Water Matters, Part II

Getting to Clean Water without Going Broke

Hinesburg Town Hall - 7 PM
May 24, 2016

PROGRAM SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS

Event Sponsors
Lewis Creek Association, Responsible Growth Hinesburg, Conservation Law Foundation
Lake Champlain Basin Program, South Chittenden River Watch
Event Planners and Helpers
Jean Kiedaisch, Heidi Simkins, Dee Dee Erb, Stevie Spencer, Catherine Goldsmith, Chuck Reiss,
Barbara Forauer, Jo White, Merrily Lovell, Mary Beth Bowman, Marty Illick, John Kiedaisch,
Derk Bergquist, Alex Weinhagen.

1|Page

Introduction
Marty Illick of Lewis Creek Association and South Chittenden River Watch welcomed 45 attendees to a
discussion about what we can all do to protect Lake Champlain and its tributaries that flow from our
towns out to the Lake. She thanked Responsible Growth Hinesburg for prompting these creating a
culture of clean water discussions, and for inviting a multi-town approach to the much-needed clean
water advocacy work. Marty introduced special guests, Diane Snelling and Rebekah Weber, who will
share how we can all take part and participate in making the new rules for clean water.
Marty introduced Diane Snelling, Chair of the Vermont Natural Resources Board that over sees Act 250.
Diane discussed the legislative efforts that she took part in for the past 20 years regarding stormwater
regulation, groundwater protection and water quality improvement plans (TMDLs), all work that has led
to the adoption of Act 64 in 2015. Diane also served on the Legislative Committee on Administrative
Rules (LCAR) for 15 years. LCAR will eventually review and approve the new water quality rules in
development now. She stressed that it is very important for residents to engage in water issues and
provide input, recognizing that the final agency rule recommendations will need to go through the
LCAR approval process. The three criteria used for LCAR approval are: 1. Does the Agency or
Department have the authority in statute, to promulgate rules? 2. Do the rules meet legislative intent?
and 3. Are the rules arbitrary?. LCA and consultants are available to explain local water quality data
results, issues and conditions by watershed, as well as the improvement activity that may be needed in
each subshed.
Marty then introduced Rebekah Weber from Conservation Law Foundation, who will discuss Act 64, its
new water quality rules in process right now, and suggest how citizens can help to inform the new rules
for water quality. To date, CLF and a consortium of many groups in VT, including Lewis Creek
Association, have been submitting joint recommendations to the Agencies promulgating new rules and
standards aimed to implement ACT 64. These are available on the CLF website. This will continue until
new rules are finally adopted by the Legislature Committee on Administrative Rules, LCAR. Marty also
pointed out the LCA and South Chittenden River Watchs water quality data results and new scorecard
map for the south Chittenden County towns. It shows that our current water quality is poor under
current regulations, despite our low population density and dispersed development. LCA is working
with the State, Lake Champlain Basin Program and others to keep this map up to date for towns and
others to track trends and the effectiveness of water quality improvement investments and activity in our
watersheds. This is a crucial time for residents to take part in the new rulemaking process effort to help
strengthen Vermonts water quality standards and rules.
Presentation by Rebekah Weber, CLF Waterkeeper
Rebekah explained that Act 64 is about improving requirements for agricultural practices, tile drainage,
stormwater, unstable river corridors, wastewater treatment facilities, forestry practices and funding
capacity. She reminded the audience that the land to lake ratio for the Lake Champlain basin is 18:1.
Compared to the Great Lakes, this implies that Vermont has a very large land and water management
responsibility, and that many entities, both public and private, must share the responsibility to keeping
Vermont waters clean.
Vermont needs to reduce Phosphorus from agriculture by 52%! This will be done with far more
enhanced agricultural requirements (RAPS), appropriate control provisions (or not!) for tile drainage,
and effective regulations for all farms (small, medium and large), or not! Some issues that are preventing
2|Page

consensus on new rules include the definition and requirements for protective buffer areas, livestock
exclusion from streams, and nutrient management that avoids excessive use of fertilizers. Public
hearings for RAPs are occurring right now until July 7, 2016. Comments must be submitted to
AGR.RAP @vermont.gov by July 7, 2016. All are encouraged to submit comments.
With regard to tile drainage that is currently known to discharge pollutants to surface water: the
legislature only requested guidance material to be completed by July 2018. Astonishing! This weak
provision is entirely unacceptable and needs substantial and urgent attention. Many are requesting a
moratorium on all tile drainage unless the landowner can demonstrate no adverse impacts, and the
audience is encouraged to do the same.
With regard to stormwater, ANR is updating its stormwater manual that guides all stormwater permits.
The Lake Champlain TMDL calls for a 24% reduction of phosphorus loading from the developed land
area in the Champlain basin. Stormwater permit thresholds (requiring mitigation practices for greater
than x/TBD square feet of impervious surface per property) will be a key tool for ensuring that 24%
reduction of P loading from building and road areas can be reasonably assured. Currently the new
reductions being proposed are too weak. We feel they can be immediately strengthened where more
optimal practices are feasible, but that political will is currently lacking. Percent phosphorus reductions
are also required from stream corridors, wastewater treatment facilities and forest areas due to previous
lax management practices and oversight.
CLF, VNRC, Sierra Club, Vermont League of Conservation Voters, Lake Champlain International,
Lake Champlian Committee and others are submitting comments as the rule making process continues.
We will share these memos and help to answer questions, should community members be able to be
active participants at this important time in Vermonts history. We are advocating for broadening
Vermonts Voices for the Lake.
Vermonts phosphorus load to Lake Champlain is now at 630 metric tons per year. This is abhorrent. To
slow this rapid aging and the blue green algae blooms that we see in our Lake Champlain today, we
must urgently reduce our loading to a maximum of 413 metric tons per year. This means all in.
Here is the EPA table showing their reduction calculations for each land area in Vermont.
Limiting Phosphorus the TMDL

Land Use

Current Load
(MT/yr)

Pollution Limit
(MT/yr)

Percent Reduction
(%)

Wastewater

25

32

42

Developed Land

114

90

24

Forest

101

77

23

Stream

130

73

43

Agriculture

261

123

52

Total

631

418

34

3|Page

Funding costs are estimated at $156 million per year. FY 16 is projected at 2 million and FY 17 is
projected at 7.5 million. The State Treasurer and agency representatives are recommending a funding
strategy. These meetings are open to the public and comments are being requested right now.
Comment can be submitted to tax.commissioner@vermont.gov
Following Rebekahs presentation, Diane Snelling clarified that the first TMDL was not sufficient to get
the clean water we needed. The second TMDL is under development now, and a third TMDL may be
needed due to changes in the science behind it. She also believes clean water funding should come from
the General Fund.
Marty Illick would like to see tracking and a cost benefit assessment of voluntary versus regulatory
approaches in the implementation plan.
Q&A
Q: Larrya suggestion for funding planning. Investing General Funds in tile drainage oversight
because two years of unregulated unmanaged activity will most likely produce substantial pollution
clean up expenses.
A: Yes, the CLF et al submittals to AAFM will include this, and you are encouraged to file similar
comments.
Q: A question about how well Regulations with variance clauses will workhow do we know whether
everyone will not just get a waiver.
A: There must be a set procedure where the burden of proof for variance is on the applicant. They must
be criteria based and include site inspections. There should also be hard limits or backstops on some
things, for example, no less than 25 buffer. Numbers may not be arbitrary. People want flexibility
because every site is different, so state-level limits/practices may not be applicable in some places. The
procedure for getting variances has to be transparent and not arbitrary.
Q: Developed land contributes more P/acre than ag. Why isnt VT farmland more protected and why
are there not more incentives for implementing BMPs. With ongoing urbanization, long range, are you
considering value of ag land in conservation?
A: VLT, VHCB and many land trusts are working to conserve ag lands, but water quality is still poor in
those areas. Water Quality management plans are now called for conserved lands. This has not been the
case. Vermonters want their farms, but we are losing them. And we do not want our agr. land degrading
water quality, such as too near to surface waters, over fertilized, without cover crops etc. We can
support a sustainable ag sector, and we must now develop new regs that do not externalize our costs to
the environment and general public.
Q: The projected Clean Water $156 million cost/year when broken down as cost/taxpayer, is not that
bad. The big numbers can be very discouraging, is there a better way to look at the cost?
A: The state Treasurer is putting together a series of meetings to determine how best to meet these costs.
This also comes back to whether everyone should be paying the cost? The polluters pay principle
suggests that those who pollute are the ones that should pay the most.
Q: We all pollute, so how do we all contribute?

4|Page

A: Yes, we are all contributing and we must all be accountable, but that should not minimize the fact
that some entities are polluting far more than others.
DianeACT 138 asked how much it would cost to get clean water and the answer was $156 million
annually for ten years. This includes all water quality aspects. She feels this expense should come from
the general fund. And regulations should be targeted to polluter pay principle.
Q: ACT 64 is focused on Lake Champlain. What about all our other waterways? Can we get more
enforcement?
A: Submitting requests for more strategic and effective enforcement is critical. An enforcement
database should be publicly available and well maintained. Please submit comments as soon as possible.
Q: Is anyone looking to other countries to see what they are doing? How are they investing?
A: That is a great comment that should be sent to legislature and your local representatives.
Q: What is basins acreage: water ratio in NY? Are we coordinating with NY?
A: The ratio of land to water shown (18:1) was for the total Lake Champlain watershed, not just VT.
The NY land amount and loading amounts are far less than VT and are noted in the EPA plan. NY has
not reopened its TMDL. It remains an open question whether our TMDLs will be coordinated.
Q: We all use roads and bathrooms, even those that dont drive rely on transport for food and other
goods. The state does not factor in the P inputs such as artificial fertilizer imported to VT to grow
commodity corn for the dairy industry. Who should pay for what?
A: The P impacts from roads, bathrooms, etc should come from everybody, the agriculture P pollution
side should come from those who benefit or profit.
Q: What is going to be in place to determine whether we have accomplished the goal? Is there
information flowing out regarding BMP investments and all improvement measures?
A: A public portal is being developed to track down to the project level with metrics how much P is
being removed. Transparency and accountability are crucial to success. We all need to be involved in
rule-makingasking for transparency and tracking mechanisms. In terms of technology sharing, I do
not know to what extent it is taking place. If hard standards are put in place, technology will be
developed to track it.
Diane: There are success metrics built into everything in Act 64, and they are essential to accountability
and maintaining trust.
Q: What industries will suffer if we do not take care of this problem?
A: Industries, the VT culture/government and residents will suffer. It is cheaper to deal with the
problem now than to let it go further. It is tourism, health, property values, education, the arts, other
economics, etc. that will suffer financially and socially, so it is important to tackle this sooner than later.
Q: Are grandfathering provisions still in Act 64 for farms and development?
A: Dianeis not aware of any grandfathering.

5|Page

Marty: Shout-out to Hinesburg for adopting a regulatory threshold to ensure stormwater BMPs are used
in 0.5 acre developments (~10, 000 SF). And big thanks to Responsible Growth Hinesburg for their
many years of litigating to not allow the out of scale Hannaford proposal to be located in the Hinesburg
village area. RGH rather advocates to allow Hinesburg village to protect its special natural green
infrastructure and village green spaces for all residents and visitors to appreciate and benefit from.
Q: The lowering of the Hinesburg stormwater permit threshold was not smooth, but was brought to a
town vote and the whole town voted and approved the lower threshold. One of the more convincing
arguments is that we will pay one way or anothereither developers pay on front end or we all pay
afterwards. You mentioned about sharing of costs among all people, Hinesburg is now looking at 6-10
million to update its wastewater treatment facility. That is very scary for the town and is fueling
argument for more development to help pay for upgrades. We need help thinking about this.
A: Be careful about adopting or believing estimates for cleaning up a water system. When we look for
solutions, we should look at multiple alternatives and to those not necessarily promulgated by
commercial interests. Chasing the increase the tax base notion does not always yield desired results.
Q: Regarding stormwater runoff and barnyards, the new language is weak. There was something in Act
64 about impervious surfaces in barnyards and exceptions. Has that weakness been addressed?
A: I have not read that, but would like to see it.
Q: LCI offers the Blue Program for homeowners looking for help in evaluating their properties to
determine what can be done to reduce runoff and pollution.
A: Marty recognized how the Blue Program is helpful to smaller parcels in suburban neighborhoods,
while our local Ahead of the Storm (AOTS) Program helps property owners in more rural settings with
more land area and natural green stormwater infrastructure opportunities. The AOTS program is gearing
up to showcase some 15 plus optimal practices (factoring in climate change precipitation volumes and
velocities) on a variety of rural landscape settings in the Munroe, LaPlatte, Thorp and Kimball
watersheds in Shelburne, Charlotte and Hinesburg. This is an exciting emerging program being
developed by a variety of partners including LCA and the Charlotte Congregational Church.
Q: It is important for everyone to be involved in the rulemaking process. Why are the hearings not in
Chittenden County?
A: The hearing locations were spread around the state, especially in areas with high agriculture based
problems. Your written comments can be electronically submitted during the stated period of time. LCA
and CLF will provide on line information and guidance.
Q: I hope there will be a focus on how trees are harvested.
A: Accepted Management Practices have gone through the rule making update process and include new
harvest management requirements as relates to water quality protection.
Please go to http://fpr.vermont.gov
Q: I am hoping target thresholds were set with climate patterns in mind.
A: The TMDL included a climate change factor, but current standard BMPs do not consider new
weather patterns nor do many other restoration plans and practices. This should be highlighted during
the rulemaking public hearings. The AOTS program addresses climate change weather patterns.

6|Page