Good morning. Today is Tuesday, February 6th, 2024. It is 10 a.m. and this is a meeting in Senate National Resources and Energy. We're continuing our work on Bill S-213, act relating to the Regulations of Wetlands River Port Development and Dam Safety, and we're being in this morning on some of the dam safety work. And with that, I would like to invite you to join us. Folks, probably not on power. You want to come up individually or together. Totally FCM. Probably just primarily Josh. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. So we're in Josh, asking you to bring out the power on the Vice President, the Chief Administration Officer. So it's been on my roll. The GMP is overseeing our generation team and our fleet of hydro facilities and generation re-operate. I thought I'd just give a quick update on an overview of what we have for infrastructure and how we operate our facilities. And then quick thoughts on the dam safety portion of the bill here this morning. So currently, GMP, we have total of 53 dams that we operate, mostly in Vermont. It's a few in New Hampshire. Of the 53, 43 of those that fall under the PERC regulation and 10 of those are under the Public Security Administration. We, with that, with that fleet of generation, we produce about 116 megawatts of power capacity and 400,000 megawatt hours a year of energy. So figure it's about 10, go over 10% of our entire annual customer demand through this for your generation. We, as mentioned, we operate most of those under the PERC regulation, so the dam safety sidefalls, all the PERC guidelines. And we, in addition to the PERC, as mentioned, we intend to fall under the Public Utilities Commission. We do a lot of the PERC stuff that we do, we just carry over into those dams as well, and then we adhere to use these inspection, schedule and dam safety rules for the rest of those. The things like, well, something called a DSSMR, dam safety surveillance monitoring plan, DSSMP, it's something we carry through, which is essentially just our process of how we inspect our dams. We have a team of 30 generation team members that are essentially at these facilities on a daily basis, or multiple times a week, working to inspect our facilities, working on our hydro plants, and maintaining our resources and making sure everything is operating safely. We then engage, depending on the dam, with either independent engineering consultants, a lot of other engineering resources to do our dam safety inspections, our designs for upgrades and that sort of thing. Thank you. That's a quick question. Yeah, so is the PERC standard in any way more rigorous than the PUC standard so that if you're going to the PERC, then you're sort of helping the anti-annual ourselves in terms of auto drinking. Yeah, so the safety inspection schedule for, so there's the hazard classification of dams, you've probably heard, there's low significant and high hazard dams in that order in terms of their impact. At the PERC, we do a, on the high hazard dams, every five years, a full comprehensive inspection. Remember, and it's every 10 years for, or every, I'm sorry, every five years in the significant and also five years in the high PUC, who's requesting myself, we'll do 10 years of 10 year full inspection on significant and a five year on the high hazard. And the DEC's rule currently is a little bit less stringent currently, so now I'm going to make 15 years on the significant for comprehensive and 10 years on a high hazard dam. So the rules are a little bit different today. So it is slightly different than what's involved in the dam inspections vary a little bit between the rules. Because we do the PERC inspections a certain way, we tend to carry that over anyway and how we do our SI inspection report for the PUC. So we kind of treat them similar, there's a little bit of differences there. Thank you, chair break. And I don't know who to best ask this question.  I do more points, but you may get to it, but do you have any qualms with no longer being regulated under the PUC with those 10 dams and instead having it fully go over to A&R? We don't have a strong opinion on the other. So the one thing I would assume that the rule would probably be updated because again the PUC is currently a little more stringent than what's under the dam safety rule DEC and A&R. I do have one piece of feedback on the bill, which kind of relates to the safety side of things. But no, I'm sure we're sort of agnostic there. We're going to continue to operate our facilities at high risk level safety. The other piece that I just wanted to highlight to around our dam operation. So when it comes to major precipitation events, flooding events, we look at our facilities, especially some of the ponding facilities, which are exactly the same. We hold water back and on. First and foremost, operating them safely to public safety is number one, our team safety. And then second is can we leverage the dam to hold back and help during a flood event. So this summer, for example, as everyone knows all too well, we had significant precipitation event upstream from here on the Windows Key Rivers, our Marshfield facility. It's essentially the start of the Windows Key River. During the peak flows when the most water was kind of moving through wherever the leverage of the dam to hold back half of what was coming into it from going out. But they sent us off. There was about 2400 CFS feet per second of water pullings that dam and we're able to leverage that to look to meet around 1000 CFS during that period, which but that translates to is just lessening almost waters and downstream and into the Windows Key River. So, point being that it's we're able to leverage those dams to learn some of these. Submitting flooding with us as well. Yeah, well, no, I just wanted to double back and maybe you're going to get to so I can wait. There's oversight comes in different forms of safety and then there's also impact on aquatic species and habitat. And sometimes they could be in conflict. If you can find understanding and embrace like you might do want to do a large drawdown to be safe side of incoming storm, but there will be a large fluctuation water level in the public area so I don't know who whose priorities, I'm guessing safety always went down but we talked a little bit about. Yeah, sort of reporting to two different. Are you stuck sort of reports to different entities with different priorities. Yeah, so to clearly answer your question safety going to pay priority so this safety and integrity of the dams need to be first and foremost they think what you know which as real license things have happened or updated for a one or two different requirements, a lot of rules that existed in the 70s and 80s of change. Something for us the ability to draw down is, is a critical component. When we marshal is a good example where we worked through that with with the department there was the desire originally was to not allow we worked, you know, and so we need the least maintained ability to throw it out in the wintertime and have the ability to pull water out during in advance of a significant event. Sure. In fact, when you take a part in which the department of environmental conservation and our and our so it is a key thing I mean at the end of the day we're going to do whatever we need to do to maintain safe operations of facility. We do that while improving water quality we're certainly going to look at that as well so again first and foremost is the safety side of things. And then as we update permits license and we're looking at the whole facility in terms of water quality most of the time is operating where it needs to be. It's when there's a significant event coming or before we might need to pull some water out to make make room and the ability to maintain what we call winter drawdowns essentially make room for spring runoff snowpack melt if we have it and you know that that remains pretty important for us for certain facilities and then you have run a river facilities which are just water coming in. So does that mean that possible cons like since prioritizing operation are over. It's it's around managing the answer and safety now that you want to maintain volume of flow so that you can generate power. Sometimes I've heard people describe for instance that they can't operate their facility may as much power as they used to under relaunch. So that's on your family concerns your facilities suddenly less worth you if you're our main generating. Then it's off going on out of all the experience that with your. You do. Yeah, so you know I like. I don't know that what would pass the water quality and again in the 60 70s studies we've learned a lot of things going to change. We know when we realize this we're going to lose some generation. We want to maintain its clean and old generations being produced for the last 100 years and we want to maintain as much as we can. We know that there's going to be a shift there when we go to a permit every license. Our sort of priority as we look at this is dam safety environmental compliance and then generating as much as we can for customers so we certainly go back and forth when we go to permit you know we have our scientists and work with the agencies and scientists we might disagree on the interpretation of certain things and we push to maximize as much as we can for customers out of the facilities while meeting today's water quality standards and all of that while maintaining safe operations so you do lose generation every time you realize this but we work hard to find that balance. Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chair. You operate dams on the New Hampshire border. We have trans Canada in my district. I don't know if that's technically operating. Those are in other Connecticut? Yes. We have some just over the board in St. Don'sbury and Smith and some savings stuff and not in Connecticut. Okay so you don't have any dams that would be affected by New Hampshire law versus. We do have dams in New Hampshire. So that we count towards our generation. Correct. I guess I'm not concerned about those necessarily but I was going to ask you if it was a perfect question how those regulations affect the dams that are on the river because for my understanding New Hampshire is in control of the river but that's not a scenario. Not the Connecticut. No. We do. So we have dams that operate in New Hampshire and they're regulated anyway so they're the same as our first dams here. So no that's pretty rubber HQ on the Connecticut river. Who does that? What did you do? Which? Yeah so it was a roll. I got to confirm that. I'm pretty sure those are all under FERC jurisdiction. Thank you. We're going to talk about two that I'm familiar with. So I could get this less abstract. The wilder dam. That's what I had to say. It's on the Connecticut river. Correct. It does supply electricity to the pond. It does supply electricity to the pond. So I'm not sure.  Some of that energy goes into the market. Some of it might be under contract with certain utilities. We have a contract with them in general which comes from a whole fleet of dams. I believe some of the other utilities do. I can't speak for that specific one. But it's in the mix I would say. It might just sell into the ice cream market for example. But Vermont does not have any, does not regulate the wilder dam. I believe the river is New Hampshire. The river is New Hampshire. Yeah. But I'm not 100% certain there. And I think they're FERC regularly. What about Pellows Falls? Because this is as I find stuff with the islands. Yeah. Yeah. Same there. Again, I'm pretty certain it's FERC. Those aren't dams that we operate or maintain. Because I thought that the Pellows Falls was actually in Vermont. So one side of the island. Yeah. It's fun because there's the Oregon Island on one side of the island. You have Bridge Street. You go onto the island and then it's in an exercise. So there's probably a mix of regulation. But again, if it's under FERC jurisdiction, it's sort of agnostic to the state regulations on the FERC and so on. So we've been asking questions. I'm thinking that specific suggestions. It's just a term or ideas. Yeah. So obviously only in the dam section, you know, the my understanding is the intent of this is really around dam state. I guess the primary focus and there's on page 21 and who regulates the dam safety. There's a whole strike, you know, because it's no longer the public utility commission. But one of the things that was important there is that it really puts public good and public safety at sort of the top, the top of the, what you're looking at. It reads to us, you know, I'm sure it's not in 10 year, but it reads to us that as you strike all that, then you're left with public safety.  So before it used to be, you know, so it's on page 21 section to their line six on down is all struck because again, you're shifting it from one to another. In there it says, that's, you know, the commission will have a hearing and it's really around determining the public good and provides adequate for the public safety and makes that a priority as it should. Then as you go down to section 1086 and move on to 22 now it just has the public safety. I hope I'm on the right. Oh, sorry 21 and then 22. You know, now I've had the public safety and a whole list of things, you know, from fish, water, life, of course, all those things. So again, we just want to maintain that obviously kind of public safety. And I think what you see find is, is, is the priority to turn and look at all this and put you there. Yeah, it's just was.  That's so fashion. Okay, that was the one that I had. On the liability question. Do you have a perspective, because the liability would fall from my understanding to green mountain power in the instance that there was the way that we drafted the film. Yeah. I mean, in terms of the like, I certainly don't. The language between strict or not strict liability, I think you're going to hear from somebody who's born on the insurance side of things that speak there. I just the piece that I think about is just a reminder that when we think of ensuring the dam and cost of insurance, and what we use for, there's a whole lot of other things that insurance house protects customers from a piece of equipment fails, for example happens to generate your fails, nothing to do with dam safety. But with insurance, we're able to cover the cost of a good portion of that work that has to be made your expense, you know, when there's some kind of failure. So, maybe something that led to making something uninsurable or extremely expensive it would be a concern. So, yeah, that's that's just, you know, I just want to highlight that we use the insurance is leverage a lot more. So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that you have a concern that if we went to the more severe liability standard for folks who are going to dance that you are concerned as an organization that this would increase the cost of your insurance and not allow you to make needed improvements that are not safe and related. We still make those improvements are just cost customers war. Okay. So, and just to be clear, safety improvements are not like insured things so just doing our work and improvements of the facility to do every year all the time. Certain, you know, component fails on the agenda. You just did Michael. We have a deductible insurance and then it can protect customers with all that goes through those cost customers. And if you spoke into your insurance, I am not at this point. That would be, I think something that would be really helpful for me to understand is that debate. Because for me, I represent people who live downstream. So, the liability being stricter means that from my understanding they would be more likely to get remuneration again if there was a fault that occurred. And it sounds like that risk of losing or raising your insurance rates would be detrimental to you. So I'd like to understand it. Yeah, those customers. Yeah, yeah. So the same for like the point is, yeah, more per kilowatt hour or a couple sets per kilowatt hours is your home getting covered. Yeah. If there's a the way, you know, when you're in a situation where the risk of a dam failure is occurring, there's also it's a it's a catastrophe, you know, it's a very significant situation where those homes that are probably suffering and that's where they too. So, you know, that's a, yeah, that is a significant event if you're at the point where you're going to deal with that kind of thing. And you would prefer not to have the strict liability. I don't know the language very well, but I would like to defer to someone. Yeah. Oh, we talked to our insurance. Yeah, if you could get back to me on that, because it is, you know, or it's going to come to a fine point by the sort of a yes or no, but we're changing the liability status and what's the impact on GDP would be good. So if you either support or neutral or, oh, is that important for us. Okay, interesting. Yeah. Thank you. So I don't want to, if you have more testimony, I don't know. So thinking about how you fund the repair of your dams or the maintenance of your dams. So is it. I, I'm assuming that any repair or maintenance costs is just it's coming from what for lack of a better understanding I would call it like your general punch right like it's it's coming out of you know it's and and so effectively as cream on power customers, largely across the state. We are all collectively paying for the repair of those dams and so the people that are most at risk if those dams fail they're not paying any more than say the average customer. That is correct. Yeah, so our total power supply cost includes all the electricity we produce and purchase and the dam all the work we do with our higher facilities just goes into. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from somebody. So, if you can chase that down that will be helpful so we don't really clear positions. Thanks, I just want to clarify that I'm using the vocabulary. You mentioned that the three standards for a risk for a dam is the high. Yeah, look at it. Yeah, they have low significant and high. Yeah. Okay. My understanding though is that significant addresses one aspect of risk and high addresses know when you're analyzing risk, you're analyzing the probability of something going wrong. And the consequences of something going on there are times when every time you get on jetliner, the consequences of something going wrong are probably going to die. The likelihood is very low. Okay. And the other hand, you know, try to use your cell phone. Yeah. And my understanding is that that that middle around the same and I'm sorry that the significant means there's a likelihood that's based on the likelihood of something going wrong. Whereas these the high is based on the consequences if something does go wrong. I think what it's actually just purely the consequences is the way to think of it so what what those characterizations are the divided perg and we carry through with you see rule here too is what is the impact if a failure or to occur it's the consequence side that determines the significant high, you know, so not is it more likely to the fails really. It's really fail. Yeah. And that's the case for all three of those categories. Correct. Correct. Correct. Yes. Yes. I'm not human. It's kind of great. And the consequence of the sponsors don't have you this. Yeah, it's likely to fail. Exactly. It's the same as the jetliner analogy to have a very, very low with our facilities and way to maintain them. And it is a is a consequence. So we have any vocabulary for likely. Well, for speaking for GNP is extremely unlikely because the way we maintain and operate our dance other dams run the state in terms of their welfare repair they're in the state and actually I think when when Mr Green was here they have, they know a lot more about a lot more dams and the state of repair. So that's probably an indicator. And for us because of the level that we maintain them. You know where we're at on that. Right. So there that other means other category was condition. Yeah. And so mission relates to rich, but it wasn't only rich. Yeah, that last table is poor. You're thinking of the poor fair. Okay. Any other questions for us. Thank you very much for coming in to do this morning. Are you going to come up? All right, you're just like dial friends. And then we have on zoom with us, Miss Merritt. So good morning, Miss Merritt. You can introduce yourself to the committee for the record and you can listen to the conversation fill it in. Hi, I'm Amy Merritt. I work at Hickok and Boardman and I am Burlington electrics insurance agent. And I was asked to speak in support of their concern about some of the proposed wording changes within the document that we're talking about. So I think it's helpful to understand how the dams are currently covered. And so currently dams are underwritten based on the best practices that Burlington Electric and others do take and so the inspections, the maintenance, all of those good things that we have to do is taken into account when they're underwritten. And so, because right now negligence, if there was something to happen Burlington Electric did the best that they could the carrier understands that we would have coverage for that. If we change the language to strict liability that removes the best practices as being a reason that the carrier can not pay coverage. Meaning that Burlington Electric did everything possible there was an unforeseen event Burlington Electric shouldn't be held liable from the insurance carriers point of view, because they did all the right things if they didn't and there would be coverage, but with strict liability there's no option it becomes Burlington Electric and the insurance carriers problem, which from an insurance carrier standpoint creates an issue from pricing, because they can't price what they know that they're going to eventually pay at some point. And so ultimately, I think that the insurance carriers will like they exclude dams from coverage, or the pricing and the terms and conditions will be quite high and make it in essence, a self insurance problem, either way. And so, our concern is just that there's an unintentional consequence of changing that language, even though, in the end, we all want the utilities to do what they should do to maintain the dams and they're all doing that but we would like to have insurance coverage so it doesn't impact the rate payers so that's my opinion and I certainly welcome any questions that I can answer related to the insurance coverage, not the dams themselves. Sure. Have you, on behalf of the ED sort of gone into the market and looked for coverage, if we were to move to strict liability, have you shot for a product for them. And can you say anything about what your client. Yeah, well the insurance companies know what each individual state and the FERC requirements are and so until it's a rule, they wouldn't price accordingly. I would say that strict liability is pretty common in attractive nuisance type of items so inflatables, wild animals that kind of thing and my experience has been there's niche markets in that regard that require a bunch of protocols but the level of coverage is not the same as what you would have in a standard market. And in some cases it's just not insurable because they can't price for it. It's just a known quantity and to someone else's point here, the if the proximity of the loss is going to be catastrophic. That's a big number the carers paying not a small claim. And so that just creates a problem. I'm not suggesting there wouldn't be a version of a coverage available but whether the pricing would ultimately impact the rate payers because they don't have to pay more premium to do so. Quite a lot. In addition, recently, Burlington Electors has had a property insurance issue with trying to obtain insurance on McNeil, and that has nearly tripled their premium in eight years. And so they're very aware of the potential impact to the rate players with insurance. And that's their ability issue. So sure. And it's part of preparing for today you end up looking at any other states that have a script liability standard and we didn't ask you to do that but I'm just wondering if the part of your own due diligence he said, I need to get some other state where there's a strict liability and see what's going on in their insurance market for dams. No, I didn't. I only knew about this on Friday so I do apologize but I did do some research and I know that there's a lot of concern either strictly from the engineers who come out and inspect the locations like there's there's a ripple effect, whether that creates just an unintentional issue, I could certainly look into the other states that may have strict liability for dams I'm not aware of any, but perhaps out west there may be some case law that support that so I could do that and share Yeah, that would be very I mean, I thank you on behalf of the committee, if you could take a look at other jurisdictions that might have strict liability, figure out what's going on insurance market where we're obviously not interested in creating an insurable, right, you know, we don't know what the consequence are. Okay, someone will end up paying for a catastrophic. So what's the smartest way and the fairest way to manage that cost I think it's really what's behind but we're looking into. Thank you chair break. Thank you Miss Merritt. So I have a few questions, but my first one is you're describing that there would be a ripple effect that would happen for engineers who are looking at, I assume, ensuring the safety of dams. What is the ripple effect you're referring to, because to me it feels like the most likely outcome is that they would be more proactive for looking for concerns rather than less proactive so if you could describe what you need by negative ripple effect for engineers that would be helpful. Sure, I'm speaking only in terms of the insurance coverage so from an insurance carriers point of view, if an engineering firm is doing the inspections, and they are inspecting dams, if it's strict liability, there is most likely if there's a big event that the person who inspected the dam in addition to the utility would be pulled into it and so there may be impact. I was reading again ahead of time. Yesterday, I'm regarding some verbiage on one of the dam safeties websites that was articulating some problems associated with the engineering firms again I'm not here representing them. I'm only representing Burlington Electric but I could certainly share that if that's helpful to everybody. Yes, I think I understand what you were describing now you're saying that the engineers could also then be held liable. And they may not have difficulty obtaining coverage for dam inspections therefore they would be less likely to do them, or the cost would be higher. That's kind of where I'm saying that it creates strict liability in the insurance world is not something that we look forward to, because it's difficult to ensure that's all. That makes sense. It makes complete sense from the insurance point. And then my other question is, any event now of a catastrophic event, let's say, you know, not a terrible thing, but what would happen? The insurance company would look whether, again, we're talking about Burlington Electric, whether they did all of the right things but regardless of that the insurance policy doesn't have a provision that says you have to do the right things for coverage to trigger. It assumes that you're doing them because in the underwriting of the policy. So every year, we're gathering information and depending on the amount of time that we need the inspection. So whatever the FERC requirements are, the carriers are looking for that information. If there's something that comes out of the inspection, they want the utility to make sure that they're fixing it or addressing it promptly because they don't want to be on the hook for something that happens. So your example, something bad happens right now, we would have liability coverage. So Burlington Electric and or anybody was damaged because of that. There's liability that's ahead of Burlington Electric. Obviously, if there's a terrible event, it may exceed any liability limits that anybody has, but that's a separate issue. That's a decision on Burlington Electric on what liability limits to have. But we would have coverage versus if we have no coverage than Burlington Electric on the hook financially, which means that ultimately I would assume that flows down to the right pair. Okay. It was helpful. I think I'm thinking about it from a different vantage point that you're able to speak to. So perhaps I'll ask this question to someone else, but it just seems it feels a little bit. I don't have a threat to be like, if you do strict liability, you don't get coverage anymore. That feels kind of nasty to me, but I understand that's how insurance works, I guess. So, but that is the frame you're setting up here is that if we move to strict liability essentially you do not believe that you would be able to ensure VED anymore. The dam is specifically not the whole entity, but the dam. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I'm talking about the dam specifically so the carrier could just choose to exclude that exposure. We would have to try to secure coverage elsewhere for that particular exposure. If the, you know, the pricing and availability, right, so that's a little bit of an unknown since we've had haven't had to do that in the past. Thank you. So maybe this is a different way of framing it, but in terms of, I guess it's really the same thing, but like in terms of coverage for, you know, you know, how many people that were potentially adversely impacted by catastrophic violence, the likelihood of help or reimbursement is actually better if we stay with negligence versus strict liability. That's what I'm trying to not so clearly say, but that was kind of where I was going. It wasn't to say that you can have coverage is just that language makes a different in the insurance world. Okay. Thank you. And just make sure I'm following all the way through. So if a dam has been properly inspected, it's been being safe, et cetera, no negligence, but then there's a failure. You would, there is a, then that utility has money that it can put into compensating people who are damaged. That's right. Right. The insurance credit would look at everything, right? So sometimes we did all the right things, but we still could be fine negligent. We would have liability coverage because it's not excluded. So, right? So if the court say you are negligent, regardless of all the protocols that were followed, we'd have insurance coverage to pay that bill. So the insurance company be writing the check, not Burlington Electric for the first 11 million of damages. And so that is the benefit we're trying to save, if you will, because I think it's a benefit to the right payers personally. Sure. And it's like auto coverage.  So you have liability insurance to carry. You can pass up a failure, failure. Yeah. Not using word catastrophe. Yes. No one wants a catastrophe. So the last thing just to make sure I got this is if there were negligence found is then are you is the insurer off the hook and then then falls entirely to be. Not the, no, no, because we wouldn't be able to secure coverage if they weren't following a protocol. So the, the way the underwriting works is you have to do all the right things to get coverage. So there was a claim, and it was found that things weren't followed. We may have an issue at the next year's insurance renewal, but it wouldn't impact how they have to pay there on the hook for it because we did all we could at the beginning when we are underwrote the policy and they own the results so they wouldn't be waved from paying out if you will for lack of that way of saying it. So it's not necessarily negligence per se that determines whether or not there's a payout there covered and sweatshirts on the way to gaining that getting that coverage. Did they follow all the right protocols. Right, it's underwritten to make sure right because the carrier doesn't want if no one's doing anything and it's leaking and there's going to be a claim the carrier doesn't want to undertake that because that's a burning building on this case so. But a building that has a lot of holes in it they're not interested in sharing for that because that's a problem on their end so. Okay, thanks for the new clarifications. If you, if you have a little time to look into some of those other say my name is strict liability standard and what's happening insurance in those markets that will be. Of course, of course, anything in support. So, of course, great. So that completes our unless there's anyone in the room, the shilling I see you here so I don't know if you're here to say a rest of the conversation or you wanted to chip in happy to take your comment. Thank you. Mostly here to stay abreast of the conversation. There is one remaining issue will be effective. Oh, sure. This was shilling. I'm going to turn around. I don't know if you want to wait for the council to walk you through the latest changes that have been made to the bill regarding the effective dates. Sure, but so you're flying cross potential effective dates. Yeah, there's just an issue with the effective dates because as it's drafted now it's an iterative transition. So the commission would need to maintain our jurisdiction under chapter 43 until all of the dance transfer day and I'm okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the room to buy this morning out of dance and reliability. Great. Thank you everyone. So we are going to change here and move to bill at 290 and actually the committee on them commercial action planning. Another bill, the same arena, but so. I think we're going to get a piece for us. So that's just too bad. Morning, Senator Perchler. Good morning. So you can stay. So we were, everyone's getting happens right now. This is the 90 year bill and here's a trial dance alive. a lot of sessions and including things like emergency preparedness. So happy to hear what you were thinking. And the civilian walkthrough of your bill, and the history of radio, here's the legal one. Yeah, okay. Thank you very much, Senator from Washington District. This bill, some of the background is that I live in Marshfield, Marshfield as a dam. When I was on the volunteer fire department years ago, there was an event where we had an emergency van where we thought that might top over, there might be, you know, so much water over topping the dam. There's questions about, would that risk the dam? But even regardless of that, enough water topped over would take out several bridges through the channel, both Marshfield and Plainfield. But then we started thinking, so after that event, we didn't top over, we didn't have any problems. But we were going door to door, people along with river quarter warning them that this might happen tonight, so we had to be careful. So that just generated a lot of discussion about what's the responsibility for Marshfield, for Plainfield, Denise Montalier, and Montalier, if something happens. So we had, like, maybe the smallest town responsible for the emergency of the dam that affects towns that are much bigger and want to prepare to have more emergency and bigger buildings. So that was kind of some of the background. Yeah. This bill can make a good question. Sure. So that's a GMP dam, right? Yes. Yes, they have emergency action election plans, you know, they're part of them. The new rule that's going in their way, that's why it's an emergency action. They asked the repair, I don't know if that can be current law as well. Yeah. We're not on the slide board. I do remember we were getting their plan. Yeah. They were required to send it to the town. So that was some of the background. And then Representative Mahaly, when he got elected, that represents Marshfield, like Bill McAllister, the same kind of people approached him and said, like, well, we don't know if we're really got that one. So he started looking at it. And so this language, I think is identical or very close to the language that he introduced in the House. Okay. So that's, you know, kind of where the language came from and the work that he had done about a study to see, like, how do we deal with this regionalization of the issues around a dam that doesn't affect just the town of dam is but affects everybody that's true. Okay. Do you agree to study? Basically agree to study committee, JFO, fiscal office, especially operations, you know, how the town of town, the committee, the committee needs, you know, it's like, where are these kind of the stands and different recommendations on how to meet forward. Okay. And the end, was it last year? You know, it was not. It wasn't in the Senate. It might have been done in the House. So will we get a date? Any, so basically thinking about how those were actually planning to communicate in a coordinated way, because more than one town needs to be aware of what's going on in the play. Right. You know, this is the dam owner's responsibility to identify each town and then, you know, is there a better way for the towns to communicate that each, each, you know, emergency response to those towns? I think the way it was back then what happened is somebody from GFB tried to contact them in each town. And I don't even know if they did contact the towns below the downstream. Right. Like, I don't know if Montpelier got a call. I don't think so. I think only Marshall got a call. And so we were notifying people right there. And then through mutual aid, you probably feel the most not feel you heard about that, but I don't feel you're not on the way to them. But that was the concern. So that, but that was brought up again to represent a mahal. I do that like let's forget this out. Yeah. Is this could a study committee help. And so as far as who's on the committee and some of the specifics, you know, I'm not way to show it to your committee to work on. We've got changes there. That would be fun. Thank you. It makes sense to me. Thank you. Really glad that we're taking this up. One of the changes that I am just anticipating, which I assume would be not a big deal is like, so well, actually, I have two questions. So one is it references a regional emergency action plan. And I assume that that doesn't exist yet. Like there are emergency action plans that the dams are required to prepare. And I know they're going through a process of like, how those should be dealt with. But but I am assuming that this is sort of imagining a new level of plan that would go beyond towns, which is just addressing the emergency action. Right. So it mentions they are VCs is the end of life. And so and then so in the list of one of things that should be in that regional action plan, but the things that just, you know, like I'm anticipating maybe adding is like notification responsibilities who doesn't fall on to send out the, you know, something's happening. So kind of older. Yeah. Yeah. Just think of them. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very supportive of this bill passing. And whenever format, it needs to be passed. And I'm wondering, there's been a conversation about its best location. And this, and I apologize, I was out of the room. I assume you're considering adding this to S 213. Well, I met with Senator Hardy this weekend, and we were talking about how there's, you know, in government operations here, what we had a response to flooding bills. So I don't know if it becomes more of a municipal government bill and it travels in something you're doing, or if it's kind of this bill, I don't think that feels to me like it could go either way. But, you know, so we should chase down, you're both on the box. Yeah. So if you could talk with, I've already mentioned this as a chair, maybe while you're in there, more conversations and see if it's the fit is better in what you're already doing there, or if it's an add-on here. I think, Mr. Chair, I would defer to your preference on this as the chair of the committee. I truly do not know strategically between the two committees, which one makes more sense. And I do think it's with the municipal piece more relevant to go box, but it got referred here. So, okay, you know, maybe as a civil, it should go in this bill. So we don't have to move it all around. But I really would be concerned that we lose it in the shuffle. That's my main anxiety at the moment. Okay. I would have been like, I can not lose it in the shuffle. You really leave me all at the end of the chair. All right. Okay. Any other questions for Senator Bursal? Thanks for being here. Thank you for inviting me. We'd like to move over to the committee. Anybody in transportation? Yeah, me too. Mr. Reed. Thanks for coming. You're going to walk us through. Bill is in. So, one of, this is my review. Let's say, one of the things that Senator Bursal did in reference that the committee will also look at is the cost. In the new phase for municipal costs, firing and quickening, firing, the training that municipal fire departments and other responders need to be prepared for possible hazards posed by the dam failure. So, that is another one of the driving forces in this study committee. So, you'll see that it's a special law for study committee. If they're needed to review and recommend how to improve regional emergency action, I think, should also be thought by the dam failure, including how to shift the responsibility for planning. There's individual municipalities and regional authorities. There is an age person committee created by House member, Senate member, somebody from DEC Dam Protection, someone from PUC, two representatives of regional planning commissions, one member of the division of emergency math from the Department of Public Safety, and one legal owner of a dam, put in by a speaker from the recommendation of the dam safety program. On page three, you'll see the powers of the study committee. They will identify those dams that are high hazards. So, you already know that the state has identified the dams, but they, this committee would also identify those that would have a significant possibility of what a populated area. So, that is part of what a high hazard dam is. If it fails, will it run populated areas, but now they're going to make a determination, which have a significant possibility of that. Senator, what's your name? I was wondering about that, because that's, it's not a reference to condition. It's just, like, that's a part of the definition of a high hazard dam.  I probably would recommend you talk to the dam safety program about whether they can clarify that.  Yeah, right. Yeah, exactly. Like, if we can match that with, like, high, some of the, well, I don't know. Right. So, Mr. Green was talking to us about, there was a high hazard dam, well, yeah, I think the potential loss of life was, like, one person, for that one person, that's a big deal. But then there was, like, the water barrier that was, like, 1500 people, but they still both were, they had the same high hazard dam. Right, right. The philosophy of this is probable. So moving on, Page 3 of our date, the committee's also going to summarize the existing municipal responsibilities for emergency planning and implementation, including how those responsibilities are funded or the place of responsibility with individual municipalities just per real. I think you've heard Senator Thurston basically framing that issue. Should Marchfield be responsible for following the towns and the dams larger? Sure. Then Page 3 of line 12, they will identify the regional planning commissions and which a dam identified on the subdivision one is located. They will recommend the content for a regional emergency action plan for each dam identified on the sub one, including the necessary evacuations, sheltering, the location of emergency management sensors. They will recommend who should prepare a regional action plan for each dam, identified on the sub one, including the basis for the recommendation on the role of regional planning commissions. Then they will have an estimate of the cost of the production of these regional emergency action plans, an estimate of the costs for regional planning commissions. We need to support these to implement, including a recommended source of funding. They get all the assistance from us, your legislative staff, legislative operations will do planning, JFO fiscal, legislative council, legal. Generally, we've been trying to move away from legislative staffing committees where there's only one member of the house, the one member of the Senate. This was the request of the sponsor from the House. There is a date in here that needs to be changed, Page 4 of line 14. It says honored according to Senate 15253. That should be 12.4. No. Well, that's our task, and we'll put those into 15 years. The study may submit a report to the General Assembly, any of their recommendations. When it comes to the first meeting, the committee selects its own chair, study committee ceases to exist on March 1, 2024. That has to change as well. And then you all need compensation and reimbursement as soon as you've been on, that's obviously not for us. Whatever transition away from which council staffing when there's only one House, one Senate or one or two, whatever, is that a capacity issue for that? It is. It is. We're trying to limit allow work. I just really saw a space between September and November. There's some other stuff going on this month. Okay. I have a request. Thank you for all you're doing. We can find a mill set after the council and then both keep spreading. But that won't work so far. I see another bill. I'm going to see her. All right. Any questions from Sir Ray? Okay. This seems like one of those things that you would imagine might already be happening. Well, the thing I would recommend is talking to the mission of emergency management and how they coordinate their statewide plans. Every there is a statewide plan, every agency, I assume the PUC is supposed to contribute to that if each agency has what's called an annex to that plan and how they will address the relevant subject matter or jurisdiction centered under their authority. But it's a statewide plan. It's a regional. I don't know how it interfaces with each individual dance versus the action plan and how and when that responsibility shifts to the state if it ever really does. I think you're right. I almost. Okay. Do you get the comment on jurisdiction? Do you know any of our committees of jurisdictions? Is that are you know, but are you able to comment on that? I know what every committee's jurisdiction is, but the where adult goes is really up to the president of the senate upon the recommendation of the secretary of the senate after consultation with the prototype. But you could see maybe it existing in both then a gov ops and this committee, perhaps that would be a fair choice they could make. It would. I mean, I under I, you know, talk to respond to me a little bit about what's going on in the box. And then you could see the steam in that. I can see the spirit in that book. I could see it in the list of this. You're doing a dam safety revision. And this relates to dam safety. You're also doing municipal response revision was released. So whose responsibility in this whole regional. Thank you very much for this. Thank you. Regardless of whether it's a QC regulated dam or a PNR regulated dam, they use the same dam safety rules. Generally kind of rule related to dams because I think about where's the action plan required. That's in our current dam safety rule. So yes, but I don't know if he has adopted those rules as their own. I don't think they have. I think they still have their own dam safety rules. I was just chilling with the Vermont. So we do have our own separate dam safety rules. They were updated not that long ago to include some updates. The NRB took their names, dam safety rules. Our rules have a provision, a very short provision requiring emergency plans for the high and the high and significant dams. Is it pretty much. So I'm just wondering while we're doing housekeeping kind of organized, if we should think about. I've been making sure that the NRB, regulated dams and the PNC regulated dams have the same kind of coordinated response. So as the S213 is drafted right now, we would be transferring this jurisdiction to ANR very shortly. So actually, if the committee were to proceed with S290, we would look to actually be removed from that committee because we would not be maintaining a jurisdiction over dam safety. Makes sense. And although we didn't, I didn't quite ask this question, but we'll ask it while we're all together. Is the PNC have a position on that transmission of dam management oversight from your area to ANON? Sure. We'd like to expedite that transition but are open to different plan frames. So Brett, I think, and I don't want to speak to you, but you testified that you supported the bill 213, but there's the issue of the effect of DIC. Yeah, right. And that is the advocates that proposed a tiered effect of DIC, which really means the PUC would have to maintain jurisdiction until 2028. To the last day. Right. So that is, my email earlier said, I didn't fix it, right, but it needs to fix it. Yeah, part of the game. Any other questions for the council on this bill? So we've been trying to go on, but we, the next center of rock has asked to move off his introduction of S294, an activity in minimum time frame. So I have applications related to development housing. So we'll reschedule that. And we're actually just about right on time to go to the other next scheduled thing. In fact, that's 2013. And we got with Nick Daly on wetlands where we ran for a five second last week. So how long does we take to do the three minutes break? I don't know. People have been stepping in and out. But is that an athlete that sources energy? Day is the 6th of February. By resuming our work on SB 13 and activating the regulation on wetlands. We've recorded that in Dan Fakie. We're going to follow up with Mr. Grady has provided us with a new draft of the bill. So help us all get back on the same page. Ask him to walk us through the current draft. Make sure that we're truly in sync with what we all knew our athletes searched. 3.20 in this draft. 2.1, I understand, 2.5, 24, 25 cm. That's right. I don't know what we're committing to do. We have looked. You have a copy. If it's easy enough for you to do that, we stream it that other people can watch it on the website or on the website. Whatever you want to join us, I can put it up. It's not a hassle to do that. Just so that anyone listening put out a piece of paper, we'll see what we're looking for. Just one second. They're asking. I'm going to tell them I have to fill you in. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that we do that set up. I'm thinking we're going to do it this way. We're going to speak sooner. I'm afraid of closure. We're good. Great. Thank you. So this is my grade. I'll let him say to pass me on view. We've got 2.1 dated yesterday at 2.35 pm. So I can walk through the changes, but I can also give you a broad overview of everything, whatever you would prefer. I think if we could do the broad overview as well, I think maybe it's got more time on the changes. So that might really see the bill as a pull. The first few seconds relate to wetlands management in the state and practically the first six sections and how that policy would be changed. Section one is the general policy for the wetlands section. It had previously said the water and water resources and wetlands management policy, but it was proposed to strike wetlands because wetlands are water resources. One of the things that is made the change made in page one, trying to work in 15, is to say that the policy of the state is now a net gain of wetland acreage. That's a big part of what happens with the remaining sections. There's a section two, an addition of dam removal for the wetlands definition because that would be an activity that will be addressed under permitting of activities in wetlands. The section three is an update of the month significant wetlands inventory match currently. The A&R is supposed to revise these maps every time they make a determination, but they don't or at least not in a timely way. What the section now requires that they annually update those significant wetlands inventory maps and advisory backing there is on the resource Atlas annually and they will include specific reference material or files. Mr. Grady, when you say make a determination, so this is when a permit is coming in and now they're outfound truth in the best part of the permit making for property determination? So a permit and an application can come in on an area that the agency has already determined is a wetland. A permit application can come in on an area where it's not certain as of yet whether the area is a wetland and the agency has the ability and existing statute based on the significant values of functions being offered whether to designate that as a class two wetland and then require a permit. On page three, line three, you have the agency reporting back if a high quality wetland's inventory by January 1, 2030 with all of the tax proceeds until the date. Then there were several sections that were removed based on advocate recommendations. A subsection of notice was removed, a subsection on a five-year method. This mapping we done on a five-year cycle was removed and the authority for the agency to seek funds is all strong. Page three, section four, this is the net gains provision. So as a condition of a permit for activity in a wetland, the secretary shall require the net gain of wetlands. And then in the wetland rules, the wetlands rule shall prioritize the protection of existing impact wetlands from development. They want to know that the wetland rules don't define development. The wetland rules are they permit activity for uses of the wetland. I think I don't think development is even used in the wetland rules. So you may want to change that terminology development is not a term used in the wetland rules. You know, suggested term that I can get that same kind of activity or when we cross-graph it's something else that exists. I think it's use of their activity or impact. But I wouldn't use development. I'll tell you why you shouldn't use development in a minute. Page three, line 20. Thank you. The lighting wouldn't be development. It would be an authorized use under wetland rules. In a minute, you're going to get to a definition of development where lighting is development. And the storage of those logs is development. And so I'm fearful of you going out to the floor where there's a wetlands permit required and where the term development is used. And then later on you can find development as it's defined under FEMA, which includes any grading, paving, excavating, or storage of materials. I am concerned that you would raise this base. Sweeping up too many days. The other thing on bottom of page three, line 2021, that is of change is that there's a 5,000 square foot provision that's been added where a permanent activity within a wetland that is larger than 5,000 square feet will cause adverse effects that cannot be avoided. The secretary shall mandate that the permanent activity of storage of pants or create wetlands or boxers to compensate for adverse effects on wetland. A 5,000 square feet threshold is a new threshold. That is not currently in the wetlands rules. Generally the threshold where there is a threshold and there isn't always a threshold, the threshold doesn't always apply. It's 2,500 square feet. But if those rules also say that if a wetland is significant, not 2,500 square feet, it can still be regular. So you're saying with this language that the neck gains requirement and the requirement to restore and enhance or create wetlands to compensate for adverse effects only applies when that is within a wetland that's larger than 5,000 square feet regardless of its significance. Even if it's class 1. It doesn't say that. So it doesn't distinguish between class 1 and class 2. This is just it has to be larger than 5,000 square feet. Could be a class 1, the way that the sign could reach. Thank you. Not at all. A ninth of an eighth or a tenth, I don't know. Remember it's not really easy to get any permanent to do anything in a class 1 wetland. So you're probably not going to trigger it. But it doesn't say that. The other addition to what she'll let be mentioned is also the title of great issues were the language to hear or to regulate a wetland that met the definition of the wetland or at least properly and by statute excluded from the definition of the wetland. So Barling is both an exemption and an allowance. So if you are in a wetland doing activity that grows food or crosses connection with farming activities, that is exempt. But that has to occur prior to a certain date. It has to occur prior to 19 and not even be continued. If it doesn't meet the exemption, it's an allowance. So farming is an allowed use. So whether or not a title hearing is allowed to send on which one you're following. If you're following the exemption or the allowed use, you're not supposed to convert a wetland into a non-wetland state. But if you were exempt for 1990, did you already have a title hearing in that land that title very good remain? But with the dollar grades going in daily, remain not being allowed. There should be a map when there is activity as the other question. There's no requirement to have the installation of title drinks. Oh, there's no map, no title drinks. Not an existing one. Going into the future, your nutrient match for plant is supposed to identify the ripade on. But as soon as you know where they are, it won't. And as soon as you know where they are. Well, people put it in though where they are, but the regulators. Some of them are not know where they are. And this is getting larger day by day. So going into the future, your nutrient match for plant is supposed to identify that. But there are places that come out of fields where people don't know where the inlet is. And so they don't really know how to match that. They're going into the future means when. So every time your permit needs to be revised. Your NK. Yeah. Because he's like, do you use? Well, for a large farm, it's pretty much everything. Okay. And if you had. When you have to revise your NMP, if you have no additional title drinks in the prior year, you have an obligation in your NMP to identify pre-existing. Excellent. No, I don't need to give. Okay. Um, so you'll see the two to one provision there on page. Four and then again, the 5,000 square foot threshold is it's added on page four line for fueling. And then there's the directive to A&R to amend the wetland goals on page five and how to do that. And then you get to the wetlands permanent program or four. Oh, another change page six line six. It's not highlighted because it was made in the previous draft. But you're moving this, the compensation and the in lieu of compensation program and where that money can be spent for projects that happen in a, in a hot 12 level. And now you moved it to a hot eight level. So a hot eight is actually a smaller basin than the hot 12. No, no, the hot eight is actually the larger basin. Oh yeah, you're right. So the hot eight is the sub basin, right? That's okay, got it. Mr. Chair, if folks are interested, one of our witnesses was kind enough to give me the maps to show the hockey versus the hot 12 for our area or at least the link to do it. So I believe you can do that in your own districts if folks are interested. It was very helpful to see this. So thank you. So moving on page six, line eight, section 919. They're having one report from the program. Now there are two. The first report begins on April 30th of 2025. And it's on annual losses and gains of significant wetlands in the state. The location and acreage of best two, like the houses, gains, site visits, permit issue, enforcement, not the mitigation strategy number of site visits, subdivision divide and subdivision three, or if you put it there, the same site by which one can go. The second report begins on a report in 30, 27, and every five years thereafter. And that's an analysis of historical trends effectively on the status of wetlands in the state, the results of the NWI mapping, and relevant updates in class 1, class 2. Right, let me turn. Chapter page 8, section 5. This is just amending a specific enforcement section in chapter 47 for water quality resources and adding wetlands as a specific reference. A couple of years ago, you added wetlands and being protected by the water quality standards. So I think it is appropriate to add wetlands as being protected by the enforcement authority in 10 USA 1274 AGS. And then on page 10, this is where you get to development and river corridors. Actually, before I go, section 6 is an appropriation section. It's $500,000 for staffing for wetlands and $500,000 for mapping. As you all know, this will require a bill to go to the appropriations by release. Then the development and river corridors. These sections would implement a program by which the state would require a permit for development in a flood hazard area or river corridor. Remember, this is the definition of development from FEMA and not your definition of development from Title 24 or under Act 250. The definition of development in the FEMA NFIP program is, any man may change to improve or un-improve real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, gaming, excavation, or drilling operations, or stored of equipment or materials. So that is what's going to need a state permit if it's going to be located in the flood hazard area, which flood hazard areas already require this kind of activity to have a permit. It's stung through the municipality, though. But it's going forward in the map river corridor, which is on page 11, the river corridor drawn in and adopted by ANR is part of the statewide river corridor based map layer, in accordance with the flood hazard area and river corridor protection procedure for streams and rivers with a watershed greater than two square miles. That will now require a state permit for that definition of development. Whether or not these rules will allow for a permit that's already issued by the agency for this activity to satisfy this permit requirement is unknown because, for example, the stormwater permit program requires a permit for grading. If you're going to disturb more than a half an acre of earth, it requires a permit for paving. It may require a permit for excavation, so will those permits or the general permits for those activities satisfy this permit? I don't know. So, I don't think you're flagged. So, could you get to that? What was that? Could you point me again to the definition that was included but not limited to? So, the definition is just a cross-reference to the federal citation. That's page 10, line 11, the 44 CFR 59.1. And not in that federal site. Sure. It's ending the NMA change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling operation, or storage of equipment or materials. So, this is the definition that FEMA uses for its NFIP program, because this is when in conjunction with other requirements in NFIP, this is when there's a risk of flood, a flood risk or harm from flooding because of an activity within or increased flood risk. Remember, some of you might remember when they put who passes up in the interval, FEMA came and said, no, that's an increased flood risk because you creased the soil or stirred the soil to an extent that there's like a two-inch difference. And therefore, that triggered FEMA's NFIP program. You're going to have, these rules are going to have to address all that kind of stuff. And it's not addressed in the statute, you can direct the agency to adopt those rules on page 11, land 17, on report January 1, 2026, the Secretary adopts rules pursuant to the APA. The established requirements for issuing enforcement permits for development within the flood hazard area are not for the coroner in the state. Now, the state already has a program where it permits this development in a flood hazard area, but it's only this development that's exempt from municipal regulation. Elizabeth is the one that adopted and directed those rules. But this is expanding it from not just that development that's exempt from municipal regulation that's going to be state regulated. It's all development and it's in a wider area. Entire flood hazard areas? Well, no, not river corridor, which could be broader. It also could be, it could be narrow, but it could be broader. And what you're also probably going to trigger here and it's perverse is that you're probably going to require, it's going to lead to people in the map river corridor getting flood insurance. And what's perverse is that their insurance rate will be less than what the insurance rate is for the people that live in the flood hazard. Because that's how FEMA does it. FEMA is like, when it's not mandated, they want to incent it. And they incent it by having a lower rate for people that are outside the flood hazard area. So you're going to create probably an incentive for people to get flood hazard insurance and it'll be at a rate that's less than what's in the flood hazard area. So once a carat, now it's going to be obligatory and because you're going to be in a flood, you're going to get the better rate. You're going to get a better rate. Moving on from there, one of the things that it will do is on page, the rules will do. It'll set forth a process and collaboration with ACCD. And that reference to collaboration with the ACCD is new and regional planning commissions for amending the statewide river car base map to identify areas within existing development settlements. It's suitable for development that will not cause or contribute to increases of legal erosion hazards. But remember development is just storage of materials. And dredging or grading. And so the structure of foul grains is a definition. I tell them about the answer to that question. You could combine everything. These towel grains relate to a CSO event or a courage and black dawn zone. So I didn't question what's going to be identified or is. I just don't know. So are you expressing something to turn over that sensitivity of this trigger maybe two cents of a trigger that we're going to. I know many activities that. I think if we want to make that the trigger, that's your policy decision. I think you should know what that means. Yeah. Well, I'm appreciative of that. I'm just wondering if you're finding it for us. And when you do that sometimes it's like I didn't want you to know what the bill was. Hey, that's all I want you to. I just want you to know that the bill is going to have a definition that's broader than what you likely consider to be development that is now going to apply to all activities. And that Matt River Carter. And it's not just the municipal exempt activities that are in the flood hazard area. I didn't look at you. Probably it's what the bill does. And I gather that when a swamp is designated, the bill says people shouldn't make it less swampy than it is. So what the bill says, this was all right. There are other requirements that provide that. That we can't change the character of the land. Well, there's no references. Those are part of the truth. It does. They're going to lose. But then it's more nuanced than that. Well, it's, you know, it's, it's what we are stuck with. It's just nuanced. I don't know where the line is. I don't know where it is. It's a good thing. Every time we're in the line is for tile drains. And there's a whole study committee a couple of years, though. We'll come figure out where the line is. Well, but we could get an interval record of tile drains. So you can't find the tile drains. There was. Where you know where the line was. You couldn't apply it because they're secret there. Um, I'm questioned. I'm found. I think I'm having a runtime processing some of this. And I, so I apologize for my, my thickness here. But you're not alone. Okay. So page 12 1117 references development. This is for reading. Uh, so this is the process for, um, Mending the map to identify areas within the existence of the suitable for development will not cause. It should be to an increases in fluvial erosion hazards. So the development there. Like us, but we should be tweaking increases. So. This, when we use this for development. I mean, when I, so just generally speaking, aside from the federal definition, I think of development as like housing, commercial, you know, buildings, right?  Um, the federal definition is broader than that. Includes paving like anything with Rose. It sounds like it even includes, you know, putting up the hoop houses. The intervail includes staffing or pay those. Okay. Um, so, but this. And so all of all of that activity would now be regulated by the state. In river corridors, which presumably in most places are going to be bigger than the flood hazard areas. That may not be true. But in most places, that would probably be true. And so this is a process. Well, probably to general permanent. For how you do certain types of activities for other activities. You're going to need to move away the federal. That's what it's going to be. It's going to be a statewide permanent program for this type of development. Within the map here in Florida. So it's going to be duplicative of municipal funding of development. So you would need vote. So it's, you know, it can't be doing that. They are, I mean, not taking it away from this panel. You're not taking away. Their ability to, to require a permit for development of your own. Okay. So they need both potentially depending on what it is. Okay. And does this mean that if you wanted to, I feel like it's a little bit tricky because that might also be a farming practice, which I mean, which is development, which is development. So there's a definition of team. Okay. So that would not be exempt. It's not. The current is regulated under under the state river corridor because it is exempt from municipal regulation. They already, they already regulate certain farming practices. Okay. And so like, let's say somebody wants to put up a loop house in the river corridor, they need a permit. They would, because it's going to potentially increase the, the flood risk. You know, I mean, I can get you the current state river corridor rule, which identifies these activities and says you shouldn't be located in a flood hazard area of where you have to do them in a certain way in order to be authorized. That's what your current does, but that's only for that development. That's exact for municipal regulation. You're now going to say that they're all about development. And that's policy choice. It's all, it's up to you.  So we can't, we can't, you know, it's different.  Well, it's got to be on this map by the A&R's program, right? You see that on page 11 of what that map of the corridor is, which is definition, it's a corridor drawn and adopted by A&R as part of the state river corridor, a base map layer in accordance with the flood hazard area under the part that you can choose your maps. So they may not get to your streams or their fall streams, their parks, etc. It's going to be one in map by A&R.  It has to be, it has to have a watershed area greater than two square miles. Yes. So there's a lot of digest here. So I know where we're going to operate or think about the water. And this is a program that A&R said that they would be significant sad. So let's sort of acknowledge that it's a little bit of a lift and creating two just so we have a sense of the bill. And we will come back. Right, so let's move out of the map river corridor program. And you know, I'm Dan C. in page 17. So there are a lot more sections being amended here. Effectively, you're amending the entire chapter. So page 17, line four, that's what it does. It amendments the entire chapter. There are some sections that don't change, like 1079 on line six. On page 17, where the purpose section is laid out. But I thought it was helpful in the purpose of the chapters to protect public safety and provide them public good. There's a little six here for context. Yeah, that's just what I think you've done. Great. And that's not an excerpt that is the entire, that the entire purpose of this, of this chapter. One of the, what the main thing that this chapter does is it shifts responsibility for dams in the state from what it was called the state agency having jurisdiction. And now jurisdiction for dam safety is going to be with the Department of Environmental Conservation Dam Safety Program. And the PUC will no longer have jurisdiction over dam safety. The PUC retains authority over the CPG and any activity related to the CPG and the generation of electricity. So you will see very similar changes throughout this chapter beginning on page 19, line 12, where the powers for the jurisdiction is now limited to the Department. Any reference to the PUC is struck. So unless otherwise provided, the powers and duties authorized by this chapter shall be exercised by the Department of Environmental Conservation. So I just want to understand how to reason the bill. This does not have, this does not say that we're deleting the line words that can be valid. You're going to see provisions in here that's supposed to be referenced that the PUC retains its authority over CPG generation. So what is it? The line right up here, you know, that section, the 10 DSHF is amended to read. So this is sort of like what we do with the constitutional amendment. It passes. This is what the law has said. Rather than adding in the reading from the system law. Now that you are adding in the reading from the system law. But we're not stating the deletion. We're saying if this bill passes, this is what the law has said. And we'll no longer say the part we're deleting. That's correct. Is this the normal process? Right, but often we do smaller changes than this. And then you have the actual, the little deserve our strength. And that's probably happened a lot. Right. I mean, page 19, lines 15 through 20, the jurisdiction is struck. Right. An existing law of the PUC. Exactly. That's being struck. That's what I was looking for. All right. So you'll see just, I'm doing it quickly through this, that a lot of these changes are really just changing state agency, having jurisdictions, the department for removing any reference to the PUC with regard to safety. Page 24, product four, PEC is the one going to be issuing CPGs for grant safety for any of the activities that require a dam safety order, construction of care, renovation, etc. related to safety. Then on page 26, line seven, 1087. This is a current requirement that the state agency having jurisdiction shall be currently vacant schoolway required to employ an engineer to investigate the property, renew the plan. So the line which here was direct that DEC shall require an engineer to investigate the property. Engineer conducting the investigation shall be an employee of the department or shall be operating on the supervision of the department as an independent consultant. So DEC can hire consultants if they don't have the engineer staffing within the agency. Similarly, on page 26, line 18, with the approval of the governor, DEC may require an engineer to investigate the property, review the plans and specifications, and make additional investigations. That engineer shall be operating under the control of the department. And then you get to the big section on page 27, line 13, 1091, liability for dam reach. And it's going to be whatever standard you launch for a good point through the standard. Currently, we've already discussed how I think it can be read as strict liability for high hazard and negligence for all others. And I don't need to go through that again, right? I mean, well, we have more to figure out, but I suggest here and on. There are changes to the unsafe dam fishing language, but it's really just clarified by who has jurisdiction and then the hearing. You'll see in these changes that it looks like all the hearing requirements are going away. They're not. They're just being moved to AMR's default standard provisions, which already require certain types of public notice and hearing for certain types of activities. You're not moving public notice and hearing. It's already incorporated in that standard procedures. So it's in a way just bringing the hearing process into the standard process. Yeah, because you have done this, a general summary of government for me, free of our program. Instead of setting out what the enforcement authority, the appeal authority and the public notice authority is in every single chapter that AMR implements. You just move everything to one chapter. There's one enforcement chapter, one appeals chapter and one public notice chapter. And then you list other those chapters, which provisions apply. DEC is going to do inspection of dams. There was new language added based on the auditor's report at the bottom of page 30, 19, when the dam filled by the state, DEC provides the inspection report to the designated point of contact for the dam. And then board notice of unsafe dam, same thing in other auditor recommendations with the state agency adding jurisdiction over the dam. That should say the department determines that the state is unsafe and in need of repair, the department shall immediately notify the designated point of contact of the state. The DEC allows the dam to make some provision available. There were significant changes to the unsafe dam revolving loan fund. It's not just the dam safety revolving loan fund. It's not just that your dam is unsafe. It will provide low or zero interest loans, including subsidized loans. Funds from the fund shall be available for both emergency and non-emergency projects. There are conditions for the use for emergency funding and then there are conditions for non-emergency funding. A lot of this you've seen before, Tyler, I think because there were some tweets, obviously, really to the organization to make it work a little bit better. But most cities' substance is the same as what you've seen before. I'll just move very quickly because it's hard. I've turned it on. Is the designation of unsafe, appealable? Yes. How does that work? Any act or decision on secretary is appealable under 10 BSA Chapter 2 of 5. So until that appeal was worked through, it's grossly environment-saver. Right. It's a general overview. You have the opportunity to show your facts or engineering analysis that supports that it's not safe. We're going to have a system out of tune. Okay. I think we can move on to Dan's safety point. You're in basin planning requirement that the state conduct basin planning to continue the planning process along with Federal Clean Water Act. Satisfied by A&R being basin plans reach up to 15 watersheds. One of the things that the basin plan will now be required to include is to identify opportunities to mitigate impacts of severe recidivation events, meaning needs for implementation of nature-based restoration projects or practices that increase natural flow of water attenuation storage. So they're going to identify nature-based response practices. And that's feminine. I think it's a smart thing to do. If you're planning, you're already in the watershed. What about the current coming year left? A&R is given $350,000 in fiscal year 2025 from free and permanently both kind of fast-fired positions in McDonough City. This is Senator Westmansville, effectively. And then you get to the page. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the three new permanent full-time positions could be, you think, the temporary person in making them new? You can't just do that. I tried to do that originally. And then JFO told me, no, I can't do that. That I have to create three permanent service positions can't just be transformed into a full-time position because you have to have that full-time position appropriate or authorized at the agency. So that's why I read so many thoughts. The concept is to take those two limited-service and then they would be one of the or two of the three. But I couldn't just transform them or say that they will not be. But it's half of it. It looks like they'd be okay. Is that in addition to it would be? Right. Their budget would mean to be changed to reflect that. Sure. Thank you. So it's like if you felt that it tuned it already here, but it's an addition. Right. And then they would have to authorize all three of those positions. Members of them. Big Bill says at the beginning of it, no new positions are created unless authorized by this bill. So then you get to page 39 going on on page 40. This is the expanded polyester bone bill. I just directly put it in here. It's H373. It prohibits the use of expanded polystyrene bone unless it is totally encapsulated. So it can't be used for a buoy or a dock or a raft, etc. Unless the phone is coldly encapsulated. There are four or five jurisdictions depending on who you talk to that already do the state jurisdictions. Oregon, Washington, Florida, Carolina, maybe kind of see me. And then there's a ton of municipal church benches or two. I don't know how much detailing will be available to us. Thanks. We talked about it for a while, so we changed the visuals. Let's point out point one. Is there anything you want to call out to us in there? I mean, I think we had a handful of this, but we spent some time talking about corporations. I don't know if there's anything that the lawyer would say, here's something that may be controversial, or I'm sure no, you're actually making a big deal change by the next one. The one thing you should be be, some states, this is just perspective or some jurisdictions perspective, on page five, you'll see unused or replaced polystyrene bone shall be removed from the waters of the state, which shall be recycled or disposed of. So this is going to apply to existing uses. And so they will, it requires being based out. I'm looking at engineering state page five in our craft bill. Oh, and then the larger, I'm sorry. That's okay, let me show you where you are on. So it's the removal and water. Page 42, lines 11, unused. We have placed polystyrene bone. I think replaced is clear, but unused. I don't really know what that means. So this was, this was based on Washington state. One of those things I'd like to advise, you want needs to be removed, but because otherwise it's a perspective bill. So which page was 40, 42, line 11, interesting that Washington was way in here because, of course, I was going to ask us about the floating bridge that Washington is the only other floating bridge in the United States. And the last floating bridge in Brookfield had this type of bone in it. The bridge is encapsulated in adequately. And that was one of the reasons that it ended up being replaced because the bridge was a second sticky. Well, you will see that there are encapsulation standards in this bill. Page 41, there can be gaps in the physical barrier covered provided that they are 0.1% or less of the square footage. Just kind of like a fiscal possibility of wrapping some of this stuff. There's not probably going to be a gap here or there. I don't think it has something else blown into the data. That's the leads. The leads are also covered by the division. It should be huge now. There's 50,000 that's appropriated from the general fund, TTC for staffing requirements. I don't know if 50 grand is enough for this or not. Then the effective dates. I don't do a lot of what's in the effective dates to a transition section, but the big decision you need to make here is with regard to when the jurisdiction over the PUC or dams shifts to DEC for purposes of safety. Right now, there's a schedule in here that said by July 1, 2025, the agency shall assume jurisdiction over dams with a high hazard classification. And then by July 1, 2028, the agency shall assume jurisdiction over all other dams. Well, that really means that the PUC retains jurisdiction over its current 21 dams until July of 2028. Well, no, some of them are high hazard, but you have to give them, they have to retain jurisdiction over dams until July of 2028. Because you're not transferring jurisdiction over all of the alts until July 20. What? Well, part of the reason is because DEC is concerned about their work. Because the DEC is adopting rules right now for dam repair, construction, etc., etc. And those rules left your you delay them until July 20, 2025, I believe. And so they don't want to be doing that rulemaking and then taking on the jurisdiction of the dams. And really, they're worried about the high hazard dams that the PUC has. So DEC won't be ready until then to take. I think they want, it kind of makes sense to have all the rules in place before the DEC takes jurisdiction. They're not sure they can get the rules in place. Well, you're basically requiring them to have the rules in place and take jurisdiction at the same time. July of 25 for high hazard dams. I think you could probably, if you made the date of transfer, July 1, 2026, their rules will be done. They'll have capacity to take on the high hazard dam. They're not worried about the low hazard dams or even the significant, they're worried about the high hazard dams. If you give them two years to finalize their rules and take on jurisdiction, I think they'd be okay with that. So we'll have, I think we'll have to go through. And then a lot of the sudden stuff, you got to move to the transition section. Because it really shouldn't be, we started out at that in the end. But I think you, I don't think it would. Yeah, let's do that in the end. Thank you, Ergo. We are seven minutes past. Appreciate your thanks, whether we would finish. Thank you for your second round of being patient with the following schedule. We'll have the audience. You're actually already on the schedule. I think of sort of stuff because I knew this couldn't, but we'll see you tomorrow, we both.