According to the LGA News (Lake George Association E-newsletter), a new invasive species bill has been introduced by the New York State Legislature. The bill has passed the house and it is on it’s way to the state senate.  As of April 26, 2012, the legislation has cleared the senate's Environmental Conservation Committee and is headed to the senate for a vote.

"The law authorizes the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to “establish a list of invasive species that will be prohibited from being sold, transported, and introduced in New York State.”

“This law would enable the DEC to develop a system that would contain two lists: one of prohibited species, and a second of regulated species. In addition, a permit would be required for prohibited species disposal, control, research and education.” (LGA News)

The E-newsletter points out that Vermont already has this kind of law, along with two other New England states - Connecticut and Massachusetts.

Information from: LGA News, The E-newsletter of the Lake George Association, April 26, 2012.

You can click here for more information about the Lake George Association and about the passage of this bill. 

H. 779 - An act relating to the water quality of state surface waters

H. 779 passed the House and is in Senate Natural Resources on March 23, 2012. FOVLAP Legislative Update readers should take note that there is an important aspect of the bill that transfers the existing rulemaking authority of the Water Resources Panel of the Natural Resources Board to the Agency of Natural Resources. Specifically, the Agency would now be doing the following rulemaking:

surface water levels of lakes, ponds and reservoirs
water quality classifications
VT Water Quality Standards
surface use of public waters
wetlands rules
rules for management of lakes and ponds (encroachments)

The bill further requires that in addition to the standard public participation requirements in current law (3 V.S.A. chapter 25) and prior to submitting a proposed rule to the secretary of state, the department of environmental conservation must engage in an expanded public participation process with affected stakeholders and other interested persons in a dialogue about intent, method, and outcomes of a proposed rule for the purpose of resolving concerns and differences regarding proposed rules. The department of environmental conservation is encouraged to use workshops, focused work groups, dockets, meetings, or other forms of communication to meet the participation requirements of this bill.

We will let you know if and how this bill changes as it progresses through the Senate.

H. 779 - An act relating to the water quality of state surface waters

The secretary of natural resources would be required to submit a report to the general assembly pertaining to the water quality of Vermont lakes, ponds, and rivers no later than December 15, 2012. The report would detail current problems with water quality, figure out how to address these problems, and detail a plan to pay for improving the quality of state waters.

The bill would also transfer the rulemaking authority of the water resources panel of the natural resources board to the Agency of Natural Resources.

All waters of the state are at risk of pollution or impairment.  For example, Lake Champlain is impaired due to phosphorus pollution that exceeds the Vermont water quality standards. In total there are more than 100 lakes and river segments that are considered to be impaired throughout Vermont. Our lakes, ponds, and rivers are further compromised because of last year’s flooding. Under state and federal law, the state is required to prevent impairment or degradation of its waters.

One possible strategy for generating the funding needed to protect and restore the waters of the state would be to develop a statewide mechanism, such as a statewide “clean water utility,” to raise revenue, address regulatory demands and to prioritize the most critical water quality projects throughout the state so our waters are protected in the most cost-effective way. Another consideration is whether the utility should be run by an existing agency of state government such as ANR or the Natural Resources Board, or an independent, nongovernmental organization (using a model similar to that employed by Efficiency Vermont). If the clean water utility is to be administered by an independent, nongovernmental organization, the report needs to address how will this organization should be established and administered. One last possibility is that water quality programs could be effectively implemented through regional water quality utilities or similar mechanisms already authorized under 24 V.S.A. chapters 105 and 121.

Options for generating the revenue include implementing a statewide assessment or fee, such as a clean water utility fee, an impervious surface fee, a Clean Water Act certification fee, impact fees, or other fees or charges.

The report would answer questions like: How should water quality funds be allocated?  Should high risk of pollution in impaired, unimpaired, or high quality waters be the most important consideration?  How to ensure equity in the distribution of water quality funds throughout the state?

The report would also address a broad suite of questions about the on-going implementation of a number of water quality programs.  These include: How will regulation of agricultural runoff and application of water quality standards to agricultural operations be implemented?  Should there be additional requirements, standards, technical assistance, or financial assistance to increase compliance with the Accepted Agricultural Practices (AAPs)?  Should AAPs should be amended to require all small farms to apply nutrients according to a nutrient management plan or at a more stringent soil loss tolerance than is currently required? How should regulation of stormwater runoff be managed and enforced in order to meet the Vermont water quality standards? How should the state work toward the restoration and protection of shorelands of lakes?   Should the state regulate development in shorelands of lakes?  What would be an appropriate process and cost for developing site-specific implementation plans to reduce discharges from areas with high potential for the release, discharge, or runoff of nutrients or pollutants, so called “critical source areas”?

March 22, 2012: We will keep you posted on how this bill changes as it goes through the committee on Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources.  As of March 22, 2012, the bill has been placed on the Calender for Notice on March 20, 2012.  A third reading was ordered March 22, 2012.

Proposed Omnibus Lakes Bill

The House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee has been drafting a Lakes Omnibus Bill and has heard testimony on numerous days over the past few weeks.  Ginny Garrison testified on February 28 (You can click here to read testimony to the House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources Committee) and reported to the FOVLAP Legislative Committee that the House Committee appeared to be moving toward a bill that will establish a Water Resources Preservation Program and associated Fund, but will require the Agency of Natural Resources to study how best to populate the fund and implement the program. It was unclear how the Committee would specifically address lakeshore protection.

On February 29, Julie Moore provided the following comments to the House Committee: “The idea of further study of the water resources preservation program is a reasonable and good next step. It would be ideal if there was a limited amount of resources (on the order of $25-35K) that could be made available to support this effort, as it would allow ANR to bring in some financial experts to consult on the effort. I also think that the bill should specify the amount of funding that the program should be capable of generating; as you know, I would recommend a minimum of $10 million annually.

I would encourage the Committee to address shoreland protection separately from/outside of the water resources preservation program. Similar to how Act 110 (2010) established that a general permit for stream alteration work would take effect on date certain, I would recommend that the bill include an implementation deadline (July 1, 2014). The longer we wait for lakeshore protection, the less of it there will be left to protect. In addition, making lakeshore protection standalone would also allow you to incorporate a request for ANR to review and make recommendations related to its shoreland encroachment permits. These permits would definitely benefit from being updated to reflect what was learned flooding last year's flood events.”

It is anticipated that the Committee’s bill will be introduced and receive a bill number soon.

H. 258 - Public Participation in Environmental Enforcement Proceedings (Introduced 2011 session)

This bill has now passed the House and Senate and been signed into law by the Governor.

February 7, 2012: The bill was passed by the House and the Senate with amendments.

February 16, 2012: Signed by the Governor.

Among other provisions, this new law broadens the opportunity for public participation in environmental enforcement by requiring the Agency of Natural Resources or the Natural Resources Board to post a draft copy of an administrative order, assurance of discontinuance, or civil complaint for public notice and written comment for 30 days prior to its issuance.  ANR or the Board must post the final proposed action for public notice for 14 days as well.  An aggrieved person who commented during the 30-day comment period may request permission from the environmental court to intervene if they are not satisfied with the final action of ANR or the Board.  If the court allows a person to intervene, it shall be for the sole purpose of establishing that the terms of an administrative order, emergency administrative order, assurance of discontinuance, or civil complaint are insufficient to carry out the purposes of Title 10 Chapter 201: Administrative Environmental Law Enforcement.  When ANR issues an emergency administrative order, the draft public notice and comment provisions don’t apply. ANR must post the emergency administrative order concurrent with filing it with the court, and a person has 14 days to request permission from the court to intervene.  A motion to intervene does not stay an emergency administrative order.  The new law also requires ANR to investigate all citizen complaints of a violation of a federally authorized or delegated program and respond to known complainants in writing.

H. 546 - Emergency Stream Alteration Guidelines And Technical Assistance

Requires the secretary of natural resources to adopt guidelines for emergency stream alteration. Municipalities are required to perform emergency stream alteration measures in a manner consistent with these guidelines. In addition, the bill requires the secretary of natural resources to train additional staff to perform stream alteration and water quality review during a state of emergency and authorizes the secretary to enter into reciprocal mutual aid agreements or compacts with other states to assist in addressing watershed, river management, and transportation system issues that arise during a state of emergency.

January 13, 2012: Read First Time and Referred to the Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water.

March 18, 2012: Still in Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water

S. 185 - A Water Resources Preservation Program

This Senate bill is similar to H.529. Establishes a water resources preservation program to provide financial assistance and technical support to projects or activities designed to improve the water quality of waters of the state or repair or prevent flood damage. To fund the program, the bill establishes a water resources preservation fee on developed property and property used for farming. The fee on developed property would be assessed in proportion to the property’s area of impervious surface. The fee on property used for farming would be assessed in proportion to the property’s area of farmstead.

January 3, 2012: Read First Time and Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy

March 18, 2012: Still in Committee on Natural Resources and Energy

H. 529 - A Water Resources Preservation Program

This bill proposes to establish a water resources preservation program to provide financial assistance and technical support to projects or activities designed to achieve one or more of the following: improve the water quality of waters of the state; prevent, mitigate against, or repair flood damage; or provide reasonable assurances regarding the implementation of total maximum daily load plans. To fund the program, the bill establishes a water resources preservation fee on developed property and property used for farming. The fee on developed property would be assessed in proportion to the property’s area of impervious surface. The fee on property used for farming would be assessed in proportion to the property’s area of farmstead.

January 13, 2012: Read First Time and Referred to the Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources

March 18, 2012: Still in Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources

H. 519 - Regulation Of Flood Hazard Areas

Establishes statewide regulation of flood hazard areas to be compliant with the National Flood Insurance Program. A municipality can seek delegation of this regulatory authority and may adopt more stringent requirements except as to agricultural and silvicultural practices and farm structures. The bill also requires the state issue a general permit to govern state or delegated regulation of agricultural and silvicultural practices and farm structures within a flood hazard area. The bill further requires that flood insurance be obtained for real property in flood hazard areas.

January 10, 2012: Read First Time and Referred to the Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources

March 18, 2012: Still in Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources

H. 483 - Stream Alteration Permits For Timber Removal From Watercourses

Requires a person removing timber from below the high watermark of a watercourse to obtain a stream alteration permit from the secretary of natural resources.

January 5, 2012: Read First Time and Referred to the Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources

March 18, 2012: Still in Committee on Fish, Wildlife & Water Resources