meeting to order and just orient the committee we're mostly going to be working on the water bill this afternoon but we're going to try to roll out the plastics bill in order of sort of in a more regular order which would include the bill sponsor and that's Senator Bray and he's able to join us this afternoon today right now here he is and then we're going to transition back to water oh yeah for the afternoon and then go into politics deep the rest of the week depending on how we land and water remain as soon we arrange but I like your new pigs here very very light and spacious so S-13 thanks for taking it up I'm happy to be introducing it you know it just I will slow hand out that I use with my own colleagues and I should reuse reduce recycle keep going with the same thing so basically you know it's what is the bill about before sort of getting stuck on particular details it's really that plastics I have created an environmental problem in terms of their overwhelming extent variety and challenges to things like recycling and environmental impacts once they are out in the environment as you may know they for the most part there is no natural critter bug micro flora micro fauna that breaks them down and turns them back into the kind of constituent elements that just recycle endlessly in nature they get stuck out there the thing that happens to them is they just break into smaller and smaller pieces so the last couple years we've talked about micro plastics and this year as part of doing this one 13 I learned to get another term it's nano plastics because when micro plastics break down they become nano plastics and by the time they're that small the micron level 10 to the minus 6 meters they're so small they end up entering tissues and we're starting to find that they are showing that in all sorts of a product life and we're seeing no toxic effects so there's a environmental and public health side to plastics we ought to figure out how to be better and one of the maybe most religious ways we use them is to use them just once and then throw them away so the bill aims to reduce the use of plastics particularly single use plastics in terms of carry out bags plastic single use plastic straws and expanded polystyrene also knows most of us are styrofoam or just foam cups things like that so we work in title 10 we look at a lot of models but it included a brow burl's band that's been in effect in terms of the plastic bag band since this last summer there's a hundred other 16 other jurisdictions to do it and many other countries around the world that are all are managing plastics more progressively than we have today yet in Vermont so the bill does four things in terms of the regular use of carry out bags and to find two categories single use and reusable and the goal there is to switch people from single use to reusable and in part of the way it does that is on the house side there in the right it prohibits the use of plastic less than 2.25 mills on that number as you'll find out comes from California once again California's done a lot of research and legislating on the issue and they ended up setting for the most part a good standard around what do we mean by a durable plastic bag or a single use plastic bag the threshold they came up with and it's not without controversy some people think it should be a heavier number a thicker bag but it's 2.25 mills and by comparison one of those really lightweight single use plastic bags that we all get those are down to about 0.5 mills so roughly a fifth of the weight and then you can still we're practical you know a lot the great for everyone to show up at a store with you reusable bags with them whether they're made of plastic or cloth sometimes you might forget them you don't have them whatever so there's a way to have a bag but it says that if you have a lightweight bag so it would be plastic it would have to be paper it would like paper and that it says that the retailer should charge at least a nickel so that is really goes right back to our 1971 bottle bill where one of the signals you send to someone about stop littering or in this case stop using single use plastics or singly single use bags is to get people to notice and say okay if you fray your bag no big deal you're getting charged a nickel but the question is can you get people to start to say I don't want time I'm gonna bring my reusable bags I think a lot of people already do this but it's part of you know a basically a single a signal to customers to drive in the bag the other thing is that on the retailer side there's a higher cost for a paper bag than a plastic bag and so I think they actually like the idea that they asked for the ability to charge in order so that they not simply have to swallow and more expensive substitute paper bag and then the other thing too is that we don't the goal is not to switch people from single use plastic to single use paper it's to go from single use anything to reusable and and that's part of that whole messaging between stores and consumers the second sure people could continue to use single use plastic bags that are 2.3 though yes well maybe I think you would say well that's not a single use bag by the time you're 2.25 or above and by the definition we've now created a reusable whether it's made of paper or plastic so a heavy duty the second thing is there are you know regulating uses a single straws a lot of people heard about how problematic they can be in the environment a lot of straws are given away just by default we know that some people need a straw because for one reason or another medically speaking they need a straw in order to be able to drink so we don't want to infringe on anyone's ability of course whether they're out to be able to take food or take a drink so it just says that you need to ask for one so the default is you don't get one you ask one you can get one at one point you know we had discussions around that this because it was for medical reasons should someone have to say the medical reasons I need this straw well there's it puts the person asking into a potentially awkward or stigmatizing position and it also means that whoever is going to give you this straw are they going to have to judge whether or not you really have a medical reason for it so we said I based on testimony we took we thought it was more graceful to say they're not by default if you ask for one you can have one and the third category of things that the bill does is it regulates the use of expanded polystyrene food service products so that's anything from the foam trays that you can so I should pause basically the best example is like a foam cup but there are other examples of expanded polystyrene that are allowed which is testimony that suggested for instance what if your store receives in all its eggs and expanded polystyrene well so those are originating out of states we're we wanted to make sure we weren't going to interfere within the state commerce or make it hard for a store there's no resourcing from out of state and that's the way they come package to continue to get what they wanted so likewise there are people packaging food in the state that have contracts out of state where the out of state shoppers as what we want is for our store is that all eggs come in expanded polystyrene and curtains and you could continue to supply an out of state account with that kind of a card but we're trying to within state that we want to do that sort of service but then the fourth thing and why so just why I pick out polystyrene amongst all the things so the precursor and for polystyrene is benzene which is one of the very few chemicals that the nine of 90,000 that the EPA has chosen to regulate which makes it sort of an all-star dangerous chemical and it's a benzene is a precursor on the way to styrene there are exposure issues around its manufacturer and use and then on the disposal end you end up with potential exposure again particularly if one of the ways that people dispose of waste is through incineration and they release benzene again and again so it also causes a lot of logistical problems and that it's the kind of stuff that breaks into smaller and smaller pieces and gets stuck to other things and they stay with them it ends up being contaminant for many mercs the recycling facilities so for a variety of reasons from health exposure to contaminating waste streams we went ahead and banned for the most part expanded polystyrene the fourth thing is although all three of these things are we in our judgment were clearly good things to do we know that there's a much bigger issue on our hands with plastics 50% of all plastic ever made was made just in the century and 50% of that is related to packaging so we wanted to be able to we create a working group in the fourth thing the single use products were to make recommendations on solid waste yes but to go back to 1975 to present day there's been a nine-fold increase 900% increase in the plastic manufactured in this century 50% of all plastic ever made has been manufactured and of that 50% 50% that is just related to packaging so things that are completely single use right you just open the thing and now you got what you bought what are you doing with the instant you know it's one use and now you have a waste so rather than you know like most things and also prevention is worth the power to cure could we try to get ahead of creating so much waste and reduce it from the beginning by having people think ahead about how they're packaging things and so that's what this 11-member working group does that delivers report by the end of this year and it looks at so there's it does two things really it's looking at how our solid waste system is dealing with plastic more generally how this bill would fit into that it gives us a chance to think through the provisions in the bill and then it also addresses a question of product stewardship so people all familiar that when you buy batteries or paint or anything like a thermostat electric switches we already have programs in place in Vermont that say but the manufacturer has an obligation to participate in how you handle that as solid waste so that's why you can take paint to transfer station or to the truck that circulates for hazardous materials quarterly and sometimes however however your town region does it mercury and light bulbs all these things we've said okay we're no recreating a hazardous waste that can be difficult to deal with let's think about it at the time of manufacture and bring the manufacturers into the discussion about how could you manage this better manufacturers so we've seen as we end up with better environmental outcomes at lower costs and so it's a win-win for both environment and economics if you and it's not a surprise if you plan ahead you're going to have less waste to deal with so that same group says let's look at product stewardship for packaging and see if we could work with manufacturers to say are there ways to think about what's going to happen to your package once it's received by the person and maybe choose something that's less problematic for our solid waste programs so I have an expanded version of this that provides a little more detail so it's a basically sort of a cheat sheet to the whole bill I didn't pass out because it has more details that could take us off track so I'm happy to answer any questions on it that's really the lay of land tries to say let's deal with three problematic classics in the near term let's create a working group that then looks ahead how we can do better for the long term Questions for Senator Bray? Senator McCullough? How was it Senator that you landed on a thousand feet or more square feet of retail space as a threshold for a backband? Sure so I'll give credit where credit is due and I started thinking about this issue this summer I decided rather than just noodle it over I'd go looking you know using some online like NCSL tools who's already doing some plastic bill work and New Jersey had the the best model I saw and so we started from there so the thousand square feet actually is a holdover from that original construct for the bill I mean we modified quite a few things but that stayed put some people said it should be smaller some people said bigger we ended up feeling like it was maybe an okay thing the other thing too to your point was because we have both this working group meeting between now and the end of the year and then our the the bill itself doesn't take effect until July 1 of 2020 giving us a year and a half 15 months to get there they also need there be a full legislative session so that if we if we all learned between now and next February March April whatever that there was something we could do better in the bill we could modify the program but this sets us on track to a default and that long roll out some people said why would you have such a long roll out and that was in part because testimony we have from Brattleboro they said you know we had a citizens drive to get this a petition to the forget what they're how they do a select board or something like that to the council city council and then and then once that referendum happened that said to the city council we'd like you to figure out how to do something by rewriting city ordinance they went through a public process there again and then they wrote their ordinance with a feature effective well start to finish it was 15 months and the town manager who came in Mr. Morland said he thought that one of the reasons that this wall went into effect with really almost no hiccups whatsoever no one ever found it was a very smooth they thought it was surprisingly smooth they said because we had this conversation for a long time everyone knew it was coming all the vendors had a chance to source the appropriate bags or come up with a durable reusable bag with a brand on it many people did stuff like giveaways citizen groups found ways to create bags to hand out we had testimony about people bringing free bags to places like the food shelves and pantries stuff like that so where lower income from ours might be that they would find a way to get hold of free bags so all in all we said okay this is one of those cases where we can set ourselves on the course we can give us time to make adjustments if we see improvements but we also won't surprise anyone and people will be prepared good afternoon good afternoon did you receive testimony from stores that have less than a thousand square feet we did not and those stores that do fall into that category are they typically your mom and pop stores or not well we didn't take any testimony so I don't know how I characterize them they might well be but I honestly I couldn't say because we didn't we talked for instance around retailers and brochures association but as and so I know they have a very diverse membership but they didn't single out that threshold in particular at least in the testimony provided to our community and say for example this would go into effect could a store choose not to supply any bags what's the weather I say I just sure I mean you can run your store however you choose to use the only prohibited thing here is you know the single-use plastic bag how they go you know how else they would respond their choice one question does that relate to cleaners good question so dry cleaners are listed but you're thank you for that question because it reminds me something important around the bag around the bill and that is it says a bag provided at the point of purchase so some people said so you're dry cleaning as at least when I've ever picked up dry cleaning it's already in a bag from done somewhere else in the process maybe even in another location they're not taking your dry cleaning and putting it into a single-use plastic bag at that moment and the important thing I think for that in committee was that not so much on the dry cleaning question where people said well how about when I buy lettuce and you know there are spritzing down the vegetables to keep them fresh and damp I don't want to put wet lettuce in with all my other stuff can I still use one of those likely produce bags that comes off the reel and answers yes under this construct because you're getting that bag not when you purchase you're getting it while you're off shopping it's not something that someone's handing to you at the moment you're paying for your purchases could you take testimony with all of those kind of exemptions how much plastic are we really not reduced sure so the Vermont as you did some research using a tool that was developed by a group down in Massachusetts that Massachusetts and it has done this piecemeal something like 82 counts now have the plastic bag bills and they have a tool that lets you put in your jurors the size of the jurisdiction you're looking at and what will be the impact of it so it estimated that Vermont's if we behave like our neighbors to the south and Americans in general I'm not sure if that's a good assumption or not we use 332 million single use plastic bags a year we spend about 13.2 million dollars purchasing those we don't think of it as a purchase but it's built into the price of goods we buy the greenhouse gas impacts of producing that shipping that and disposing of it is the equivalent of taking 1927 vehicles off the road for a year so if you adjust our total electric vehicle fleet by the cleanliness or lack of cleanliness of our the greenness of our electrical portfolio 60% or so it's actually if you had sort of a perfect implementation it would be would be the greenhouse gas contribution would be more than all the EVs we have on the road so that was just a seniors plastic bag we didn't have any other detail around what happened on straws or other kinds of so that that was just was the cleanest they go less than 2.2 right the other question I quickly looked at the statue if a the grocer just bans the complies with us but decides that they don't want to charge for the paperback do they have that option or is it any single-use bag well so seniors plastic is banned by this and single-use paper is allowed but you need to charge a nickel for a single-use bag and page 5 in terms of the enforcement says an offense shall be each day a person is violating the requirement of this subchapter so at what point what's what point this is that when the call is made I mean I know when does it begin this is begin in terms of when does the violation start I so a report but I think so the on the encouraging side the Brattleboro they were there enforcement is consisted of they had a conversation with roughly a dozen stores and towns to say you know a day or two ago the bag ordinance went into effect and well I wasn't quite aware when I was starting and everyone fell into line within a day or two more so they've never they never levy dating finds they simply notified people and that was their experience but this is a standard enforcement provision under and ours current these powers so how they would determine it I suppose that would be how they would actually think about it in terms of implementing it I would defer to Legislative Council and our a little bag you mean well it's you know single use plastic that were targeting so if it's a oh I see what you mean is it a smaller I guess you might want to my yeah right so this is we have said we had this same sort of question around if I'm at the hardware store and I'm buying you know ten members six you know and I get it in a little I put them in a little bag or the other one was I'm at the Vermont Country Store and I'm loading up licorice and this and this and you know in all those little bags so you can still use little bags it's that's a chair just wrap it back around so the critical thing that's easy to lose sight of is at the point of purchase when you're paying is someone then giving you your goods to carry out putting it in a single is if you're charging nickel for the paper bag you think that will make people or they find it then people ask always for the heavier duty plastic carry out because it's free so there's the there's we don't specify anything about any reusable bag I suppose it's possible someone give away something free but the point what we heard was that for one thing if we if you don't have any signal at all the jurisdictions that said simply we're we're banning similar use plastics and then they're silent on anything else about what kind of bag a large percentage of people simply say I'll take the free single use paper bag and then you end up with more and more paper bags to deal with and the way stream so the idea is reducing the way stream both whether from both paper and plastic we're not trying to increase the use of paper bags either and they also cost more so there are some retailers are concerned that the single use plastic bags are in the neighborhood three or four cents in a paper bags in the neighborhood five to eight cents so they didn't want to have to be spending more of without being able to recover costs which they could do but I think for some people they for some stores they were a little uncomfortable what if my neighbor decides to get free bags and I don't also it just simply creates harmonized legislation across the state and I think that was actually if there was anything that drew people together on the bill that might not be willing been in agreement on it the idea of harmonized legislation statewide was a positive thing for people who frankly maybe rather not have done anything but they said if you don't want to have stores within a jurisdiction sort of competing with each other over free bags or not free bags we don't want to have Middlebury competing with Bristol over at free bags or it's not free bags or thank you thank you my pleasure that's fun until we have more fun with the water bill there's all these all these bills they have an infinite capacity for entertainment thanks for working Laura what's the latest from Michael line 13 through 15 you want a definition of administrative cost you directed me to look at the municipal grant and aid program that's administered by the RPCs I talked to Peter Gregory on Sunday this is what he provided he did say he would like to look at the actual program documents he didn't have it in front of him at the time so it would be administrative cost means cost incurred by clean water service provider or grantee to conduct procurement contract preparation and monitoring reporting should I move on from page two in the definition clean water project in the natural resource protection and restoration language you wanted it to reflect that it includes natural woody buffers associated with riparian lakeshore and wetland protection and restoration moving on you wanted a definition of co-benefit I used language recommended by representative Dolan means additional benefits of local governments and the public provided by or associated with the clean water project including flood resilience ecosystem improvement and local pollution prevention should I move on you can go to page three this was the clarifying language of when after a listing where the secretary was supposed to include the strategy for returning the water to compliance with the water quality standards so it's shall include any implementation plan for the water a strategy for turning the water to compliance and then in the previous draft there have been language about what the agency would do if there were since sufficient or no data you asked me to look at this federal standard the federal standard is if there is insufficient data or no that's what I mean that's I'm sorry but that's the standard then on page three line 17 again clarifying where the strategy or is going to be included it's going to be included in the implementation plan for the water on page four for the allocations you wanted to be clear that they were going the goals and the five-year pollution reduction targets are going to be checkpoints to gauge progress and adapt or modify as necessary should I move on yeah page five line eight that's just correcting a reference in headset chapter instead of should have said subchapter page seven the reference you might know where the timeline should be in there I'm not sure Mike we may not have included that because we didn't get a strong feel from the committee I don't know but that one there maybe it went else can you say what they're asking yeah page five it would become C between line six and seven I thought the discussion was you were going to have the agency check to see if the sub TNDLs were part of the larger basin or should be dealt with as sub TNDLs I have a note sub TNDL sub TNDL I just know for a part of the basis the lecture in plain TNDLs is over ten years old predates the lecture in plain TNDL the lecture in plain TNDL doesn't make does not make any reference to the late karma late karma yeah I'm sorry late karma and the lecture in plain is on implementation there's no reference to specifically to the late karma fundamentally are two distinct so policy questions for you do you want to make a reference to it or are you satisfied with page five line seven to ten that it's going to be part of the schedule and all other previously listed impaired waters we did have a discussion on Friday about this my notes were said in plain TNDL karma but I think you might have decided to Matt do you remember yes the record match happened in the general council agency had resources so I think I reflected on Friday that it was not the agency since then to include all sub-jurisdictional TNDLs in this and that we would consider them as a part of the planning exercise in subdivision two and that would in no way inhibit our ability of moving forward with those TNDLs just like we would under their current process but that it wouldn't be using the tools in this sub-chapter to do so so yes and I wasn't certain what the committee's final date on that was it's good to hear while we reiterate that it's in the record now twice and when we get pushed back on the floor we get the right answer I think what are your thoughts on that other sub- sub-TNDLs would potentially include the stormwater impaired waters but they are required as part of the election of plain TNDL to be updated with process control plans so how would how would the stormwater impaired TNDLs be in election plain TNDL so be treated there are elements that serve multiple purposes so the stormwater TNDLs have flow management plans for purposes of their stormwater flow based TNDLs those MS4 communities and other elements that we've used to implement the stormwater TNDLs will also have phosphorus control plans with respect to how they manage phosphorus in those areas two TNDLs two different requirements one permit so this this affects sort of how the agency plans and implements the larger strategic goals with respect to TNDL implementation not how permit requirements get implemented under all of these different programs generally speaking thank you what's the rationale for leaving out Carmine Bay including Lakeman for Magog is it the size of the watershed? no Lakeman for Magog is also phosphorus impaired and has its own separate distinct TNDL it is not in the Champlain Basin so Lake Carmine is in the Champlain Basin Magog is not that's not to say again that we aren't making efforts to improve the water quality and undertake efforts with respect to Lake Carmine it's just that we're not using the tools in the sub-chapter to do it that's reminding me of why we got into including Lake Carmine in the sub-number two you know you're saying it's not really part of the Lake Champlain Basin because it falls through cracks why don't we just say including Lake Carmine I thought that's where we left it it's included Lake Carmine is it in there? in sub-two I mean that's the is it not the agency's intention? yes it is the agency's intention in sub-two to include the requirements for Lake Carmine including Lake Carmine it's four of the original lake figures H5, 9, 7, 10 H5, 9, 7, 10 so you're getting very what is it again? H5 and referring to section B3 which is 7 from 10 just to call out a shout out to Lake Carmine is it going to be C if you're just holding it into two? it's going to be right here right so on page 7 this is the first you'll see of it's the 925 being changed 925 you assume all four grant programs there are now four grant sections 925 is now just for the quality restoration grant moving on from there sub-E you wanted the secretary to periodically review of pollution reduction value or design life established under the section at least every five years in terms of adequacy accuracy of the pollution reduction value or design life I guess I've been likely mistaken idea that pollution reduction value was a quantifiable amount and that the design life was the length of the project maybe even including O&M why would we be using ores you can say add you're using the conjunctive versus the disjunctive I think that works I'm staying right out of the senate structure because I'm not good at but I'm just wondering are they if they're two different things then I think you want to use the conjunctive that's I think yeah conjunctive like this no conjunctive okay alright should I move on where is this on page 8 where now I think there you want it or okay moving on bottom of page 8 this was clarifying when for all other waters the secretary is going to assign that clean water service provider and so for all other repair waters the secretary assigns a clean water service provider no later than six months prior to the implementation of the requirements scheduled by the secretary under subdivision 922p2 so remember right above that they're going to have a schedule for doing all of the requirements and so six months prior to that they designate a clean water service provider moving on you wanted to be clear that an entity designated a clean water service provider shall be required to identify it had previously shall be in consultation with the basin advisory council required to identify now that the basin advisory council is no longer advisory and it's making determinations on its own you wanted that struck you wanted to verify to be to be placed in here instead of monitoring page 9 3 you wanted to clarify that that the secretary is going to provide 30 days notice and comment for the guidance it's going to provide clean water service providers regarding implementation of the chapter on page 9 line 14 and 15 that guidance is going to include how to account for the co-benefits provided by a project move on page 10 line 4 you struck the progressive before accountability now it's the secretary's strategy with respect to accountability and then on page 10 line 14 you are going to see many evaluated basin water quality councils because it used to be basin water quality advisory council you wanted the advisory removed I'm not going to reference that every time we go by it that's okay with you on page 11 line 2 it had previously said and selecting activities to meet a pollution reduction value the first change you wanted activity to be change to clean water project and then pollution was changed to pollutant before conformity with the previous references to the reduction values you also wanted co-benefits provided by the project and the operation and maintenance of the project to be part of that process should I move on to the next question for you on page 11 line 11 I wasn't sure what you wanted at least the design life or the duration of the design life I was unclear from my notes what you had agreed to what was your at least the duration or well it was previously the duration of the design life you wanted it to say at least the design life I have at least the design life as my note but I'm not sure if that's what you wanted so at least the design life page 11 line 13 1389 that used to say 1391 so it's just changed in that regard line 15 changing pollution to pollutant we can now skip to page 13 in the accountability subsection you wanted the ability of the secretary to assess penalties to be struck from the accountability provision you should be aware that because of language you added and you've amended section 8003 to include this as part of an enforceable A&R program they have penalties they have the ability to on page 29 line 6 through 13 they may take action under this chapter to enforce the following statute, approval, permit, assurances sub chapter including chapter 37 restoration goals and targets so if there is a failure to comply with the requirements of the sub chapter A&R does have enforcement authority remind us what that is so they have the ability to assess a penalty of up to $17,000 a day with a max of $145,000 that those numbers are established because those are federal minimums for enforcement of the clean water act they would likely never reach that number $140,000 and that doesn't mean that after amount that there's no enforcement after that amount it goes to the attorney time it's a little different than that there's a decision to send the enforcement to the attorney general at some point when the significance of it is significant remind us what section we're in on page 29 on page 29 you're in section I believe it's 5 line line 6 through 14 right but I just not like what is this section doing so all of A&R's enforcement authority is in one chapter of law instead of setting out its enforcement in the multiple chapters of law we set it out once in one chapter and then just cross-reference those chapters of law that are enforceable under the enforcement chapter so like cross-referencing on page chapter 37 including water restoration goals and targets made that sub-chapter enforceable so then if we are going to do what we thought we wanted to do which is remove penalties earlier in the bill then on page 29 section 12 section 5 we would either just delete section 5 this is a question because it pertains only to the water restoration goals and targets it would seem we're not messing with with enforcement for regulated community this bill deals with non-regulated community and it would seem to me to be okay there if we wanted to keep it in there we might add water restoration goals and targets within the non-regulated community but so I'm throwing that out as a thought but before this committee pushes around I think we need sub-division 5 in there because that's how wetlands law is enforced because chapter 37 includes wetlands law well I think when representative McCollum said delete I think you meant the new language I meant the new language absolutely because it is the non-regulated language so the clean water service provider becomes the regulated and so it's whether or not you want A&R to have enforcement over the clean water service I think what we were striving to do was not have penalties, financial penalties over the service providers and sub-prime fees I think that's what we're trying to do and we haven't done it apparently but with this language we haven't done it so you could just give the agency equitable relief instead of monetary fine authority if you would want that equitable relief they can obtain an order from the court to direct without the clean water service provider to engage or conduct activity or remedy they need that isn't that what the other steps in this process of moving toward enforcement are that's a plan that's not a court order okay I think what we're talking about is about risk and management of risk these are discretionary projects that they're managing the service providers managing and if they fall short in getting the dollars on the ground who bears that risk so one strategy may be the ability to fall back that money so say that your service provider you think you can achieve a certain amount of food and reduction but you fall short because you can't get the dollars to participate as well as you thought you could so you're still sitting on implementation dollars why can't you as part of this be simply a matter of an assessment of progress or lack of progress and a a crawl back of however you would describe it of the remaining funds implementation funds for or we purposely you already have that in the grant agreement wouldn't you have a condition that if the funds aren't spent they're implemented by a time certain that that they're going to be returned when we write our grants we do that and what is the money spent and there's still a lot they can only spend up to 15% the check on trying to prevent the the winnowing away of the implementation dollars but it seems to me that that may be the cleaner way of trying to find a fine related to trying to get discretion in projects implemented maybe it's a matter of calling out that kind of assessment for the purposes of purpose of those the implementation dollars you know another alternative would be to identify when would you have gross negligence something I've alluded to you had a last week you know when would you want to have a fine based approach and when you either have gross negligence or you're signing dollars for lower priority projects that aren't based on any type of priority or some other purpose but I would think that the risk of going that direction of trying to establish the terms of gross negligence maybe they could simply in this language indicate that there is a risk of re-purposing for the service I think they might have a more struggling with so they don't meet the pollution reduction goals there's a lot of reasons that they might not meet the pollution reduction goals including increased pollution from other properties and that the secretary's calculus on the ability of these projects to meet those goals is way up so I just I really struggle with this section I don't see how you can expect to be held accountable for delivering on oh there's less and where would you test how far downstream from a project you anticipate you're going to test for where the pollution reduction happens remember they're testing on the modeling results of that pollution reduction project so there it's what's happening upstream and downstream or that may in fact result in a degradation they're doing a lot of quality modeling not the service providers that's just ongoing but that's not this is based on outcomes of modeling exercises term of pollutant reduction by that project so was it filled according to design specs and engineering specs or to achieve those reduction I'm not sure that's where is it it's based on modeling but it talks about that but it is about the outcomes related to that project notwithstanding the modeling discussion I've said before I still am I'm concerned that the modeling itself may not be accurate which is another in fact maybe the chair mentioned that's out of control of the service provider maybe other things are out of control of the service provider so I'm seeing redundant now but I want to add that these finds in here it's not going to be easier to find service providers with that black cloud hangover there ahead is possibilities in fact I'll suggest it may actually make it significantly more difficult for anybody to raise their hand and say yeah I'll put my RPC on the line for $140,000 in case someone isn't right you might want a check for some people who represent potential service providers who are in the room here to comment on that thought and I just have to go back to my question which is I think I might have found the language Kerry is referring to but I want to be sure that that's what everyone is agreeing to which is that the modeling is the basis for deciding whether or not a clean water service provider is achieving a pollution reduction goal if I may add but know that by the state continues to monitor annually the cleaning reductions in the city you know actual monitoring testing a lot of quality especially the mouse of these tributaries where you have TNBL so that will be ongoing and that will determine whether in reality are we making a difference in these investments there's also built into a TNBL a requirement to deal with future growth that can have it need a way at the progress you're making okay so committee back to the point of is the monetary enforcement is that this kind of a showstopper to get clean water service providers to sign up Charlie would you like to comment I would love to thank you speaking on behalf of the Chittin County Regional Planning Commission I believe all the RPCs statewide this is a stopper issue I'm sorry Charles Baker Executive Director of the Chittin County Regional Planning Commission for the record this is a stopper issue if we're treated essentially as a permitee now we're willing to be a partner with the state but not a regulated entity this from my degree of this essentially makes us a regulated entity with this addition and I can tell you my board had a very open and broad discussion of this well represented from all municipalities a lot of the number of select board members in Chittin County they are not willing to take this kind of liability to help the state with this issue sorry peace of the word I appreciate it okay so we're going to go on what we talked about was I know I keep repeating myself but this six month check-in we want those service providers to be as successful as they can be and right so right now we're talking about are we deleting the enforcement part of this are we going to include the enforcement part of it that's the question on the table right now before the committee are there thoughts from other community members you know okay you are back to page 13 line 13 this is the basin water quality council section where he was removed whenever the term was referenced that takes you to page 14 line 17 I'm just wagging technical because you took out technical and you put technical back in took it out and then you put it back in so just that's all we did right here sorry so moving on to page page 15 you wanted a clean water service provider in the basin water quality council to be able to invite support from AOT staff an agency of commerce and community development staff the US is we abbreviate US when used as a federal entity and that's really the only change there what's the question I do have in the sighting of the state agencies I don't have to invite them I can tell them to support it yes you can say that they shall have the support of those state agencies you can't compel the federal entities I also don't know what the administration's position on separation of powers would be on this because I don't understand administration's position on separation of powers whether or not this would be we're seen as compelling an executive branch agency to provide services to a non-executive branch agency so that's one reason to retain invite I see because UVM because UVM what is a non-executive branch UVM is UVM it's a state entity for some things how it has incorporated other components of it make it not a state entity my concern is that there's been discussion and vetoes in the past where an executive branch agency is compelled to provide staffing to a non-executive branch agency and so the non-executive branch agency would be a designated clean water service provider the executive branch agencies would be A&R agency of AG transportation and such so can you compel them could you compel UVM some UVM as the state entity when it wants to be and it's not clean water service provider compel them that's why if the invite is there I think that avoids all of those issues the legislature can compel them to provide staffing to a clean water service provider again if you consider a clean water service provider a legislatively creative entity for filling that role therefore filling an executive branch role then I think you can compel them but if you don't consider that clean water service provider an executive branch agency for filling an executive branch function there may be an argument that you can't compel an executive branch agency to provide support I don't agree with that I'm just telling you what an argument may be to avoid that argument you just say if you don't want them to say no well they can always say no you tell them they have to provide support you tell them things to do all the time and they say no well part of it okay that's your way of making you understand okay what is committing no invite yeah please do move me on section 925 you're now getting the four grants broken out into four different sections the first going to be the clean water service provider water quality restoration formula grant program and it is for those clean water service providers it is based on the annual pollution production goal for the provider multiplied by the standard cost for pollution reduction so if you are a clean water service provider you get this grant based on that formula going down to 926 this is the water quality enhancement grant program this is a competitive grant means that you may apply but you may not get it you wanted this to be available not only to protect high quality water but to restore degraded or stressed waters see that change on line 18 moving on to page 16 so procedure question we're doing a lot too of this iteration now you may want to be adding something to 925 and 926 we'll do that later no I think we can do that now so Michael and committee under 925 see the water quality enhancement that's 926 926 926 926 926 you might want to consider including all waters not just those that need to be restored have been degraded or stressed and the rationale for that is it helps with the all in approach which is vital for statewide water quality and it's equally vital in mine mine and mine David Dean would say floor ears because we want as many of our house members to be all in as possible but that's rationale the real thing is we want to include water quality in these other areas of the state so that that's section 926 and also in the water quality enhancement grant program we want to additionally want to fund and protect and improve other kinds of enhancement not just restoring degraded or stressed waters so again not just already but I think we want to include other waters more emphatically than we've got here your purpose to strike high quality on page 15 918 so it'll be competitive grant program fund projects that protect the waters restore degraded or stressed waters create resilient watersheds and support the public's use in enjoying the state's water so the protection isn't conditioned on high quality we did get the whole committee got language from the water um that was from Mary you know that I'm trying to reproduce here maybe it's what Mr. Grubin said on behalf of multiple organizations if that works on 918 yeah crossing out high quality that includes all that maintainer of free water quality in all waters that's the I understand that Councilman Grady was suggesting simply an easy change would be to simply draw high quality so we're going to affect our waters where it would be a mining team that protect waters restore degraded or stressed waters create resilient watersheds and support the public's use I think that was your suggestion whatever you want I like to protect all waters well maintainer improved is a little different than that so that's maintainer improved is getting at that concept of anti degradation that you don't want to allow anti you don't want to allow degradation of the water you have to maintainer improve it it tries to get after it in its four general categories water implementation restore protect and that's what it's trying to do it can't just get to restoration so you want to say protect maintainer improved water quality right that was good will you imply therefore that it's in all waters? oh no I would do that as well all right should I move on representative you have something in 927 no ok so 927 I renamed 927 and 928 had been the two stormwater programs stormwater grant programs so 927 is now about the 3 acre impervious surface implementation that's all it's there for so that's what it's called and it shall fund or provide financing for which was a request that you had projects related to the permitting of 3 acres or more under 10 BSA 1264G3 my only question is is that what is going to be called a 3 acre grant or is it development is I only say that because whether it changes from 3 acres to 2 and a half acres we won't be back I guess I thought about develop plans but I thought you might not like that because that concept includes operational stormwater permits but I think develop plans would be fine if you still tie it down to the permit for 1264G3 I've only heard that permit referenced as develop 3 acre permit I don't know what the name is the agency settling in on it I call it the legacy stormwater permit but I like the develop plans that's fun so do you want to call it develop lands program or do you want financing program yeah so that's financing that's what it is okay so on page 16 line 16 this is the municipal stormwater implementation grant program do you want this to be tied to the specific permit programs under 1264 that you wanted to fund so it's by grants to any municipality required under section 1264 to obtain or seek coverage under the municipal roads general permit the municipal separate stormwater systems permit for the surface of 3 acres or a permit required by the secretary to reduce the adverse impacts to water quality of the dish for stormwater again the 3 acres we might want to reflect develop lands having a little bit of trouble understanding the last adverse impacts to water quality of discharge it's the language in 1264 for basically residual designation and I would still use the 3 acres there I wouldn't use develop lands there because multi sector general permit that's about develop lands right well I still don't I would not like to see funding funding we've been talking about go to compliance with those existing permits whether it's sector general permit construction or operational it's what we pay for so much compliance it's about 3 acre permit or whatever it's called and I think it makes sense so I I use the general reference to 1264 on lines 19 and 20 but I could include specific references to the subdivisions for each of those so to tie it down to I'm concerned about just calling it develop lands without referencing like we did on page 16 line 13 the specific subdivision because develop lands to me under 1264 is more than just 3 acre so I can do it either way I defer to your recommendation as long as we're not allowing permit fees under those 3 permits to access so you don't want multi sector you don't want operational any construction I think that they're out right now so page 17 lines 8 and 12 it's just renumbering based on the new sections not allows you to skip the page 21 this generally is how the BHCB proposals their first proposal to add to the findings and purpose section for the clean water initiative the reference to that it is success in implementing the clean water initiative depends on the permanent protection of land and waters for future development and impairment through conservation and water quality projects funded by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Trust to see that to avoid future impairment and degradation of the state waters the state should commit to continue funding for the protection of land and waters through agricultural and natural resources conservation including permittees and some fee acquisitions so this line which is what the BHCB recommended I think it makes sense I think this is what they're doing the permanent protection of land and waters for conservation and water quality projects and it's a policy decision for you to make the statement success of the clean water initiative makes depends on it and to avoid future impairment and degradation of state waters that is a federal requirement and that degradation requirement the state should commit to continue funding for protection of land and waters again that's a policy statement it's up to you to make that statement but it's fairly consistent with your existing appropriation process should I move on comments recommended I think this makes sense I like this because I think what we were hung up on last week was about the clean water fund and whether it had any over sign on how capital funds are being used this is tied to what the clean water initiative which is all funding sources for clean water I think it works adequately but there is more on page 22 to clarify that priorities language and how it works you'll see that the directed to the clean water board recommended expenditures for appropriation from the water fund will be according to the priorities established under subsection E so those priorities you you've been talking about which you were talking about on Friday on how the money moves out first priority under an equal priority system and then a second priority and that is just for the clean water fund then to clarify the use of the clean water project term which now is term of art in sub chapter 37 it's going to be water quality projects that provide water quality benefits, reduce pollution, protect natural areas, enhance water quality protections etc etc through capital funding be funded by capital appropriation that reflects all the programs that the state does fund water quality through capital dollars with that said I was in house institutions over lunch and one of the issues they put on the table is whether or not they remove the directive for the clean water board to make recommendations on capital dollars their concept was that they put this in when the capital dollar funding went from its traditional level of 10 to 13 million a year to 20 to 25 and they needed recommendations now that the capital dollars are down to its traditional level of around 12 to 13 they're questioning whether or not they want the clean water board to be involved in these recommendations Mr. Chairman so Mike had a leave to go to another engagement and the testimony went on in house institutions and so the chair authorized me to come in and tell you that the particular provisions that I can tell you everything but they took an informal poll of the committee and they found this language to be accepted the language in our draft the language you see before you in this draft review language that you'll be coming to with respect to a study portion and we can talk, I'm happy to talk about that when we get it. I do hesitate a little bit I appreciate your perspective where this language has the clean water fund recommending to the Secretary of Administration expenditures for water quality projects does and typically what has happened is that they've been much higher than that they're not, am I reading that wrong in that the budget reflects programs and grant programs not necessarily down to the project level so help me maybe I'm misinterpreting this right so the language that I had jetted up over the weekend I had water quality programs or projects that provide water quality benefit that might make sense to say programs or projects just because you typically the legislature hears back the progress we've made by implementing projects but at our level we shouldn't be dictating or having budgets dictate the drive all the way down to the project level necessarily so programs and or projects right should I move on so that takes you to page 24 that's just now the cross reference to the four grant programs and then on page 25 this is the recommendations what the clean water board will recommend they will recommend capital appropriations for the permanent protection of land and waters from future development through conservation and water quality projects should I move on so page 26 in the first priorities for what the clean water board's recommending for funding from the clean water fund we wanted to be clear that each of the subdivisions A through E will have equal priority for is that following grants and programs you know sure yep you wanted verification to be added on page 26 line 7 you correcting the cross reference to section 9 25 adding ag water quality programs after the agency of agriculture food and markets previously you're just giving money to the agency of ag and this is to clarify what its resources for water quality enhancement grant cross reference change to 9 26 and what you don't see is the priority language requested by VHCB because I think everyone's now agreed that they don't want to be listed as a priority under the clean water fund because that is non capital dollars they want to continue to get non capital dollars as recommended by the clean water fund I mean none of their they have a project that they could get non capital dollars they could they could and they could get if they qualify for any of the other some of them are not grant programs specific to a clean water service provider I move on Representative McCullough so two things and I guess maybe I would back up I apologize page 25 line 10 is that the language and this is the question from that that you worked out with VHCB I mean that the language that we worked out with VHCB is primarily on pages 22 straddling clarifying that priority established under clarifying the priority for the clean water fund and how the clean water board will make recommendations with respect to capital allocations also as you move forward notwithstanding mics note that it's an A&R proposal when you get down to the study provisions at the end A&R and VHCB have agreed on a second that it's noted it's the A&R proposal and thank you you're welcome and so now back to real time page 26 213 water quality enhancement grant should be at least one and a half million dollars I'm bringing forth an idea from the NRC that number that threshold number might want to be as much as $5 million and I have no idea really the rationale for that but there's somebody in the room and I'm bringing this forward for this study and just to be sure that if I understand this is not talking about capital it's all dollars it's my thought and is that accurate Michael? yes okay good so I'm going to propose that it be $5 million as a threshold representative squirrel actually it's a question from Matt when you shifted these grants and sort of reshuffled things through here my question is we're showing 15 at least $1.5 million water quality enhancement grants the generation before this shift how much money will be here on that left side will fall into that bucket now because I don't know what the specifications for the $5 million are so nor do I so I think what this does and what the sort of underlying the sheet that I provided you last week shows where we're at with respect to clean water funds today and right now in the clean water fund there is it's actually slightly more but it's in the range of $10 million that amount of money grows over time because I assume assuming the committee on ways means either raises money when this bill gets there that it grows over time and there will be more money that we would allocate to these various programs from the clean water fund so what I didn't provide to you and this is a part of the budget and processes we would that we assume that that $1.5 that's a floor not a ceiling right so we intend that that money will grow over time just like money will grow under the restoration grant program and other areas major grant programs that the agency proposes in that crosswalk the agency would be concerned having a $5 million floor of spending on an annual basis because again if we're just looking at a FY19 and the monies we currently have that means you'd be spending $2 million to deal with pollution reduction efforts in the Lake Champlain Basin and $5 million on enhancement work which we would be concerned about because you have to shift you only have $2 million in money when you shift the money around that what ends up happening right and you can see behind you the clean water boards and the environmental budget well that says 2020 but you'll see that the anticipated revenue as of December 21st 2018 was $6 million to carry over $1.1 so there's about $7.1 there so if you were at a minimum of $5 million you would just have what not just said $5 million and grew up the other programs but yeah so my understanding was this is when the fund is as Matt said this is going to go in ways of me this is not based on this year's money and how much is in the fund right now but it's based on having at least $15 million because right now we have money from the property transfer tax or charge you have money from these sheets but we understand that there's going to be $8 to $10 million that's the goal to add to that and it's going to grow and that the secretary is calling for $5 more million next year so that's how we were looking at this not today because in this moment today because this program doesn't exist today and it won't exist actually even if you pass it for at least a year and you might just say no $7 well the current funding level is typically around in reality it's about $5 million plus the issues so you're talking about $6 to $7 million as we described the floor you talk about that's envisioned currently that's $1.5 it represents about 25% so another option is to use a percentage basis so wherever you end up with the clean water fund you dedicate a percentage to ensure that it provides statewide funding for clean water what might that be in your mind right now well then you know it's in this case if you used $6 or $7 and that was your floor at $1.5 and maybe you would argue that that's too low but that's about 20% but if you decide that you want it at say 25% at $10 million that's a floor of $2.5 and that's a floor again we're just trying to because you are trying to float four different funding sources that and clean water fund and capital funds right now are the most funded sources in the state do you think a quarter at least a minimum of a quarter of the funding available is dedicated for this funding source in that sense would it be a percentage of a total of $1.5 because right now the total is $15 million right yeah so if you end up increasing it I mean I was using the clean water not the capital current funding levels yeah but that's a whole of $8 million so I was looking at more of a current actual position $1.5% of current but you could do it that way too you could say well if your goal is is $15 million for this year or 20 and decide on the floor it's just math deciding what the floor would be and what percentage makes sense what do folks think about the idea of a percentage of a clean water fund did I like her did I like her did I like her did I like her did I like her did I like her does it have more standing if it's a percentage or not the HUB has got a percentage every year and they never get that percentage if this funding is as the clean water service provider to roll out across the state which they will does that change how we feel about this kind of thing as everyone needs more access to the other the formula funds that's going to change how we feel about the reality of the money I mean I guess we're all trying to balance these priorities knowing that we have a heavy lift to restore these degraded waters but we want to provide a minimum amount of funding available for statewide priorities to fix local water quality problems so whether it's I think we could decide a range I just think what's our dust feeling I think 50% seems too low 20% we're getting okay and but you could argue that 30-35% may be too high given the amount of lift we have on expensive projects from agriculture to stormwater so that's where I arrive at somewhere like a quarter of the money or you could say a third but that's where my gut is still in there or you could give a range you could do that you could say you would expect a range somewhere between the four okay 30% of the color well so my recommend was what the NRC did which was 5 million of four and we've heard their rationale then I was jumping on the percentage but when when you said well as other grant programs grow maybe a percentage thing will be going somebody's ox elsewhere not quite your words but and yeah so then having a monetary floor a number which can grow according certainly as Matt pointed out I think is a better idea than a percentage because we don't really know at the moment we don't really know how these programs are going to compete with each other and they will be for the finite dollars so to put a percentage in seems good but I think a hard floor whether it's one and a half million or whether it's five or something in between I'm still thinking of five nine because they're one of my favorite agencies like you know five million or fifteen million if that's 2020 is the third that's where I got that third number maybe that becomes we expect thirty percent of the funds be available statewide to address local statewide community support I don't understand the impact of it how does it fit in where we have our priority but is it impacted by that list where does it fit in that it's the second no actually it's the fourth listed one but they're all given equal priority basically what you're saying is that this has to be funded first with five million or fifteen or five million and then you can go on to the others so you will be you potentially spending on how much money is there how much money goes to the other program so that's 24 dollar question how much money is there and we don't know we don't know that answer we don't but we can speculate about it and we know that if the recommender is 15 million we know about it if the government's recommender was 15 so now it's not there taking out so the assumption is that eight million is going to be found somewhere otherwise the VA is going to have a problem with our agreement so I I gave the percentage what percentage of floor and here in my percentage would be which is the same concept totally when they express in percent it's a little more flexible I I like I like carries I I I think 25 percent hearing 25 percent as in at least 20 percent 20 percent 25 okay then move on page 27 line 10 informing cross-reference page 28 line 17 through 19 we're going to change the name of that grant program can you develop land grant program page 29 you struck section 5 page 29 line 21 you included verification in the list of activities that RPC have authorized to do I think you should add that also on page 30 line 13 for the conservation districts consistency verify then you corrected a erroneous cross-reference to the regional planning commissions on line 14 natural resources conservation districts the nutrient credit trading language page 31 lines 3 and 4 you wanted the report to include information on the cost to develop and manage any recommended trading program page 31 line 14 and 15 those are just conforming cross-reference changes and then section 10 we have the original proposal on page 31 and then A&R's responding proposal on page 32 as you heard I was not there when the institutions committees made its decisions about funding I'm making recommendations for capital appropriations for water quality conservation programs apparently others were so page 31 to 32 the two different proposals and for clarification I think I heard you came to an agreement did I understand that you and DHCB came to an agreement back on this language and it's one of these that agreement he is representative of the provision you see on page 32 beginning on line 15 now standing the fact that it's A&R proposal DHCB and the A&Z agreed that way that's a slam dunk committee I'm sorry I was being stint so the one that's titled A&R proposal is actually an agreement between the agency of natural resources and DHCB so page 32 line 15 so who wants to walk us through this he would ask if I want to please I'm inviting you there we go so this is basically a study and a report and it does in the first ends have language similar to what DHCB proposed previously that the state's success in achieving and maintaining compliance with the water quality standards depends on avoiding their future degradation and impairment you've seen that language already it's included in the findings for the Clean Water Initiative now there are multiple conservation purposes including for protection of surface water and prioritized for multiple values are an important component of this work again that's something that's built in effectively into the findings for the Clean Water Initiative and then you get something similar on page 33 lines 3 through 5 about the state's success depends on strategic land conservation then you get to the secretary of A&R right? yes shall convene a stakeholder group which reports back to the General Assembly on the 4th January 15, 2020 recommended framework for statewide land conservation that will maximize both water quality benefits and other state priorities including agriculture uses natural areas and have water protection, flood and climate resilience, wildlife habitat for recreation and community development the recommendation shall also consider opportunities to leverage federal and other non-state funds and a stakeholder group shall include the following the secretaries of AG and Natural Resources the executive director of VHCB the president of the Vermont Land Trust the Vermont and New Hampshire director of the trust republic land and nature conservancy do you want designees written in there or are you guys going to show up at all these meetings on your own? I can't speak for everybody so designees also we have to call it NGOs and statue are we inviting them or directing them? so what I would say something like it would include a representative of the Vermont Land Trust to be appointed by the land trust and you do things like that VHCB is often referenced you see a lot of different points I guess I've not seen it done at the college specific conference that's fine I can come up with generalized language that would achieve the same purpose I guess you're calling me I just haven't happened in my time here but it happens it happens they both agree is anyone going to come to the party later and wish we'd invited them? you're all in the rooms I'm not in the room right now I'm sorry I'm just wondering I'm not representing them but I'm wondering about Vermont River Conservancy just putting that out there thank you Phil Huffman with the Nature Conservancy I might just add I think there may be other folks from the land trust community who might be interested in having a voice in this process but if they're not specified in the membership of the group I think there are other ways that you can get at that by those of us who are named reaching out to them over the course of the process to get their input and bring it into the dialogue of the work group some of the smaller land trust things like that and the capacity to be a participant of those on the basis of something like this right yes so on page 33 line 5 that should be conservation conversation okay so I'm wondering if there's a way to include what Phil just said about other people who just don't have them to be here I want to be part of this that's just out there and I guess I also wonder about 9-11 well considering opportunities to leverage federal and other non-federal funds for conservation as part of the we're making a strategic land conservation recommendation they're recommending how to prioritize the funding of conservation right I can't tell it just seems like funding comes and funding goes and we're launching out priorities that are separate from dollars we're actually planning for meaningful information what's the thinking behind including that I think part of the thinking is that I could offer a bit of good news we had an opportunity to add $2 million to support upon that if we can make a match for it so the thinking is that among the considerations are we going to leave federal resources on the table or not and that's something that you would want to know as we come up with a plan to figure out where to put these sources any other thoughts on this section so earlier the committee heard me say it's running dumb and I stick by that but I'm also so this is this is more an inquiry as to a possibility this will should it pass and should it make it through all of the process will become long effective date until I first I like this input to this bill when it says and there may very well reasonably be an opportunity a chance that this bill isn't going to get through the whole process by the end of this semester and that the results of this stakeholder group would be available to us next January and could then inform this bill for the House and for the Senate and so then the question is of actually the stakeholders here what do you do do you need a letter from us asking you to do this and get it done by the same date by January 15, 2020 so then we can incorporate it into this bill and that's what I would see as being ideal and I don't know what the what the President are doing something like that I think we've asked for stuff of course so it's in the bill but we're also asking but we're really asking to get the results of this study done by that same date January 15, 2020 I think we're hoping it passes I mean you're okay with January 2020 are you concerned as if we don't pass the bill this session no I think what I what I'm trying to say is yep the results of that study with this bill passing are not going to be are not going to inform this bit do you want them to convene now and recommend to you before the end of this session before January 15, 2020 this this bill this because right now this bill shall it take effect on July 1, 2020 actually because 2019 is am I crazy? 2019 your numbers are wrong this bill it's 2019 trust him your concern is if the bill doesn't pass then your concern is valid and you have in the past when things have broken down like that you have written letters to request that they go forward with these groups without the specific legislative directive but it's a little early for that I would say okay thoughts on this any other thoughts on this section yeah I'm just looking at the section with the group and the stakeholders talking about standards and we need to have a strategic land conservation proposal and yeah part of that should include folks that own money their stakeholders and their mission and I think when we started talking about the water quality project we had you know a lot of watershed groups you know set up and formed and they did incredible work on trying to figure out their piece of the puzzle and I think if we're going to continue with that idea they need to be part of this as well and I don't know how I mean you can equate them you can't demand that they be there but I think that they're part of the solution to the puzzle we're trying to solve and put together Any thoughts on what Harvey just said and why they're not included first of all is that how to include them to recommend them to the public? Yeah and Michael I think might be reworking this good call and shall include all the usual suspects and then Michael puts them out here such as these guys are and it might include two representatives of Vermont landowners as well as I think they need to be more than landowners I think they need to be part of a group that has been actively involved in trying to help the water quality What kind of group are you thinking of? Champagne Valley Farmers Coalition there's one up in Franklin County that's been working on this longer than we have trying to do what they can with their limited resources to clean up the waters of the state I think the other ones that have some experience I think that they should be included and then you have the conservation districts I didn't see whether they were listed or not but I mean they work with those groups all the time so I think that those are you know come to mind pretty easily down We're talking specifically about this section of land conservation and so I think he makes a great point you know farmers watershed aligns so Champagne Valley and the other examples are a terrific knowledge base of landowners that have been participating whether they I think inviting them to participate makes sense because they I know work very closely with some of these conservation groups already and they may be able to shed the light on you know a perspective that would be very meaningful and I have another question I hadn't go to one and stimulated my father on this one is how was I going to use it because by the time we get a report back from this group we're going to be doing our next step so how's that how's it going to be used How do you folks who came up with this idea and this being useful I think the objective here was to have a conversation outside the legislature about water land conservation objectives that both agencies of agriculture and natural resources are trying to promote both water quality functions and the other functions and values that BHCB and the participant organizations are do as a part of their conservation efforts and then we would take that information back to help really in the context of the tackle process to help prioritize what the priorities were for land conservation in the state I think that was the objective that we were looking to try and focus where we're spending dollars on land conservation I think the other thing is to work collaboratively to enhance our ability to accomplish both a quantifiable pollution reduction value there are lots of things land conservation does that have that benefits the pollution reduction that part but there's also non pollution reduction benefits associated with it helping the BHCB I think there's a mutual helping that's going to take place as far as us giving some guidance to the people acquiring the land on how we quantify these targets so that their work can be counted better and then also working with places as a debate where they're looking at conversion and how much preventing conversion of forest land or ag land to development how much that can get counted as a pollution reduction after the end of the year so working collaboratively on those types of issues so I don't I don't necessarily have any disagreement about logging the scope but I do think that this is going to be sort of at a higher sort of level more about how land conservation efforts are feeding into agency programs and missions and then that we can come back with sort of a strategic plan or vision to the legislature for how then those funding priorities take place and I think that's how our vision I don't know if you agree or want to add Bob I would just say going through the chair's question we had a conversation with Secretary Moore last Thursday afternoon with Billy Koster Friday morning just looking at that point because the language we proposed to you was not acceptable to them but how do we bridge the divide and I think for all the reasons we just heard Matt articulate and in my testimony that we achieved multiple public goods for land and this bill is focused on one of those goods to reduce costs but how do you balance that with public recreation benefits the ag community with benefits for wildlife habitat with benefits when a parcel of land that we can consider doesn't flow into an area with a TND we'll just let's step back and have a conversation about all of those public goods and the state of Vermont from my perspective would be more than one minute at a time so and I would absolutely do with Rep. Senator Smith that the watershed groups and conservation districts are very important to this overall conversation if you want to add to that fear that's fine if you want to know if there's another place where you can enhance their input into the process as well but I agree with you completely that they add mightily to our work performed by a really program more than typically as we work with farmers one of the slides I showed you last week a farmer got into the EMP program specifically because this is a fair referral the land trust made to the conservation groups Rep. Senator Smith I was just thinking of trying to find ways to because this is the group that's been quite creative in there and they should have a place at the table and I'm not sure exactly what that place would be and I can see that this now with maps with the explanation it takes on a little different light to me but they still need to be somehow part of that conversation at some level and I'm open to how that could happen but I'm just saying that it should happen and then I'm kind of wondering about the timing of this in relation to this bill that almost looks like a separate action item yeah um yeah yeah I was I'm thinking are these helping me articulate what I saw and articulate the QQP and that is the action step and so on line 6 page 33 I think this should be in order to accomplish a real action step here it should be January 15 20 19 20 it's a little late for that you're thinking December 15 20 the point being I guess I would just say that remember this is we've been moving it towards more of an iterative process we're all kind of learning and growing as we increase the funding to water quality work I don't necessarily yes in one hand I mean you feel separate but I don't it's going to give us information to further this conversation which may result in further legislation what changes I think it's fair to say it's not nothing's written in stone you know I'm I'm back to the future I has that changed do you want to add anything so I think Harvey brought up a great point I agree with you I don't know who or how they'd want to engage and I think noodling on that would be helpful it isn't it is a conservation plan and these are the statewide players typically thought of in that frame of statewide conservation work rather than focusing on representation to help resolve a you know the discussion that we've had in the past week or so between house and conservation board agency of conservation perhaps a better solution or another option would be to revisit the council itself in here in the council based on the watershed that's where we would want that kind of voice to help in the decision making and ranking of projects at that watershed scale so here as you remember back on page 13 of the new draft line 13 section G we introduced that base in water quality council and I know we were somewhat constrained in trying to keep the size to a reasonable number but here we had to identify on page starting on 14 the various entities that would be part of the whole process similar to what we've heard from Vicki Drew similar to that state technical committee rankings here you have on the regional scale this water quality council made up of so my point is perhaps this is where we can call out a farmer watershed group whether it's the Shifley Valley farmers coalition or the farmers alliance as a watershed based agricultural entity that's a good concept yeah that's a good concept and I like that one underlying problem is they don't normally have staff paid staff that they would be able to do this so it would be asking somebody to give up a day or more in order to volunteer their time in effort to deal with that and that's always an issue for the headquartered portion of the community to find because there just isn't any way to fund those so you know trying to find a little way of some an equitable way to help them out of the table as well the lines where we talked about the 500,000 set aside that includes participation in these in these councils okay I think we're getting into the pretty subtle conservation districts where we added to that group of folks and what I'd like us to do is take a short break and I'd like the community to kind of go away and figure out how close you are on this bill what are the changes you need to make it work and I guess we could ask them to make the changes that we already just made they won't be done by the end today so let's take a break and then come back and then we can't let those things