Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Will senate please come to order? We'll we'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional today. Thank you. Would you please join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

[Senator Richard Westman]: all. By

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: way of announcement, I would send my thoughts and prayers to the family of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who was a tower in the American Civil Rights Movement, and I would just say two short things that he used to say that I think would serve us all well to say every day, and that is I am somebody and keep hope alive. Are there any announcements? Seeing none. We have senate bill s five four five being on the calendar for notice and carrying an appropriation under rule 31 is referred to the committee on appropriations.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: We

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: have JRS 41, a joint result resolution relating to weekend adjournment on 02/20/2026. Listen to the reading of the resolution.

[Reading Clerk]: Resolved by the senate and house of representatives that when the two houses adjourn on Friday, 02/20/2026, it'd be to meet again no later than Tuesday, 02/24/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution, and the question is, shall the resolution be adopted on its part? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we have adopted the resolution. Orders of the day. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: If I might, mister president, I was hoping to start with third reading of h seven ninety and then move to the topic of calendar.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: See, and you asked so nicely. We will do just that. Thank you. We have third reading of h seven ninety and act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty six budget adjustment. Are there any announced, any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Washington. Listen to the third reading.

[Reading Clerk]: H seven ninety, an act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty six budget adjustments.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington, did you want to speak to the bill?

[Senator Ann Cummings]: I knew I was gonna I was gonna wait for third I guess this is the right time. So there were some questions, on the floor on the on this presentation. I thought I would provide some answers because I said I'd get back to to those senators. So the senator Essex had a question about the overtime for the state police. I think it was eight hundred thousand dollars. Well, looked at the the details and the governor's budget, and it was $1.00 8 $108,463 worth for Burlington, not bad 800. And there was a reclassification to troopers plus the overtime was the main reason for those those extra costs. The senator from Chittenden Central had a couple of questions. One was about this reference to a contract for the computer project of Illinois, and that company is called CPI. That's just the name of the company. And that was just a switch to a cloud based information sharing for law enforcement. It's it's a it's a service that other parts of state government and law enforcement use, so just move the it was a contract for that company. Had nothing to do with, outsourcing this to Illinois. The senator from Ginny Lyons Central also had a question about the in income verification, for children, family.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Trying to remember here.

[Senator Ann Cummings]: There was $50,000 of it. The question was, was this related to changes in federal income verification? And the answer is no. They were they had an income verification system that they worked with the feds. So I guess the sort of a yes and no, the feds stopped offering this service. And so the states are having to do it on their own and having to contract with third party services that do this income verification. So that's what that is. So there there was a connection to the federal government not doing it anymore, but not not because they were doing it differently. So those are the the questions I was going to provide an answer to.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The question is senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. There was also a question regarding, the Brattleboro Memorial Hospital language that is in the budget on page 35. And act 55, which was the, proposing a cap on outpatient and in office costs for, for delivery of drugs. And so what this in act 55, critical access hospitals were exempt from the CAT, the 120% cat. And in it so in 2025, we're our out of war Memorial Hospital, was accepted into a center for Medicaid and medical Medicare services for alternate payment models. And so their payment now is like being a critical access hospital. So this language then allows for that hospital to be treated as such. And just so you know, there is a de minimis effect on the, overall health care financing with this change. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: So the question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with the proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it. Motion carries. Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. At this time, I would ask that our rules be suspended and that our actions on h seven ninety and act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty six budget adjustments be messaged to the house forthwith.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to message our action on h seven ninety to the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Ayes have it. Motion carries. We have on the calendar for action s two eighteen introduced on 01/07/2026. It was referred to the committee on natural resources and energy, which reports it has considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass. Affecting the finances of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which reports that the bill ought to pass. Affecting appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that the bill ought to pass listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk]: S two eighteen an act relating to reducing chloride contamination of state waters.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson for the report of the committee on natural resources and energy.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, Mr. President. S two eighteen affectionately known as the salt bill or the chloride bill has had a peculiar journey to get to this point. So before I get into what this bill does, I first want to speak to the path that this language took. It started its life as S 29 in Senate Natural Resources and Energy, but it had relevance to both the transportation and judiciary committees. The transportation committee at the time did a drive by and provided valuable feedback which Senate Natural Resources Incorporated. Then the bill went to the judiciary committee and you'll hear from the chair of judiciary about their input on the bill. That language ended up in a second bill, H319, which didn't end up going anywhere. So now we're back with S218 as a clean draft of that broadly agreed upon language. You'll notice that Senate Natural Resources voted the bill out with no amendments, though we're likely to have one or two small technical adjustments in an amendment for third reading. Before I explain what this bill does, first what is the problem that this bill aims to address? We heard testimony last year that every body of water in Vermont is seeing an increase in salinity. This is especially true in more urban places that have a lot of asphalt. People are starting to see their well water contaminated with salt and we're starting to see biodiversity loss as a result of increased salt levels. The problem is getting so bad that when we started this process last year there was just one TMDL for salt in the state of Vermont and now there are two more TMDLs that will be put into place this year and six more that are on track to be established in the next two years. Just to be clear, you may be familiar with the idea of TMDL or total maximum daily load for phosphorus. It basically identifies that a region has a problem with its runoff for a particular kind of pollutant and in this case it's not phosphorus but chloride that has been found in problematically high concentrations. We all know where it's generally coming from. We salt our roads, parking lots and sidewalks in the winter. I'm sure you felt the salt crunch under your feet as you came into the State House this morning, but how much salt is sufficient to keep people safe? This is a question that private and municipal road salt applicators have to ask themselves all the time In the absence of any real answer to that question, it's easy to adopt the philosophy that if some salt is good then more salt is better. Commercial salt applicators don't want to be sued by someone who slips and falls on an area that they were responsible for. So there's pressure to over salt for the sake of safety. So that's where this bill comes in. This bill creates a voluntary program that commercial salt applicators can participate in for a fee. They would learn best management practices for salt application, how much salt is sufficient based on given surface conditions. Then if they keep good records documenting that they are practicing best management practices, then they would enjoy some amount of liability protection if there were to be a slip and fall type accident on one of the surfaces they were responsible for. For what it's worth, Vermont did not invent this idea. This kind of program is modeled after a program that exists in New Hampshire called Green Snow Pro. In New Hampshire this program was put to the test with a court case against a commercial assault applicator and the liability protection did indeed hold up in court. To be specific about the kind of liability protection that a commercial assault applicator might enjoy, it's called an affirmative defence. And this is where Senate Natural Resources needed help from the Senate Judiciary Committee. So for an explanation of affirmative defense and why the committee thought that was appropriate, I'm gonna yield to the chair of judiciary.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. Take a brief here that multiple

[Senator Richard Westman]: Now we have.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Super good to keep going. Okay. My apologies. Thank you very much. I have learned something. So we will

[Reading Clerk]: point of order?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: What is your point of order?

[Unidentified Senator (Point of Order)]: What just occurred? I'm confused about the call why we had a recess. Could I get a parliamentary explanation for Senator. Why the senator from, Washington could not yield to the senator from Windham?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Because the senator from Washington cannot yield to a senator who is not on the committee. Why?

[Senator Richard Westman]: It's a good question I always thought you could.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Yeah it's a report of the committee of natural resources and energy and so no one who is not on the committee can take part in that report.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you. And, again, my apologies. And, we will hear from the chair of judiciary, at a later point. Okay. So cliffhanger on the affirmative defense. We'll hear about that soon. Okay, so, I would express my gratitude for, the Senate Judiciary Committee for their help in participating in this bill. That's the plan anyway for commercial salt applicators, but we know that municipalities and the state are also involved in spreading salt. For municipal road crews, the state offers a training called the Vermont Local Roads Curriculum, and this bill would require that as a part of that curriculum, the AOT should build into its education the best management practices for salt application. So for the state road crews, they already have best management practices that they follow regarding SALTs. So the committee thought there was no need to develop what would be a duplicative program for the state road crews. Additionally, there is a portion of the bill that asked DEC to create a report on state and municipal storage of salt sand and salt sand mixtures. It might seem obvious that if you're going to have a salt pile, that it would be logical to cover that pile so it doesn't dissolve and wash away in rain water and in snow melt. But there are many places where these salt piles are in fact uncovered and what's worse is that some of these piles are quite near bodies of water. Of course, covering them comes down to money. These can be very large piles and covering them does have a price tag. This bill is not requiring that these state or municipal salt piles become covered because we don't even know the scope of that problem. So this bill creates a report of covered and uncovered salt piles and how many of those are within 100 yards of a surface water or drinking water source. The report also comes back with an estimate for how much it would cost to cover or move all of the uncovered piles. Now that I've explained the bill in general, I want to highlight some of the details from the bill that may be of interest. In the definition section, section two, you'll see the definition of apply SALT. It starts out with a definition that may sound logical. It means to apply salt or salt alternative to roadways, parking lots, or sidewalks for the purpose of winter maintenance. But then it goes, adds, or for summer dust control. And then in the next sentence, to the definition that this definition does not apply to transportation infrastructure construction projects. So what is happening there? Something I learned through testimony was that salt is sometimes applied to the ground during construction work along a road because it helps the ground retain moisture. Just like when you eat too many chips, you get thirsty. When the ground gets salted, it hangs on to moisture better which prevents dust from getting kicked up into the air during construction projects. You'll also see in the definitions a definition of salt alternatives. So beyond the definition that it does not include chloride, what does that mean? Just as an example, I recall the city of Montpelier for a while experimented with beet juice as a de icing and anti icing agent. I'm not sure how successful that was as I don't think they're using it now, but, maybe an assault, shortage that may be coming back, so who knows? Also in the definition section, you'll see the term commercial salt applicator, master commercial salt applicator. If you're just one person with a truck spreading salt, you may just want to go through the program as a regular commercial salt applicator. However, if you run a business that employs multiple people in applying SALT, there's a division in the bill that allows for a higher level of certification so that you can oversee other people who are engaged in commercial SALT application. Later in section one, which is for the bill section thirteen sixty two, you'll see that ANR creates a voluntary chloride contamination reduction program after consulting with AOT and other states that have similar programs. They establish the best management practices. This includes techniques to ensure safety but also minimize the amount of salt necessary. They will establish standards for how and when salt alternatives and sand may be appropriate. It creates standards for record keeping and the establishment of, the required requirements for a certification. I also wanna highlight f three with from that same section, which states that the secretary may elect to implement the program with state agency staff through a third party vendor or some combination. I think that's really the intention here. There are third party vendors who can do this work and I anticipate that that is how this may ultimately be implemented. Section thirteen sixty three is the affirmative defense briefly would be enjoyed by a SALT Applicator if the claim is just caused by snow or ice, the SALT Applicator was following the best management practices and the SALT Applicator has kept proper records. However, the SALT Applicator does not get to enjoy the protection of an affirmative defence if the damage is due to gross negligence or reckless disregard. They have to maintain their records for three years. Section 13.64 provides certified commercial salt applicators with a rebuttable presumption that they are in compliance with water discharge and storm water permit requirements unless they are in a TMDL or MS4 permit as they may have other requirements. Section thirteen sixty five is a requirement that ANR do education and outreach about SALT application for the general public and advertising that this voluntary program exists. Section three of the bill is the report that I've already mentioned about about a report on how many uncovered SALT piles are owned by the state or municipalities. Section four is about including SALT education in the Vermont Local Roads curriculum as I've mentioned and similarly municipal roads crew that go through the program will have the affirmative defense protection. Section five is a fee report which I will let folks from finance comment on, but I'll just say that in other states this program is substantially funded through fees collected by the participants. Section six is a paragraph making it clear that ANR does not need to run the program if we, the legislature, don't give them the money to do it, with the exception of section three about the salt pile report. We still want them to do that and we've heard testimony that it should not take an excessive amount of time to do that report. Committee heard from quite a variety of folks which I'm happy to go into if that is of interest, though I will say I would prefer to do that on third reading if possible as that seems to not be in my pile. And then the voting committee was four one zero, and we ask for the support of the senate. Thank you.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: For the

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: report of the committee on finance, the senator from Addison, senator Hardy.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. You'll note you'll find, on section five of the bill, which is the bill that's introduced on the bottom of page 12, there is a fee report. As the chair of natural resources mentioned, this program is generally funded through fees from participants who participate voluntarily. It is both private commercial operators. You know our local snowplow drivers who plow our roads, a couple of whom are in this chamber, and also municipal snowplow drivers. So this fee report would request this would ask the secretary of the agency of natural resources to come back to us next year once they figured out whether they're going to use private contractors or state employees to run the program and and make a recommendation for how much those fees should be. You will probably see a a small tweak, on third reading that would add that they should report back on both the commercial applicator fees and the municipal fees because they are two separate programs under the larger umbrella of this snowplow program. So, that's it. It's just a fee report. It does not set fees at this time. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: I recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you Mr. President. The appropriations committee did take a look at this, but the natural resources committee had already removed the section on how much the cost of the program would be. There is a fiscal note on this program, and it included $200,000 for to stand up the program and potentially a couple of positions, one for natural resources or for I'm sorry, for agency of natural resources and one for AOT, but that being already removed will be a part of the Appropriations Committee's discussions of the budget and that was voted out favorably six zero one. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: So the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Thank you, mister president. Second time is a charm,

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I think.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: So, regarding the affirmative defense, senate judiciary did have a number of hearings on this topic. We've heard from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation, has a similar program. You also heard from our legislative council, and basically the conversation, had to do with the topic of the carrot versus the stick. The initial bill had limited liability which could be considered rather large carrot. An affirmative defense, you could call that a medium sized carrot. And what an affirmative defense does, when when a plaintiff files a lawsuit, the defendant can make an assertion, usually at pleading which if true and proven constitutes a defense to the plaintiff's claim. It doesn't close out the litigation at the very beginning of the lawsuit as, a limited liability could potentially do. And if the affirmative defense is proven and there's no disagreement or there's no question as to the material facts, the defendant the the plaintiff, would not have a right to recover, and no claim because the defendant satisfied the conditions or proved the facts necessary for the affirmative defense. And as was described earlier, this would require that, that the affirmative defense wouldn't apply if the damages were caused solely by snow or ice and any failure or delay in removing or mitigating the hazard as a result of the certified commercial self applicators implementation of best practices, and it also wouldn't apply if the defendant was engaged in gross negligence or reckless disregard of the hazard. And in order to assert the defense, the defendant would have to keep a record describing its road, parking lot, and property maintenance practices consistent with the requirements determined by the secretary under the subchapter. We ended up, I believe, doing a straw poll on this, and after all the testimony, we had consensus. I believe it was unanimous unanimous consensus as to moving forward with the affirmative defense. I presented it in Senate Natural Resources, and I presume it was well received because it's in the current version of the bill. So, thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams]: Thank you, mister president. Being that I was the one no vote, I'd like an opportunity to explain my no vote with your permission. So bottom line up front, I support protecting the waters of Vermont. But regulation must be data driven, proportionate, and clearly required. I do not believe that's 18 meets that task. The EPA has not established a core TMDL requirement and recent federal actions have reduced, prescriptive clean water mandates. I do not believe Vermont should move ahead of federal requirements and impose new statewide obligations that will increase costs in municipalities, contractors, and property owners, even though it is a voluntary for the contractors. We do not have reliable statewide database on paying much of how much salt we sold, imported or applied. Without that information, the bill directs ANR and DEC to expand monitoring, rule making, and enforcement authority without clear evidence of proportional benefit. Last session during testimony on s 29, we went around. I actually had to correct my testimony because of that, but we did this has been around for for a while. We heard that the highest document documented fluoride contamination was associated primarily with winter ice de icing on the Northwestern part of Vermont. That suggests this is not a uniform statewide problem. During the same discussion, we heard limited support from private winter maintenance contractors for expanded regulatory oversight. That perspective matters because the legislation directly affects municipalities and the contractors who keep their roads, parking lots and sidewalks safe in the winter. In addition, recent litigation in New Hampshire involving Green Pro Snow Pro and salt application practices highlights the legal and liability implications that can arise when regulatory standards are evolving. So even though they're they're gonna be exempt if this passes, they can they still have to lawyer up. They still have to go anybody can sue anybody in state of Vermont. So as we consider additional regulatory framework, we should be mindful of those downstream consequences. Protecting water quality is important, but if we're going to regulate, we should do so carefully based on clear data, clearly defined scope, and a full understanding of practical and legal impacts. For those reasons, I voted no. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I just want to clarify that this is a voluntary program and as people are, as they go through the program and learn about how much salt is necessary, theoretically, this should help them reduce the amount of salt needed and thereby their costs. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Yes, may I interrogate the presenter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Mr. President, how many participants are involved in New Hampshire? Did they get a number for that?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you Mr. President that is a great question and I don't recall but I can find out for you for third reading. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the reporter of the bill?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Mister president,

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: can you I I heard that there were multiple t m TMDLs proposed now and that there will be more in the future and that all water bodies are now impacted by salt. Did I hear that correctly?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. We had testimony that showed, basically all body waters of, bodies of water in the state of Vermont increasing in salinity, which is not to say that they are all at problematic levels yet, but we can see that there was, measurable increases.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you and I have a follow-up question. I well, first, a comment. I find that very concerning. Vermont's fresh water is a a huge resource. Many of our our residents have wells. Cleaning up pollution is much more expensive than stopping it in the first place. I very much appreciate the the work on this bill, and I'm supportive of the bill. My final question is, do we have time for a voluntary program?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. That is a very good question, and I think, in in response to that I would say that we need to go at the speed of trust and at a pace that is reasonable for the people in Vermont and I think taking this step towards a voluntary program is is a reasonable first step. There has not been a program like this in the state of of Vermont, and it's I think until this bill, it was perhaps not on people's radars that salt was a problem. And so I think we I think there's still education that needs to happen, and, we are it's it's starting to become increasingly, an issue that is in the consciousness of Vermonters that this is problematic. So I think this is a a healthy first step. But your your question slash point or the senator's question slash point is well taken. Thank you.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: I think

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: the senator from Washington.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. Can I interrogate the report of

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: the bill, please? The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Mister president, just a short statement. When you have a bill like this, you're damned if you do and you're damned if you certainly don't. I mean, and that's that's really where it is. Because if you don't sign up for this program and there's a lawsuit, this and that, oh boy, you you should have done it or you did or

[Senator Ann Cummings]: you

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: didn't. This to me seems like we're really have a chance to do something about salt content and was there ever any consideration to slow this bill down to where we could actually get real data to support a lot of the findings that we're trying to make here?

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, Mr. President. What we did see quite a bit of data. What data is the Senator interested in?

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I'm just really Mr. President really interested in, what type of reductions are we looking to see? Where's the levels of the salt? I mean, yeah, we we have heard it through the testimony that there the the waters are getting more salty, but we don't have any indications about where it's comes from, how it is, is it natural? Is it any anything like that? This is just a I know it's voluntary, but again, when you do these programs and and you make it voluntary or not, you're guilty if you don't do the program. I mean, if it comes to a lawsuit in most cases. So I was just wondering if there was ever any really consideration about just coming with clear data to show over the years, the salt levels have the salinity of the waters have increased to this point or that point. I I didn't hear any of that during the testimony.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I would be glad to provide senator with graphs and data that we saw during testimony and there was some great data that we got from actually New York has a different program so happy to share that data so I'm happy to get that for a third reading and would just also remind the senator that, in the absence of this program, it that it's the status quo or if if someone if this program does move forward, if someone chooses to not participate, it is, the status quo. Thank you.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: I think senator thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy]: Thank you, mister president. First, I I failed to mention the vote in, senate finance. It was seven zero zero, on the bill going out of that committee. I also just wanna say, we did hear an enormous amount of evidence and data in our testimony and as the senator from Washington said, can provide the entire body with that data. Really striking, data that showed that the level of salt in many of the waters of the state is is increasing and has been for a number of years, especially in areas where there's heavy salt usage, where there are roads that are close to rivers, that are being worked on. Colchester is a good, example of an area that, has had in South Burlington, but there are also other parts of the state where salt levels have increased. I want to make sure that everybody understands that as salt increases in our waters, it impacts obviously all of the things living in our water, fish, the green stuff, the flora and fauna in our water, it also impacts our drinking water. So this is starting to be an issue in some communities where the salt is leaching into our drinking water, and that is dangerous for human beings. So making sure that we put an end as much as possible or slow the increase in salt in our water before it really contaminates our drinking water is really crucially important. And we did hear from a lot of snow plow drivers who supported this program or were interested in potentially participating in this program. One of the largest snow cloud, contractors in my district, testified in the house to support the program. And I also want to remind, senators that during these recent snowstorms, many of our municipalities ran out of salt. They just didn't have enough salt to salt our roads anyway. So part of what this program would do is help municipalities learn and private contractors learn how to use less salt in an era when salt is in short supply. It is also hugely expensive for budgets in small towns. The salt is often one of the largest budget items for that small town. So anything we can do to reduce salt protects our drinking water, saves money for our towns and our private contractors, and protects the waters of the state. So this voluntary program is a great first step. Many other states are doing it. We heard also from Wisconsin. I think Minnesota is looking at it. So any of the states where it snows a lot are really interested in this, and I urge the body to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator Rutland. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator David Weeks]: Mister president, may I interrogate the reporter of the bill, the chair of the Natural Resources Committee?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator David Weeks]: If it would help the conversation, mister president, I think if if when the chair of the natural resources committee brings her data, if it it might be appropriate to provide the body a trend line of salt contamination in a variety of lakes throughout the state, wells throughout the state with a trend line that might go back twenty or thirty years to see where the problem is, when it developed, that would be compelling. So, if if if, miss president, the report of the bill can provide that on third reading, I would be most appreciated.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. Again, happy to bring the data that we saw. I am not recalling how long the x axis was in terms of time, but I will prove I'm happy to provide the data that we have.

[Senator David Weeks]: Thank you, mister president. I thank the report of the bill.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: I would offer up a tree, as an example of this increasing salt problem. Yesterday I met with our arborist in Woodstock because we had a tree that had to be taken down this year and it's at the bottom of our driveway and it's town land but we've maintained it for the town for many years. We had put in these trees when we moved in thirty five years ago and to shade the parking lot and the tree has subsequently died and so we spoke to our arborist yesterday and we were talking about how to replace it. I said, so Al, I know we've got a lot of salt coming down the hill and I know it sort of pulls there. It's he said he said, you could make pickles at the bottom of your drive way, Alison. And I said, then what are our tree options? And he said, you don't have that many. And we walked through a bunch of the tree options. I've seen in real time how salt affects the flora and fauna of our state. And I have to say, as somebody who drives frequently in New York State, their program is terrific, and it has been really with very modest impact on the drivers in New York State. So I offer up a tree is a living example and now a dead example and hopefully a new living example of of the salt problem that we have in this state.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Richard Westman]: As it was reported from the chair of natural resources, we did not take this bill specifically into our committee, but we did hear a testimony early in the session on this. This is the third time around with this salt issue since last year, and we did spend a fair amount of time on this. We're assured that in this draft of the bill as it goes through, there is no mandate to towns. And that was important to us that there be no mandate to towns. In section three of this, there is language that talks about figuring out what salt piles are covered and what aren't in an orderly fashion. We do already have that information for everything in the Champlain Valley. Everything that flows into Lake Champlain, they've already done assessment of, so it's about the third of the state that's left that this will focus on, so we will have the information about the whole state. The Transportation Committee, if you remember last year when we went through, I think it was the first iteration of this bill, put forward language to this that talked about monies through grant programs that there are out there to help small towns. I will just give a small town example of the town of Elmore, which had a salt pile within 150 yards of Lake Elmore. It took them almost twelve years to raise the money to cover their salt pile. They're now covered in that. This is about going forward, figuring out where we are. The Transportation Committee will be very interested in this. If there is ever a mandate, it will be imperative if there ever is a mandate that the state pony up some money to help these small towns deal with this problem going forward in a timely fashion. So our committee didn't take it, but we are very aware that's everything. I do want to correct one statement that was made earlier on the floor. We've all heard that some towns have run out of salt this year because we've had a real winter. The agency of transportation sent every town in the state The offer they have they set aside 25,000 tons of salt to go to communities and offered to sell them salt if they needed it. And as of last week when I got the last report on it, there were no towns that were takers, but they did have the offer and ability to buy salt and no town took them up. So the idea that towns might be running out of salt to maintain their roads because we're having a real winter is something that the agency took seriously, made an offer for, and no towns took them up.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna celebrate the interest in data.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanted to quickly reference a couple of remarks that had been made. One, my colleague from the kingdom who asked whether the bill could be slowed down. And I would suggest that this bill has already had a very deliberate path through our body. It has gone and gotten testimony from at least five separate committees, major committees, all. And the other piece of this I think is that given that this is a voluntary program, there were decisions made, hard decisions along the way not to mandate that communities or commercial applicators adopt a certain practice. In the judiciary committee, we heard from many SALT applicators and their problems are real. There are problems both in terms of liability,

[Senator Terry Williams]: in terms

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: of how much money they can make, their bottom line. All of those things were considered just in my committee. I know in the Natural Resources Committee, they took different data, made different decisions, but it all came together in a very light touch on this industry given the negative impacts of what we're seeing. So the other piece that I would stress is the chair of natural resources, alluded to the fact that we've had several TMDLs established, which means federal oversight for state functions. It means that we're not doing our job, and the federal government is going to do it for us. I don't want to live in that world. I would prefer that we dictate our own destiny, and I think this bill does a remarkable job of, finessing that line, and I would hope that every senator would vote for

[Senator Ann Cummings]: it. Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are you ready for the question?

[Reading Clerk]: Roll call, mister president.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: It's been requested that when we take the vote, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? The secretary shall call the roll.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck?

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Yes. Senator Benson?

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Yes. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brandon? Yes. Yes. Senator Lawrence. Yes. Senator Major. Yes. Senator Mattos. Yes. Senator Morley. Yes. Senator Norris. Yes. Senator Pershing. Yes. Watson? Yes. Senator Weak? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White]: Yes.

[Secretary of the Senate (Clerk)]: Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams]: No.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Those voting yes, 29. Those voting no. One. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of s two eighteen. That completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Senator from Chittenden Central.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. Pending announcements, I would move that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/18/2026.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: By way of announcement, Ingrid Ehlers, Girl Scout, has one of her sales associates in my office and will be offering Girl Scout cookies again. Are there any further announcements? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Thank you, mister president. Senate health and welfare will meet at 10:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim]: Senator this year will leave five minutes after the fall of

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson]: Senator resources will meet five minutes after the fall of the gap. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Lamoille.

[Senator Richard Westman]: Senate transportation in five minutes.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson]: I have two announcements. Senate economic development housing and general affairs will meet at 10:30 and we'll then have a joint hearing with Senate Natural Resources at eleven, which we're looking forward to. And today, I would like to celebrate the birth of, our own senator Martine Gulick. We are so pleased she is a member of this body.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Happy birthday, senator. Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, mister president. Senator Aracult will meet at 10:30. Thank you.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Martine Larocque Gulick]: Thank you, mister president. Senate government operations will meet at 01:15.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Wendy Harrison]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons]: Senate finance will meet at 01:30.

[Senator Philip Baruth (President Pro Tempore)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/18/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Wednesday, 02/18/2026.