Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: It's beautiful. Right. Yes, it is really. I heartbreaking it down.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. We are live. Okay. Good morning. This is Senate Natural Resources and Energy and it is February 3 and we ended up canceling our first witness so we can have one on time. So we will reschedule him, but we're going to go right to S212 about water and wastewater connections. And we're joined by Ruth and Jacob. Welcome. Good morning and still morning. Technically. Feels like the actor.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: For the record, my name is Brian Rutland. I'm the director of the Kirby Water and Groundwater Protection Division at the Agency of Natural Resources. Thank you for the invitation to come back again and speak on S2 12 of the hold of the agency general supports. If it's okay with you, Chair Watson, I'd like to touch base on a few areas of the bill that were discussed during Friday's testimony. Know I some questions from members and then leave time for any questions that you all may have. This is great. Okay. So the first area, there seemed to be a narrow line of questioning around some of the complexities and some of the differences between the types of connection projects that exist out there and the review process that the agency may undertake in terms of different types of connection reviews. So under nineteen seventy three ks one, which is page four on the bill, really the heart of this bill in completing the authority for the general permitting program for connections. There's language in the bill that talks about may give deference as part of the review of these projects. And there was some discussion about that on Friday. I just wanted to provide a little bit more insight into the types of projects that we review as part of our convention proposals or applications, I should say. As part of my testimony a few weeks back, rewinding two weeks back, talking about peeling off the carrot, to bring you all back to that, this program, globally refer to it as the WW program, issues about 3,000 permits a year. And that is by far the largest amount of permits throughout all of DPC's permitting programs. Of those 3,000 permits, we estimate about 80% of those permits deal with housing units. Now of the 3,000 permits, about two fifty of those in open. Again, these are just nice round numbers for all of you, but generally that it's been trending that way and really since the pandemic are specific for connections. So about two fifty permits annually for connections, average time for DPC to process those is eighteen days. So going back to my testimony two weeks ago, I talked a lot about the program is under intensive pressure and there's a real focus on housing. We really are prioritizing time. So as part of this program, this general permitting program, we really think it's a feel of the care. And this is a way for us to try to scale back some of our review time and some of our traffic that is received in individual reviews. So while our intent is to give deference and set this up as a general permitting program, relying on certification, legislative council testified that on Friday that these projects can vary quite significantly in scale and scope. So we support and would recommend keeping the negative deference language as part of the general permitting development through the design manual, creating the documentation and materials for the general permitting, the agency would evaluate certain types of projects that may be complex that would benefit from an individual. So we would recommend that that may give difference. And just to give some on the ground examples, there is a big difference between a single family residence or an accessory dwelling unit or a change in use of a building in the downtown from one use to another use, which could all be part of a connection scheme, to a large subdivision of land in many lots, or the development of a new public water system or a new wastewater system where you're bringing lots of new connections on at the same time, or an expansion of steering. So there are a diversity of types of projects. And I think that the complexity often tracks with scale and size, the number of buildings, the type of infrastructure that's getting permitted. And the main thing I wanted to emphasize that these aren't beautiful. And so while we intend to roll this program out as a general permit program that relies upon deference, we would like to reserve the right to evaluate certain complex projects that could benefit from the individual review.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I ask a question? A designer licensed under this chapter, are they licensed? They're a licensed plumber? Are they a licensed, what is designers? What is a designer?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Licensed designer is a licensed professional and there's three types of licensed designers in the rules that have different abilities to do different scopes of work. So there's class A, class B, class BW.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are they usually, just trying to figure out what profession do these people belong to? Designer?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: They're the licensed designer profession. Class A does include

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Designer of wastewater systems? In part of the Okay, there are lots of different kinds of designers. So I'm like, set designer? Costume designer?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Sorry. License to the office of professional regulation. Okay. We provide examinations and training. Okay. So they first of all have

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to be licensed and then you may give deference, but don't have to. Okay, and then can I ask you about a different name, the same section? Correct. It's on top of page five. The secretary may adopt general permitting programs for other activities that require a permit under this section. What would that be?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: So I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was gonna get to that. You were gonna get to that? Okay, sorry. Checking out the mains versus shells here.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: So the other aspects of general permitting, that was a line of questioning from Friday. And again, going back to the field of care analogy, always looking from an internal operational perspective how to right size the workload. It's not only getting things a little bit more sustainable in terms of the workload, but it's also looking to add capacity to shift resources away from individual reviews in the middle of the permitting process and more shifting those resources to the front end, because there's a consistency in the development of the design of the project. Then on the back end to make sure that compliance is happening with the requirements of the firm. So there are, we don't have any immediate plans. We've been really focused in terms of right sizing the work on data and records management and process improvement in this general part. That has been our focus, but I do like the idea and support this general language that we would have the opportunity to look at other low risk, low complexity projects and identify the possibilities for a general purpose. So legislative council gave the example of subdivision of land. That's something that requires a permit under the statute in our rules. So that may be something that was a good example. Another good example could be really low, smaller scale, low complexity wastewater systems, like a single family residence with a pink brown leach field with no mechanical components. Would follow that same framework of bringing the standards forward, clarifying them, making them easier to use, develop the general permitting materials, put them public notice, and then operate under them. And so it just streamlines our administrative process. We don't have any specific plans, but those are two examples. And generally, when we would look at these types of examples, are areas of low complexity, low risk.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, can I follow-up with you? So you sort of answered my question, this question that I'm going to ask, but I just want to clarify. The process when you create a general permit, it doesn't go through LCAR or something like that, a general permit, right? But there is a public comments process or something that people can say, Actually, I don't like the way you're doing this. Correct. Yes. But there's no legislative review of a general permit once we've given you the authority to do it. Correct. Okay. And then how does a general permit work for it versus a quote unquote regular permit? If there's a general permit, it's just like saying, generally, this stuff is okay to do. You don't have to ask us,

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: right? Or have not way we would envision this one to work would be, we would create this general permit, all the related documentations, the program basically, we would post that permit to the environmental notice bulletin, which the means for putting it out on public notice or seeking comments. Go through the responsiveness summaries. Okay. Adopt the general permit. And then what happens is once that general permit, lists all the ways that you qualify, what the conditions are. And we get applications notices of intent to use that general permit, and we would automate that process to say, here's a notice of intent, it's administratively complete, it meets the requirements, then we would provide the general permit to the applicant, which would have conditions.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So there's still review of the general, of everybody who's saying, I wanna use this general permit, but you think it would be faster than the regular permit?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: It would cut down time. We'd still have administrative review, we'd still have data management, we would still have records management. But as far as the technical review is concerned, we're basically eliminating that step and shifting it over to the licensed individuals provided with the license design, stamping the plans on behalf of the applicant.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So instead of eighteen days, you think what? Three, four. That's what I was trying to figure out. Like, how is it different? There's still review, but it's more front end review. And then the back end is faster as long as the boxes are all checked.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Correct. Correct. And the other piece that was part of the testimony, and this is going back to the may give deference side of the equation, is that a really important step for this program would be to create an audit protocol to ensure that A, the program is operating as intended and B, that we're ensuring accountability related to the certification of the designs. And the best way that we have found for creating the audit protocol is to allow for it to happen as part of an individual review. So we would set a framework for auditing. Generally, we create categories and randomize that. We're not just to get the bias out of it. And then we would do an individual review on that project. So that's why we support this language as may. There may be some complex projects that we would want individual review, and we would like to retain the right to be able to audit the program. And this seems like a way to Got it, okay. It's perfect, thank you.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So, and we have, just to be clear, we have not started to talk about page five, line three, that may, am I correct?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: I did answer that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That was, that's the general broad based general. Right, okay. Right, and you talked about the diversity of projects that might

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Right, if we don't, we would follow the process that I explained to Senator Hardy about setting up a different general permit. Okay. We don't have immediate plans to do this. We've been focused on process improvement, data management, records management in this general department that's authorized under this bill. If we were to pick another peel off the carrot to continue with the analogy, we would be looking at low complexity, low risk factors. That would generally be what we would evaluate to remove our renewed staff. Go through the same processes we're proposing here, bring the standards forward, modernize them, and try to just make it as administratively as efficient as we can.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It makes me wonder about including some language like that in the draft to say, Second American Biddington General, probing programs that may, this is not the right language, but something like that would be considered low complexity or low risk, just so that we're keeping that targeted near. Does that make sense? I don't have the right language on that, but I'm speculating right now. Yeah, I agree. So we know what we're talking. Yes, do Well, we

[Unidentified Senator (Committee Member)]: could also just say, give them the authority to do a general permit, but obtain the right to So I I don't wanna unnecessarily create a.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure. And if that's, like, arbitrary? I I think. Well, think we're talking about two different sections though, Senator, because I think what Brian was saying, the review would be for the general permit for water and wastewater. Senator Watson, if I'm understanding, was talking about the other stuff, which is on page five. This was a

[Unidentified Senator (Committee Member)]: You pick up from the phone. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that's what you were talking about. And so to your point, though, I was going to ask, do we need to put language in that says you've retained the right to audit and review complex projects? Or is it already in there? I mean, maybe that's a question for Michael Grady.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: That's a question for Michael Grady, I think. I mean, I was using the May as a way to audit, but explicit authority to do that might not be the worst idea. It's a necessary, it's a good question for him.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: The only hesitation I have about that, and I think it is worth asking our legislative council about this. I'm just recalling in other conversations that if you specify in one place, but you don't specify it in other places, does that have implications for other parts of the law? So that's just one reason to not, but willing to- That's out of cycle. Exactly, yeah. And also to follow-up, because this second May that we were just talking about was about your question about what are we giving away, like the last time we had this conversation. Just wanted to chase that down. So, okay, thank you. And I'm also just conscious of the time. This is very valuable though, so thank you.

[Unidentified Senator (Committee Member)]: You're welcome.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Can I mention two more things? Absolutely. So the standards for determining capacity, there was language that was inserted that wasn't recommended by the agency that says the manual shall include standards for determining or defining capacity of a public water system of pollution abatement facility for the purposes of proving connections. And we would like to seek some clarity on the intent of that language. Page are you on?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm It's in the

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: same section, but Gartner. Oh. Starting on line 17 and not in page.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm thinking of it starting in line 19, the manual shall include? Correct. Yeah. So my understanding is from the testimony that we heard was that there is disparate understandings of what PASI even means between municipalities and that has something to do with, trying to recall a paraphrase here, but it was something like gallons per minute versus pressure versus, you know, the capacity of the plant versus capacity of the pipes. So having a common language for municipalities to speak in that regard, I think, would be helpful, especially as people are looking to understand whether or not there is capacity to add a building, let's say. So that was, that's my understanding.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: Okay, and then the last thing I was going to speak about was the fees. I think there were some questions about this complex versus simple in terms of fees. We have advocated or put it as a placeholder under the standard $500 fee, just administratively, it's one fee for all of them. There are others and losers in that, and it doesn't take into account the simple versus complex. So our existing fee care categories are based on flow. The first category, what we refer to as RO1 is 306.25. That 25¢ has

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: been a challenge, But $306.25

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: and the $500 so that's single family residence with an 80 as an example. So the fee would actually go up for those projects. So we took a closer look and would welcome the opportunity to offer a more staggered approach using three, at least three different flow patterns, have it based on flow like we do now with the goal of not creating an insurmountable budget hole. We don't wanna have a hole that actually impacts all these housing permits that we're issuing, but at the same rate looks to give everybody a break that's going through our individual permit, given the level of effort that's required on our part. So our initial scaling, and I've lent a little bit more time to do some analysis, but when we looked at $2.50 for the low fee category, which would encompass our 2 lowest fee categories now, which are 306.25 and $8.70, and then a middle fee category between 2,000 gallons per day and 6,500 of 2,500 and then above 6,500 gallons going up to 5,000, which saves everybody on their fees as it resides today, and think we can make that work.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I wanted to make sure that I get those numbers. Below 2,000 gallons a day is $2.50. The middle section, the middle fee is between 2,000 gallons per day and what was the upper limit there?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: 6,500.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: 6,500. That's 2,500. And then above 6,500 is the? Thousand. Oh, 5,000. And sorry, what was the fee for the middle category? 2,500. You said that, okay. 2,500, okay.

[Unidentified Senator (Committee Member)]: And I haven't thought about the patients for 1999.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, if you have a conversation, you're not. Oh dear. Yes, ma'am. So originally this bill did not include the general permit. It just included the ability for municipalities to delegate. Yeah, yeah. And that was where the $500 fee was, if it was delegated, they would pay it.

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: 500 for the general and then $100 processing fee under the municipal delegation.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I don't remember that. I just remember the 500 feet. But are these fees that you just laid out, which I missed, but sounds like the chair got that. Are they for people who are applying onto a general permit? Okay. So would the fees under wait, would there not be a regular permit? There's a general permit that means there's no regular permit. Per Per connections. And what about any fee that the municipalities could charge?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: That would be separate and you're seeing from the state's story. There's language in this bill to explicitly allow for that. And then we created a $100 processing fee if a municipality came through for partial delegation. And the thinking behind that is to keep the records management consistent through the state is really important. And part of the delegation in some of the repeal language is to allow the agency, we create a system to get the information from the municipality, start our database, make it publicly available. And that'll take some

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: time. Where is that in the bill? Because I'm only seeing this page 10 with the fees. Is there fees somewhere else?

[Bryan Redmond, Director, Drinking Water & Groundwater Protection Division, VT Agency of Natural Resources]: On June 13. That's page nine. Page nine. Okay. I see these. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that section also allows them to charge their own fee. Great. I'm realizing that we are out of time. I do have another question related to tracking capacity across the state, but I think we will either, I'll either email you or we'll reschedule or something, did you have any more things that you wanted

[Speaker 0]: to