Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, morning. So agriculture is back in action about 09:47. We're gonna spend some time talking with some folks, impact of natural gas pipelines on farmers. And, we have, the Palmers on here, and, I'll let you everybody introduce each other. That way I don't, butcher anything up. So, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Nate Palmer]: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time looking at this issue.

[Jane Palmer]: We're Nate and Jane Palmer. We're not sure, are we supposed to read our testimony or do you The want to just ask

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: floor is yours. This is your time. You best want to do. Okay.

[Jane Palmer]: Well, we're Nate and Jane Palmer. We live in Moncton. In 2013, we were informed our land would be in the path of the Addison Natural Gas Project. We participated in the February process and were able to get the route moved from within 60 feet of our house and affecting much of the infrastructure on our farm to going around our property. The pipeline is now within 300 feet of our house, but it is not located on our property at all. In the PUC case about whether to permit the pipeline, the Vermont Department of Ag made an agreement with VGS that became part of the permit approval in order to protect farmers and ag land. This agreement was that in all agricultural areas, the pipeline must be at least four feet deep. As a result, in both the Velco Corridor right of way and in all agricultural lands, the pipeline must be four feet deep for safety reasons. All of us who lived along the pipeline knew that. In 2016, during construction of the pipeline south of us, we became aware that the pipeline was not buried as deep as was specified in the Certificate of Public Good Building Plans. We informed the Department of Public Service as well as PHMSA and subsequently, case number Seventeen-three550, a safety investigation of the ANGP, was opened by the PUC. It was only after we had brought the shallow depth of cover issue to the attention of the Department of Public Service did VGS report the problem to the PUC, but they never notified any of the landowners on whose land the pipeline was supposed to be buried four feet deep what wasn't. They also didn't notify the town of New Haven or the town's fire department that there was a deviation from the original building plans and the possibility of a safety violation. From the very beginning of this project, we have felt the impact of the construction and operation of this pipeline would not be conducive to our farm or any other agricultural land or farming process. We spoke with farmers and landowners all across the country that had to deal with pipelines and the resulting issues that came with pipelines. This includes soil degradation, lack of compaction, reduced harvest, and temperature induced ripening differences within a field that has a gas pipeline built through it. We had Doctor. Heather Darby, UVM soil agronomist, testify that it could be decades, if ever, for our clay soil to recover from the assault of a pipeline installation. Unfortunately, the PUC would only determine the impact on our farm, not others along the route. When the route was changed off of our farm, the subject of the degradation of ag land was dropped. Fast forward, after the PUC heard the complaints of the safety issues that were uncovered during case number Seventeen-three550, the PUC found five substantial changes to the permanent construction plans that VGS made in violation of the CPG. Yet, at DPS' and BGS' request, the PUC ruled that none of the towns and none of the affected landowners had to be notified and asked what their views were before granting approval to VGS for these changes. We appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed with us and ordered the PUC to start over, this time notifying all the affected towns and landowners. We are now in the middle of this case. During the course of this latest safety investigation, the town of New Haven requested reports from VGS in discovering in discovery concerning the depth of cover over the pipeline and agricultural land. In the report supplied by VGS, there are many places in agricultural land where the pipeline is less than the required depth of four feet. And even more disturbing, the pipeline is rising, and no one has told any of the farmers that the pipeline is no longer four feet deep on land that they are tilling and crossing with their farm equipment. The two depth of cover reports that we read, one from 2020 and the other from 2023, show that in many of the places measured, the pipeline's depth of cover has been reduced by feet in some cases. This issue will cause yet another problem for farmers trying to work their fields. Worst case scenario, the pipeline could be hooked by a subsoiler or deep plow, and then serious consequences will follow. Even if the pipeline doesn't get hit, the farmer will have to work around it and be constantly aware of the hazard. And the farmer was not warned of this fact and was not made aware of it or compensated for the trouble and hazard they accepted onto their land. We were actually told by the then CEO of VGS when we were not convinced we wanted to host the pipeline that, quote, After a few years, you will forget the pipeline is even there, unquote. Her response was that this is when the pipeline would become deadly. We are hoping things don't have to get to the point where someone is killed doing fieldwork in Vermont before anything is done about this. When our attorney saw these depth of cover documents and realized this was yet another violation of the CPG, he wrote a letter to VGS's attorney and advised that VGS self report this problem to the PUC and notify landowners and municipalities of this potential danger. BGS's response was that this depth of cover problem was not identified as one of the five substantial changes in case number Seventeen-three550 that were in violation of the CPG. So, he felt it wasn't necessary to notify anyone. We can provide our attorney's letter and VGS's answer to you if you would like to see them. This is coming from a company that claims they are laser focused on safety and transparency. For those of you who are thinking this issue should come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Service, please be aware that the DPS has taken BGS's side in almost every aspect of these proceedings and has shown no interest in the public safety at all. It was apparent from the beginning to us that landowners need an advocate in the citing and oversight of utility projects such as this. So, what we're hoping is that the Senate Agriculture Committee will ask VGS and DPS to testify to explain why neither VGS nor the DPS has informed the PUC and affected agricultural landowners about this situation. Thank you.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you. Attorney, Dumont, who are you are you representing, sir?

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: Well, I represent the Palmers and many other folks in the POC proceeding, and I Jane did such a wonderful job. I I really don't have much to add. I did file the letter that she mentioned. I submitted that, I think, last night to your clerk. The letter I'd sent to Vermont Gas Systems lawyer and I also filed their response. So, you can see for yourself that they have refused to respond. We said, he, you're in violation. This is safety issue. You should at least notify the farmers on whose land this is happening. And their response is, we don't have to. And I wrote back saying, tell us why. What are we what are we missing here? And they said, we're not gonna tell you.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So is this in litigation right now?

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: It is not in litigation because, these changes, the loss of depth of cover in agricultural fields are not part of the five substantial changes the commission already found. We're in the case about what to do about the five changes the commission already found. This is a new set of violations, and my letter was urging Vermonkett to self report to the PUC rather than having forcing citizens or towns to have to bring this up in front of the PUC. And that that we have not filed with the PUC yet asking them to open a whole new case on these new violations.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I am very sympathetic for anybody that is advocating for as you are. We're going have to give a little bit of thought about where we're going to have to seek some counsel, to be honest with you, as far as where our responsibilities are. That's not even the right word because it does sound unsympathetic to what the Palmers are going through. We need to educate ourselves about where we can wade into this and where we can't. And if you could give us some time with that, we would appreciate that.

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: Great. Thank you. Thanks for listening. Thanks for giving us an audience. It's really important.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Is there anything else that you'd wanna tell us?

[Jane Palmer]: One of the five substantial changes that BGS made to the pipelines construction without permission from the PUC was that they didn't have an engineer of record, a Vermont licensed engineer of record overseeing the project. And we have felt all along that all of these problems that have come up are a result of that. If someone had been responsible and in charge of the entire process, these kinds of things, they could have allowed for the fact that things tend to rise in fields. So, these pipelines are moving and nobody ever mentioned that to us when they were trying to come through the middle of our property. So I think it's a bigger problem, but that was something that was against the law. That was in Vermont statute that they have to have a licensed Vermont professional engineer overseeing the project, and they didn't do it. And this is all a result of that, and we're still seeing repercussions from it. But here we are still fighting this. This is 2026, so it's been thirteen years.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just out of curiosity, so you said that they didn't have an engineer of record. Is it a possibility that they had an engineer and he just wasn't listed or that you know for a fact that they had no engineer whatsoever? Because that that seems fantastic, actually. Yes. Yeah. Or or there were multiple engineers involved in it.

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: Yeah. Great great question. And the the we had an expert engineer testify. He went through all of their records, and he testified that they did not have a Vermont licensed professional engineer signing on the bottom line as the responsible engineer for the whole project and the PUC agreed with us. They made that determination and it was so that's that's been established. What did happen is they had Massachusetts engineers looking at this part, Massachusetts engineers looking at that part but nobody was responsible for the project as a whole and the National Transportation Safety Board found in 2019 that the explosion in the Merrimack Valley Of Massachusetts of a natural gas pipeline were luckily only one person died. But millions of people had were affected. Only one person died. The NTSB ruled that it happened because they did not have a responsible charge engineer overseeing and responsible for the project as a whole.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And just one last question. Do we know it was four feet that they were supposed to have the pipeline. Did was that did they drill for and then it rose, or did they not did it not go four feet initially, altogether?

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: Different answers for different places.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: in in the swamp in New Haven, they never did it four feet to begin with. They did it about three feet in 2016 and then when it was measured again in 2019 as part of the investigation that Nate and Jane brought about, it had risen. So, in some places, it was two and a half feet. So in the course of about three years, it had come up many inches. Now our engineer has submitted testimony saying pipelines rising through soils, you can't, it's not a linear process. If it rose a certain number of inches its first three years, it doesn't mean it's gonna rise at the same rate later. It might rise less quickly. It might not rise at all. It might rise more quickly. So you need to go in there and measure it and see what it is now, and VGS has refused to do that. In the agricultural fields, the answer is different. As far as we know, it was initially four feet deep in the agricultural fields, and it has risen to this closer to the surface since 2016.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I guess, lastly, how

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: would you

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: like to stand?

[Nate Palmer]: I'm sorry. I missed

[Jane Palmer]: the Missed that question. Like this to end?

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Oh.

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: We would like our engineer has submitted recommendations to POC for those five changes. For lack of depth of cover in agricultural fields, which is a new problem, what we would like to see at minimum is VGS notify every farmer, every agricultural landowner. This is going on on your land. You need to know. And then work with each landowner on how to address that safely. That seems to us that's the bottom line.

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: I'm understanding the original agreement was voluntary. Correct?

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: The original agreement was negotiated by the Vermont Department of Agriculture and Markets with BGS, and that agreement was then made part of the permit. Four feet on all ag lands, and that was done for safety reasons. And now so it was by agreement voluntarily with VGS, and then it was made a legal requirement.

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: So you can't voluntarily undo it at this point?

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: It's our understanding of my understanding of the law that because it's in the permit, they have to get permission from the from the PUC at this point to deviate from that.

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: But each individual, farmer can't all of a sudden say, you know what? I don't wanna be part of this anymore. Take your pipeline up and go away.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And that yep.

[James (Jim) Dumont, Attorney for the Palmers]: It's too late for that. Yes.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Nate Palmer]: No. It's a it's an easement for perpetuity. You know? You're you're stuck with this forever.

[Jane Palmer]: Yeah. And and they compensated farmers and landowners a certain amount with the understanding and and with the implication that they would be able to just forget about it and go on farming above the pipeline, which has not been the case. But people we've talked to nearby us, Full Belly Farm, VGS put in the pipeline, they broke the drainage tiles in one of their fields and they were supposed to fix them. This is before Steven and Sarah owned the property, but they didn't fix them. So now they have all these ponds just next to the pipeline and they have no idea how to deal with this. We've been dealing with the PUC for thirteen years and we're not getting the kind of results we're hoping. But this is the kind of thing that farmers are dealing with. Lack of compaction, so their tractors sink when they're going over the pipeline. So they just stay away from that area. So that's acres of land that people are losing in production.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Where's your coalition of folks that would want to come on here and do this battle with you? I'm surprised there's only two of you. Three of you. Well, it's been

[Nate Palmer]: a long process. It wears down a lot of people. We're just stubborn, so we stick

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: with Somebody's got to

[Nate Palmer]: be representing us by that. We

[Brian Collamore (Member)]: get that. But you imagine other farmers are aware of your situation, though? I mean, nothing would prevent you from calling the next one down the line and saying, hey. Did you know this was going on?

[Jane Palmer]: I guess that's the next step.

[Nate Palmer]: Yeah. And, you know have to And, you know, no nobody realizes, you know, how much it's really moving. We didn't realize how much it was moving until this last document dump that you've even got. You know? That's where we saw the the depth of cover issues. And it's like, wait a minute. This thing is moving all over the place. And there's quite a substantial impact because if you look at it, the original easement on this thing for this 43 miles is, covers three ninety acres of land between the, the easement and the, the temporary work area. That's a lot of land to have impacted. And of course, part of my concern is, you know, their goal has always been to get to Glens Falls to hook to the federal pipeline system. And if you go that other, to Glens Falls, that's another 63 miles. That's another five seventy two acres of land that's going to be impacted by this. That's a big chunk of it's going to be agriculture. And, you know, things are just going to get worse as we go along. You know, right now, you know, the pipeline is only running about two fifty pounds of pressure, but it's permitted for fourteen forty. And when they hook to the federal pipeline press system, that's when they're gonna bump the pressure up, and that's when it's really gonna stress this little bad boy. You know? And we don't really wanna be the weak link here, you know, and having it pop out here. And I don't think anybody else does, but, you know, most people, you know, I mean, you gotta deal with your farm issues. You gotta deal with everything else. How many people have the energy at the end of the day to go, okay, let's go see what we can do with the PUC to deal with this pipeline issue. You know, it's like they got enough going on to deal with farming without having to worry about a pipeline rising up. And there's nothing we should have to worry about. You know, all the problems that we see in this are a direct result of their own actions. It's nothing that any outside force had anything to do with. Even in the debacle in the New Haven Swamp, they knew about that months ahead of time. There was talks of alternative ways to either just do the pipeline or place it in a different area. They're the ones that chose, let's just trek right through here. You know, the supervisor of the crew that did the job said, we shouldn't cut an open cut through there. We should drill underneath it. And they made the decision to go ahead and do an open cut. He said, we should at least sheet the thing so that it won't collapse. They didn't. You know, all of their problems are self induced. You know, it's not like anything the farmers did to cause this problem or any of the landowners. Well, we're looking at various drainage issues, you know, like Jane was saying, these people with ponds in their fields. There's also sinkholes that are starting to form in various places. There's a lot of stuff going on underground that you don't really know how much is happening under there until something big happens, And

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: that's So my Nate, you've been talking about this for almost a year now, and the chair and the senators brought up a good point that I hadn't thought of, is that one, yeah, we'll need to seek some legal counsel, but two, even if you just bring us names, let the farmers and have them sign a petition so we can say, hey, we have this many people, because just one voice you've seen hasn't gotten that far and it takes many voices to get action. You know, happy to get you in here so you can speak about it. Yeah. We're aware of it, but we need, you know, if the Hill Farm comes in and says, We're not worried about it, that takes away your worst. So, but if- but you've- we have the numbers, and then they put the- the deck chart-

[Jane Palmer]: They're on.

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Because yeah,

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: if you look on that,

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: it's coming up considerably, and that's why when you asked Kaman, said, you know, it is an ag thing at this point that it could be a concern to us in the committee to hear from. But the more voices the better is what I want

[Nate Palmer]: to So look

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: what we'll do is we're going to seek some counsel and we'll have Senator Heffernan reach back out to you. Is there anything else that you want to tell us today?

[Nate Palmer]: Yeah, it is hard

[Jane Palmer]: to- I think we've covered it.

[Nate Palmer]: I think we hit the biggest points. Yeah. You know, there's some serious issues that are ongoing and they're just not dealing with them, know, and it's ridiculous to have to wait until after we have a major incident to go, wow, there was something wrong with the pipeline.

[Jane Palmer]: And all along, we haven't had anyone on our side except Jim. Shumlin told us to call DPS and DPS said, who told you to call us? We represent the rate payers. So, we've never had an advocate as landowners. The whole problem of the degradation of ag land, which is a problem, just even the digging and displacing the soil and not putting it back in the same order. That's a big issue. And there hasn't been anyone to address that. And I guess that's our biggest, I don't think that's your jurisdiction, but the DPS is not helping landowners on these utility projects.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, we want to thank you for coming in. We appreciate Thank it. As I said, we'll see what we can do on our side by seeking us more information about what we're allowed to do and not. Thank you. Hope you guys have the best rest of the day.

[Jane Palmer]: Thank you.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you very much. You're welcome. Bye bye. You're And that's what we'll do. I'll check with Hansen's group and then seek some counsel as far as with that. My first inclination would be that we're in over our heads, but it's affecting farm fields. We'll just see where it goes.

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: That was fine. If it does affect farmers to come and say, hey. Yeah. It is a big concern to us. If we don't, any farmers come and say it's a big concern.

[Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: My biggest concern is that right there, that nobody is worried about it other than these folks here that the pipeline doesn't cross their list. So they are advocates for the community, which is great. They're allowed to be that. So kudos to them for caring. So other than that, we'll take a break until 10:45, unless you guys have anything else to chat about.