receiving higher flows and paying a higher fee. Consolidated the flow categories from five to three and have reduced the amount an app applicant will pay when compared to the existing fee schedule. Based on our current data, we are projecting a revenue loss between 80 to $100,000 associated with the new fee schedule, but we expect this to be mitigated by the exemptions that we're repealing in section six of the bill. This is these are exemptions related to connections that exist today, and we're proposing to repeal those so all connection permits go through the same exact process through the general permit process, making that data accessible, transparent, all the things I've already described. We also feel that anytime we will change a requirement, there will be a significant concentration on outreach to the regulated community and the Vermont public, and we would expect some increased permit volume. So we we do think that this number will be mitigated further. That's just based on our our current data and feel that it's it's it's manageable for us. I think that is what I wanted to say, but happy to try to answer any questions.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No worries. Sure.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you, Trinidad. This is a bit of a detailed question, but one of the things I've always appreciated AAR has done through the water permitting process is having delegated authority to certified engineers to do the work on the outside rather than keep all the engineers in house. But I did notice some language, and I wanna make sure that that's not degraded, but I did notice some language on page four, line 14, which uses the word may rather than shall in terms of delegating preference delegated preference to certified engineers. Are we backing off from that, or why is the word made there? Whereas other places, page seven, line three, still say shall. That's a big question.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Two parts. The first, in what we spoke about in the Senate process, was not all connection projects are created equal. There's a big difference between a multi unit mixed development, not saying that it wouldn't qualify for a general permit, an individual house to a large development at a ski area. So the amount of infrastructure and the size of the connection could vary. So this is in recognition that there may be projects that through the process of grading that the general the general permit would not qualify, and that would be done through the general permitting process. Our intent is to have most, if not all of these go through the general permitting process. From a purely internal standpoint and what I spoke about a lot on the Senate is I think about peeling a carrot this time of year starting now, the program is consumed and the volume is not sustainable. So this is a peel off the carrot to try to make the make the workload more sustainable. So our intent is definitely to facilitate most, if not all. There just may be a class of projects in our review that wouldn't be appropriate and wouldn't necessitate individual review. The second piece to that is that there will be an audit process involved with this to make sure that we're getting the outcomes that the program is designed to try to achieve, make sure the accountability is there. So some level of shifting of resources will be to the back end, and, oftentimes, the the best way to do the audit is to actually conduct an individual with people. So I see that language as as helping in that realm from an implementation standpoint.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: So the may is really more around may grant the general permit as opposed to may accept the approval from a certified engineer. Is is that kind of what I'm hearing you say? Or

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: There there may be a class of connection projects. There may be a class. I we haven't done the analysis yet where they don't qualify. We've determined that the infrastructure required for that connection really should go through an individual work. It's significant. We should we should do an individual review of it. I don't know. I can't I we haven't done the work yet.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: But the intent is is to still continue using strongly the the the delegated certified engineer.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Our intent is to make this as as fast and efficient as possible, like pulling the information and tech technical documentation forward to make it easier to understand what a connection is. Mhmm. And then rely on the certification of the engineer. We'll have our general permit conditions and essentially a very push button permit, if you will, and then on the back end, at audit procedures to make sure that they're meeting the requirements. Thank you.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions for mister Redmond? Oh, I feel like we're missing an opportunity here.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Different topic, of getting back to the question I asked earlier about capacity and the data that we do have about capacity around the state. What data does Ahon have about various water systems around the state and their capacity to take on more? I mean, specifically, I'm I'm I represent the Perjens area. There's some significant in fact, maybe the first chip project going into Perjens, 74 units right in Perjens. And one of the main things I'm worried about there is that the Regents water system, the drinking potable water system, and the Regents sewage treatment facility are both at, like, maximum capacity, and yet we're adding more out of housing right in Regents. So what data do we have? And how does the state get involved when there are projects like that going on? To say, oh, now this is a good idea or not, but we need to significantly upgrade the water treatment facility here, for example, fully even think about Building 74 more units.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yeah. The on the drinking water side of things, the public drinking water operating permits authorized under chapter 56, Safe Drinking Water Act, state delegated authority to implement those those requirements. We have primacy over Safe Drinking Water Act. Those permits do a very good job outlining the source capacity, the treatment capacity, the storage capacity. So those from a facility level are relatively detailed and known for wastewater direct discharge, not out of my shop, but the but those permits under the nifty's direct discharge, as Chris stated, have have really focusing on the treatment plants capacity. One of the big findings from our stakeholder group is this what it means to have capacity and what it means not to have capacity means different things to different people. So what you'll see in this bill on page four, line 18 is the language regarding the manual. And this is in working and leading the stakeholder group and working on this issue. This is a positive step forward. Our intent

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: is to

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: really focus in on our and part of our RFP will be to help provide guidance to the consulting engineer, to the municipality to evaluate if they do have capacity for that connection. Our current connection permits require confirmation that there is capacity to serve. So it's not like it's unregulated now, but it needs it needs a lift. And this is this is what we're trying to do here.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can I need you to say that again? So you're saying, like, the NIPTIS permit for the wastewater facility itself is not through your shop. I get that. But that you have different ways of understanding capacity between the two programs, and yet we are still adding significant numbers of units in the case of the example given. And how are we addressing the the disconnect about capacity? Oh, yeah. They disconnect.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: There's endless amounts of wastewater jokes. Yes.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: And an emoji.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We don't want that.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Our connection permits do require confirmation that capacity exists to to to serve the intended use, and we are relying on the certification through our application process currently.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That is certified through the city of regens or through your own sister department?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: It would be certified by the applicant and their consultant engineer.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: By the applicant, not not the wastewater treatment operator or responsible. You may.

[Bruce Douglas, Wastewater Program Manager, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division (ANR/DEC)]: You. Bruce Douglas again. We do require a letter from the municipal, whether it's a select board or sewer commission, saying they have adequate capacity to serve this. We call it an allocation letter, and they allocate that much flow. It does vary from community to community how detailed their records are and whether they're keeping track or they estimate capacity. But we rely upon those officials who are responsible for the ownership of the wastewater treatment plant to say they can allocate that specific capacity for the project. Question.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How will this new work improve that relationship?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yeah. I what we're gonna be asking, and I I put a pause on the RFP until this conversation happens, But what we're asking for right now is an assessment of treatment capacity, hydraulic capacity, organic capacity, and wastewater contacts. We're looking at the collection system, we're looking at the water distribution system. So it's going to be a more comprehensive look at identifying what limitations may exist in a system and provide that information to owners, documenting the things that they need to be looking at before they're signing on to new connections.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So this is your example of the front end and the beginning and the end versus kind of managing the middle.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yeah, I see this doc in the connections permit process. I see this documentation as being really vital to the general permit framework. If you start looking at other types of general permits, that's more where I'm talking about shifting our resources for things that are low complexity, low risk, low impact, shifting those resources out to do more pre application assistance and training with the with the regulated community and the consulting community, and on the back end with auditing those projects versus in the middle where we're devoting all of our resources to getting those permits out and reviewing consultants' work one by one individually issuing individual permits. That's the that's the shift I'm talking about, and that's that's a longer term a longer term goal for things that are lower complexity. I do feel that that can yield better outcomes, and this is all around getting better outcomes.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: Representative Austin? For the delegation of authority from state to municipality, is there any funding available to the municipality for that position?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: I believe the answer to that is

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: probably no.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: But I'm not a 100 I should get back to you on that. My gut reaction would be probably not for their administrative overhead.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: So the municipality would responsible for that?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Right. And they would be charging a fee for their work presumably. This bill obligates them to the general permit framework, but the fee structure would be municipal by municipal. So they presumably would be charging for their services. You know, what we found out in some of the communities that we did full delegation is it wasn't cost competitive with the with the services the state could provide. And that was one of the primary reasons why it was turned back to the state.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We have further questions.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: Can I say something in that script? You may. I just want say how grateful I am. Different departments in the state are now permitting I don't know if it's using AI or they're making the permitting process much easier, I think, for consumers. And I just wanna, you know, acknowledge that and say how grateful I am that you're moving in that direction.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: We have a few efforts at DEC really focused on improving the permitting process, looking at it more holistically, doing silo busting. So I appreciate that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Rutland.

[Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I'll also add another side. And thank you for for kind of leading the charge on the whole certified engineer mechanism and delegating to third parties to do the work. I'm really hoping that some of your patriots in wetlands and stormwater will begin to do the same.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Thanks for joining us, and thanks for your work on this. Alright. Thomas Weiss, you are here, and we're a little early, but we'll invite you up now.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: I get even earlier when I'm done. Great.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We like that.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: Good morning. I am Thomas Weiss, and thank you for inviting me here to talk to you this morning. I am a resident of Montpelier and a civil engineer with experience in water and wastewater systems. In the years '21, I've got a letter. I think it's on your site now, you may have received it individually through CAT. That I don't know. On the community web page. Anyway, through 2021 through 2023, there were bills that would remove DEC's regional engineers from the permitting process for municipal connections. I oppose that. That another testimony led to section 25 of act forty seven twenty twenty three, which required the report that Brian mentioned. And I do provide a link in my letter to that report in case any of you haven't seen it yet would like to look at it. The report found that the DEC WW permits, that's the code for the type of permits that are issued under chapter 64, that it has benefits. The report recommended repeal full delegation authority, and I'm quoting from the report. The authority currently granted to the agency of natural resources and modify existing partial delegation to provide authorizing language for proposed local technical review programs and creation of a general permit allowing qualified municipalities to conduct local technical review of water and wastewater systems. I'm sorry. Connections without redundant state review while maintaining statewide consistency and accessibility of data and records. S two twelve, as it passed to the senate, which is the bill you have before you, resolves many of the problems I had noted in the original bill, and these comments address issues that I think you would do well to look into before you pass s two twelve out of your committee. My comments all relate to sections of s two twelve that amend chapter 64, which Brian mentioned to you. One of them is the general permit for connections to potable water supplies and wastewater systems. Brian might have answered this, and I'm not sure. But the act 47 report recommends creating a general permit program only for qualifying municipalities. Section three of s two twelve requires ANR to develop a general permit for connections to potable water supplies or to waste water systems, and this is done on page four in subdivision k one of s two twelve as you have it. And what that language appears to do is to allow the general permit to be used for all connections, not just connections to municipal systems. And I I think Brian answered that perhaps the intent is to allow it to be used for all systems because something I just learned this morning. So, anyway, it's something to look into what should be the bread of the general permit. Chapter 64, as I mentioned, requires a permit for a connection to any potable water supply or wastewater system, meaning that the general permit appears to apply to connections to all potable water supplies or wastewater systems. And many of those systems are not municipal. They can be industrial. They can be state facilities. They can be they're listed as other on the wastewater treatment systems. I've looked at that. I have not looked at corresponding for water systems, but I presume it's quite similar that there are many water systems for whom the general permit would apply even though they're not municipal water systems. My recommendation would be to amend Subdivision K 1 to limit use of the general permit only to connections to municipal water and wastewater, and my letter provides a sample of how I think it might be worded. My next general area is additional general permits.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You just give us a why for the recommendation. Pardon? Why on your recommendation?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: Oh, my recommendation would be to limit it to only the municipal permits as recommended by the report.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, what's your concern?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: My concern is that this started out as allowing municipalities several years ago, it started out as allowing municipalities the ability to issue connection permits outside of DEC. So my thinking is that is the it is the area in which s two twelve should be focused. If you think it's okay to allow all those other systems to have to have connect to issue to allow nonmunicipal systems to issue permits as well. That's your policy decision, which is what

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you gave a eligible for a general permit.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: Be eligible for a general permit.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, they're not issuing the permit. The permit still goes to ANR. It's a general permit, and then ANR actually would determine the efficacious, anyway, how well that works. Efficacy of health.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: Anyway, it's it's a point I raised for your

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess but I'm just I I really wanna understand your concern because this is your concern is that that they would exceed their capacity?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: IBM has a discharge permit. Do you want IBM to allow

[Chris Cochran, Director of Community Planning & Revitalization, VT Department of Housing and Community Development]: Others to

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: general permit to be used for connections within their own property or within their own property to their permitted system. I believe IBM I won't say I believe. I don't remember whether IBM has a direct discharge permit on its own or whether it is required to discharge into one of the treatment systems in that area.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So you're you're thinking that there are privately held larger systems that could be they could sell their capacity to someone else?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: No. Just that they would my concern is that I think that's outside the original scope of of the bill. And if you think that's a good expansion, you'll disregard my recommendation. My next comment has to do with the additional general permit section, which Brian mentioned, section three of s two twelve authorizes a and r to adopt general permitting programs for other activities that require a permit under that section statute that the secretary determines a low risk, low impact, and low complexity. Senate committee did not spend much time on what it means to be low risk, low impact, and low complexity. That language was added on the morning that s two twelve was voted out of the senate committee. ANR has three other general permits that I know of, and the statute defines what should be going into those permits, what those permits should cover. I'm not aware of any other discretionary general permits that DEC has. My recommendation is that you explore what activities might be considered low risk, low impact, and low complexity and decide whether you want to keep that language in the bill or remove it and not allow this discretionary authority for general purpose. My next point is municipal capabilities to be eligible for delegation.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go back to your Certainly. A little breath between

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: these points,

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: make sure I understand them. Okay. So which language was was inserted at at toward the end? The just the low risk or the whole delegation authority?

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: That delegation authority was in there Without any qualifiers. Without any qualifications. And through testimony, it was decided to limit what the authority would be for those general permits. I do state that originally it was ANR was authorized to adopt general permitting programs for other activities that require a permit under chapter 64. And so that could be any of the the permits. And and at the last minute, this other language for low risk, low complexity, low whatever the third one is, impact, was added. So without much discussion as to what really that means. Municipal capabilities to be eligible for delegation. S two twelve provides some guidance to ANR on delegating authority for local technical review to municipalities. Most of the qualifications for eligibility are left to ANR. S two twelve allows ANR to determine the qualifications needed to perform technical review, to establish other requirements for the delegation program, and the submission requirements of the delegation of the required documentation. I recommend that you consider adding some qualifications for for the technical review, which might be listing the technical review and the duties of a position within the municipality so it's clear who is doing that technical review and then that municipality understands requirements, requiring that the municipality is not under any orders to correct deficiencies in the systems, That this you know, the systems have the problems that, you know, you have to complete this and this is the schedule, you know, that kind of order. Or the qualifications needed for the submission requirements could include listing the coordination with ANR and the duties of the position, including applying for the general purpose. It's I feel more comfortable with having as an engineer, with having a little more guidance. Again, it's your choice as as to how much you want to put on to ANR, of course, in in terms of what they can do or some of the things they need to consider. Or you might consider this is more appropriate for the rulemaking process or the general permitting creation process. Yes. So my next point is capacity in the context of delegation of local technical review of connections. We've had several questions and discussion on what capacity is and what capacity means. And I believe there's an incongruity between section four on I think it's page eight and the technical manual on section three on page four. Chapter 64. The language is that the municipality will only issue permits for water service lines, sanitary sewer service lines when there is adequate capacity in the public water system, wastewater treatment facility, or indirect discharge system. The report that will come out in the tech not the report, but the technical manual that will complete the general permit talks about the definition I'm trying to find where I had it. The term wastewater treatment facility typically excludes the treat the collection system. And what my recommendation basically is is that you adopt language from page four and put it into the requirements on page eight so that it's using the same terms that it would use pollution abatement facility in both places because I believe that to be more appropriate and that it use potable water system in both places, especially if you're going to be expanding the definition of or or the the use of the general permit to nonmunicipal systems. And I do have a suggestion on how to do that, that you would use the terms so that it would be they would only issue permits for water service lines and sanitary sewer service lines and their connections when there is adequate capacity in the pollution abatement facility or public water system, and indirect discharge system would be redundant in that case because it's included in the definition of a pollution abatement facility. So those are my recommendations. Thank you for giving me the time to talk to you today and for giving me your attention.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Thanks for your testimony. Much. Members have questions? Not seeing any. Thank you again.

[Thomas Weiss (Civil Engineer, witness)]: Very welcome. And

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I'm going to put the agency on the spot a little and say, do you have are you able to respond to these comments at this time?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: For

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: the record, Brian Redmond. So one of the first points that I would address would be shift in the general permit authority for connections. It is true that the concept, and I alluded to this in my testimony, that the stakeholder group arrived at is slightly different than what we're proposing in s two twelve, and it's reflective of the work that we did between last session and this session. So we are proposing to issue general permits for connections statewide. So that is just to be clear, that is the approach that we would be planning to take. The findings of the stakeholder group are really focused on this local technical review and sort of a delegation procedure. But, you know, within the context of addressing our housing needs and our housing shortage, we know that most municipalities rely on A and R for those services. So we would not expect a lot of participation in that program. It would be more limited. This is broader. And we expect that, again, as I testified earlier to the creation of this design manual to bring those requirements forward, make them more accessible, improve them through this guidance manual is really the foundation for that general permit. And as I said, we would be relying on licensed designers and professional engineers who are required to do these projects. We would be using deference on their licensure to be able to complete the design of these projects, and on the back end, we would be auditing at some some framework to be to be determined. So just want to be clear that that's the approach that it is slightly different. We think it's a better approach. Again, internally, it helps us with our program sustainability. We feel that these are generally of lower complexity and that we can bring these requirements forward and actually improve the outcomes. The second point on the general permit and Question before

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we move on. Representative Chittenden.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: Matt, sorry I came late, but I was listening to your testimony earlier. So just on that point and the thing about municipal owned systems versus privately owned systems, whether it's industrial or other kinds of privately owned systems. I think earlier you talked about one of the key points of capacity and getting letter from either the select board or the city council or the operator of the wastewater. So if you're relying on this and third party engineers and these technical standards, but you were also talking about getting that letter, what would be the equivalent on on on a private system that you're using as general permit across?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: We would be proposing to use the same process for the general permits across the board for for both municipal and and privately owned infrastructure. So it's it's different between water and wastewater. There's many more public drinking water systems than there are wastewater utilities in the state. I think there's 94 to 96 wastewater treatment facilities in the state. The vast majority of them are municipally owned. There are a few private discharging permits. Global is one of them. On the public drinking water side, there's 1,400 public water systems in the state. 400 of those are community water systems, and they have a diverse ownership structure. There's many more I don't have the exact numbers offhand, but there's many more privately owned. Think homeowners associations. There's a lot of those in the state. Also, mobile manufactured housing communities, their public water systems, sometimes privately owned. We have a few privately owned water utilities that are regulated by the PUC. I'll probably get around a dozen. I had to put a number to it right now and get exact numbers if there's interest. Many of those are the private water companies walk and talk like a municipality. Like, think Woodstock Aqueduct Society. They serve the town Woodstock. There are there are examples out there of private utility, private drinking water systems that serve the town or the village. And our proposal is to really include and embrace this process to make it consistent across, again, all aimed at reducing administrative burden, reducing costs and expediting the permitting process to deal with our housing issues.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: Great added detail. My question was, what's the equivalent of getting a municipal wastewater

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: off okay. Your

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Sorry, Brent.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: On the private side.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: Yes. So it would be like in a homeowners association context, it would be their it would be their board, their HOA board. So it's whatever the governing body is. On on drinking water utilities where the vast majority of these private entities reside, there is a formalized process to determine who is the designated contact, the owner, the designated operator. This is all done through very official means mainly to make sure that our permits are enforceable.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: Can you just on the wastewater side with global boundaries, can you tell me a bit? That

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: program does not reside under my purview, so I don't know who I would need to follow-up on that, which

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

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly 'Representative Chittenden')]: I think that would be

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Looks like we have another question on this topic, and I know you have more.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: Just wondering, who's responsible for the oversight of the systems once they're implemented?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: In terms of the connections? Or

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: In terms of the you know, if they're failing. If there's a fail I mean, how do we know if there's a failing system with these connections?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: A failed so under the Chapter one rules, you need a permit to operate a failed system. And in terms of remedying

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Member; Clerk)]: What do mean? You need a

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: In order to continue to use your water and wastewater system in a failed state, you technically need a permit from the state order. I didn't get it. No. So that is really the key aspect to our enforcement when it comes to on-site wastewater and water supplies, including connections. If it's backing up into the residence or the building, the business, that's a failure mode, as well as anything that's surfacing or direct discharging into a surface water. Those are the failure modes, and those are priorities for enforcement. I know you've all heard a lot about ARPA Healthy Homes and that initiative. That has been a very good program and focused on providing resources to Vermonters to improve their water and wastewater utilities, generally on-site septic or on-site water supply. And so that resource has been out there. But as the ARPA funds dry up, this is going to become another focus for us, is finding failed systems again.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think you had another point you were going to address.

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: It was the municipal versus private distinction. So I think that's covered.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very high level, just so we go home with the right information. Summarize I'm seeing two big, like, general permit buckets here for the committee. Can you just summarize both of those?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: The first big bucket would be the general permit specific to connections. We're talking about statewide permitting for any connections permits that that are issued, so water and wastewater. This may be done through a delegated municipality or at the state, kind of two two different tracks here, creating that pathway for municipalities, but also recognizing that the needs to make the process more efficient statewide, ANR would retain authority to and this bill directs us to issue general permits for connections. So that's that's bucket number one. The foundational piece there is the design manual to bring that information that that technical resource forward. Our our current wastewater rules are very septic focused. And so the connection standards are within those rules, and we want to extrapolate them out. One of the engineers that participated on our stakeholder group, great engineer, does a lot of water and wastewater work, I suggest you hear from them possibly, worked in one of the communities in Montana. Bozeman, I believe, are one of the fast growing communities in Montana, and her recommendation was if you're doing a water and wastewater connection in whatever town it is in Montana, here it is. Here's your guidelines, meet specification. So, everybody knew what the requirements are. And so that's where I feel like we can actually improve the outcomes here. So that's bucket number one. Bucket number two is the broader based general permit authority under chapter 64. As I testified earlier, we don't have any specific plans, but this is really important to us. Again, trying to shift those resources out of the middle of the process to the front and the back. And this would be done for low complexity, low impact. That language that was established in the Senate, what we would be doing is engaging our stakeholders in developing additional general permits. So those that determination and those terms would be our metric that we would be working with stakeholders to define in the general permitting context. Think a real low hanging fruit example would be the subdivision of land. That requires a WW permit to make sure that the land that's getting subdivided has suitable water and wastewater. So that's there's no construction involved. That could be a great example. There also may be very low risk, low complexity wastewater systems that I philosophically feel that we can move our resources just trying to keep up with 3,000 permits a year to the front and the back. And I think we can get better outcomes that way versus working in the middle. People know the state's going to correct their information if they submit it in a different in a deficient manner. So there's this back and forth, and it's not efficient. And so what I'd like to do is try to pivot some of our resources to more on-site assistance on the front end, meeting with the engineers. That's that's training for them on our regulations, evaluating the site, looking at it, just in in an effort to get improving the outcomes versus burying everybody in the middle. And I'm not saying we're doing this for all of our permits, but we would be looking at opportunities for lower complexity projects where we can make this shift happen.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What is the name of the engineer you recommended we hear from?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: So the two that participated on the stakeholder group would be Andrea Day from Dufresne Group. She's the engineer. They both of these do a lot of water and wastewater work in the state. She's with Dufresne Group, one of the principals there. She was the one that worked in Montana. And then Craig Jewett with MSK Engineering out of Bennington. Craig also sits on our technical advisory committee, which is an advisory committee authorized under chapter 64 to advise the secretary on water and wastewater issues. So he has that dual role. So he also would be a good both very active in water and wastewater engineering work in Vermont.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Have further questions. I guess I want further thoughts or clarification on the terms low impact, low risk, low complexity. What does that mean to you? We try to be specific in statute,

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: and those are a little vague. I think that would be developed through the general permit process and would receive public comment and review via Chapter 170, the environmental notice bulletin. The general permit would go out for review and comment. So that work hasn't happened yet, so I hesitate to give you examples. The subdivision of land example is one that comes to mind. There are certain types of wastewater systems that are very low complexity. There's no pretreatment. There's no hydrogeologic review. We know the soils are good. It's a basic in ground system. They have a licensed engineer or licensed designer design work. So that may be an opportunity for us to shift resources into spending more time in the field, looking at sites, working directly with consultants to get the projects approved. Again, all it'll all be targeted. I know I know you like to be specific in statute, but it would be targeted at improving outcomes. Be one of the the guiding goals.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Comes for whom?

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: For the landowner and the environment. Public health, environmental protection.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other questions? Thanks so much for your testimony and joining us. First, let's, we've been in here for an hour. Let's take a break till twenty past the

[Brian Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, Agency of Natural Resources]: hour.