 Good morning. Today is Tuesday, February 13th, 2024 the committee. This is a Senate natural resources and energy committee We're resuming our work on s2-13 and actually leading to the regulation of wetlands for the quarter development and dam safety We're going to do a read-through and markup of draft 3.1 Council is on his way here right now And we are in that I'd say happy end phase on a bill where We have a markup we have a room full of people with expertise and experience and we'll do a read-through if there is a question Concern anything as we read through a section please, you know, raise your hand flag us down We'll have a discussion that the goal is to resolve as many of the open items as possible this morning. I Tediously refer to it as painting ourselves out of the room, but we will march towards the door and eliminate questions make edits and have a Clean next draft to be voted. I hope Tomorrow so mr. Grady. Good morning. Thank you for joining us It's just the background There's two lawyers Yeah, okay, so thank you, Mr. Great for Getting us a draft even for the weekend So we have more time to look and read just before you come in I think people will do a read-through again and then I've asked people to Concerned edits things To the extent we can I'd like to get all the way through the read-through there may be some things where we'll say okay This is a big open item that we're gonna flag it and we're gonna need to pull back But to the extent possible we can close things out. That would be great. All right, so off to you mr. Grady, and I think You've done this how what if we read let's just start from the beginning the whole bill or just the changes Let's go light on the whole bill part and slow Look at the brakes for the changes so first section is the water management water resources management policy as protection of wetlands underneath that policy section 2 adds a definition of dam removal to the definitions Wars wetlands chapter page 2 section 3 This is the requirement to update the significant significant weapons inventory maps There was a request I believe was from the agency on Friday to say and not less than annually because they may update it more frequently than annually and Then on page 2 line 17 in the incorporation of the municipal weapons maps It had previously had them incorporated into the wetlands advisory level. I Don't want to mischaracterize the agency But I think the agency was saying that at some point the advisory level is going to go away So instead of the advisory level it's incorporated into the significant maps So again If anyone has concerns, I'm going to assume that our our conversation last week But getting it right if you're feeling like we're not there yet Don't be shy about and if I don't see your hand say something, please I'm trying to look around and sometimes I miss Moving on page 3 Subsection B and sector 4 in the directive for a in order to complete high-quality wetlands inventory plus level mapping For all tactical basins You had a addition that the agency shall update the tactical base and math like the term is it is necessary Yes, this is coming to daily restoration. He pauses the BNRC Our position advocates position on this is that we would like to strike that sentence. It doesn't Doesn't add to the paragraph I don't know if this language originate with agency so miss Smith. Can you speak to it all over this is The agency of natural resources the last sentence that states the agency shall update the map when it determines necessary It is our intention to update these maps as Necessary I do have one technical correction and this is my own fault because I think I I had included this language, but On page 3 starting line 5 it talks about the agency shall evaluate the need For tactical base and math updates. It should be NWI plus map updates We're talking about the NWI map And we are the bill asks us to complete that mapping on a basin wide level Which will be done, but it's not it's not actually called a tactical base and map Yeah, so it would be NWI plus map on line 6 and then I Guess not it wouldn't be an issue if we strike the last sentence So the last sentence Without that sentence there at all, I don't know that word I can give you a little bit of background. So I think that sentence was added after senator McCormick had made it had Evaluate the need to update NWI maps, but then evaluate the need and update if needed And so that sentence was added as a way to further flush out that update if needed But I'm not sure that it I Don't think it has much legally Because the agency has the ability to update when necessary And it's totally So then it's we might say superfluous so then maybe it's worth What's how in the this language The legislature is telling the agency That it shall do something and what it shall do is do it once Since it's Not a big deal one way the other for now, let's let the language stand and we can come back to it it becomes a Concern a deeper concern, okay On page three section four, this is the necking of wetlands policy and state goal couple of drafts ago there was Reference to the term development on line 15 and then again on line 20 and there have been a Proposal to replace development is not used in the wetlands rule, but the word impacted But then if you go through the rest of this section the Trigger is not impact. It's adverse effects And so I would suggest replacing What Make that the trigger phrase match the It's not just impact but impact with adversely On page three in the directive Prioritizing protection of the disarmament in the wetlands rules There have been concern that it wasn't clear that it the 5,000 square feet is not the 5,000 square feet of the wetland 5,000 square feet of the adverse effect And so that change was made on page three So this is the conforming technical things page four adding above before adverse effects to Down at the bottom of page. We're not quite at the bottom line 14 And the minimum requirements for the wetlands rule again making that change about clarifying It's 5,000 square feet of adverse effect to the wetlands lost here and Then when that net gain policy is supposed to be incorporated into permits You push that out to the September 1st 2025 So So that's the first of the dates. I think but anyway lightning that we're going by if It's a goal of the committee to outline a plan of work that these would evolve for those who have to do it So in general, I'm just saying someone has a concern about the date About our time allocated for something if you can fly this down as we go through One of the work that So page five or additional requirements for incorporation into the rule Going out of the bottom of page five line 19 When there's going to be an in lieu fee compensation program that may be authorized for an adverse effect That rule will address that the secretary may implement that in lieu of Compensation program through agreements with third parties such as the core and environmental organizations Provided that any in lieu compensation shall be expended in restoration the three establishment enhancement or conservation projects But then the state at the hook a level Then you get to page six line eight the wetlands programs reports Remember, there's now two reports one is annually about Annual losses and gains. There was one change here in page seven. There was a duplicate duplicative subdivision that was removed The same substances in subdivision three that was in subdivision five and then on page seven like six This is the five-year report on the comprehensive status of weapons in the state Including the nwi plus mapping project Section five on pd This is the forming change from enforcement provision in title 10 chapter 47 Regarding enforcement and protection of the state's waters because you added wetlands as one of those Protected functions under the water quality standard. It makes sense to Wetlands here I Page nine line 11. This is the appropriations for the wetlands program it had been previously 1,500,000 for Kind of mapping and rollout and 500 per staff you Believe it was Karina said that the mapping is already Satisfied that you moved it down to 750 but it's all going to be for five new positions to implement and comply with The other sections in the rule of sections in the act regarding Yes After further discussion and with Taking into account the changes that we've revised In collaboration with the agency The mapping tasks and the reporting tasks have been substantially reduced and we feel that We should revise that number to include two full-time staff positions Which will be in our current but I think 250 250 so 100 You can do 150 there is no Define number right now. You kind of look at the skill and professional necessity for each of these positions Let's go over your shoulder the mismatch do you have if we're we're going ahead and train these positions Do you have a recommendation as to what default figures should be? for FT the default is the default number for an FT is 150,000 So then 750 becomes 300 and then five becomes two is that correct? As proposed by me today, so let me check in With this pet or anyone else from the agency and speak to this We're Changing the allocation of money and resource for it, and I don't know if you're saying if you're comfortable that change or You want to go ahead and do it? It takes more staff than to I Will be honest. I am not the authority on determining FTE Requested by the agency. I do agree with Karina that the original appropriation for the mapping has largely been taken care of by funding the agencies acquired and continues to acquire through grants I I think that And I don't remember the FTE is that the program identified For the reporting. I do think too would cover The requirements outlined in this film sure, okay, great, so let's make the change And Keep all the changes work. We'll make as a today will be flagged in the next version, right? Yes, okay, great. So if in the next 18 hours, you have a conversation that changes your mind We'll have a chance to revise it in Before Page nine section seven this is The requirement that DEC Do the infill mapping of the River Carter base map and then to do education and outreach the section is entirely new The first thing you'll see is the deadline for DEC to amend the statewide River Carter base map to identify Areas with the municipal designated Centers that are suitable for infill and that will not cause or contribute to increases of food and hazards Then you will see an education and outreach requirement the two-year requirement beginning January 1 2025 and then January 1 2027 DEC to that's education and outreach consult with and collect input from municipalities businesses and other Interested parties of the public where I already passed their state permitting and development in math for the car implemented Including potential restrictions on the use of land within that for the carters they develop Educational materials for the public they collect input from the public they report to you midway through the education and outreach regarding the public input and Recommendation based on the public input for changes to the requirements for state permitting and development in that Lawrence the nature conservancy for the record I guess I have one terrifying question on the education and outreach and that is it looks like a two-year January January 25 2027 what the report do at the midway point is that is that accurate So the midway point is Is there so that the General Assembly has ability to react legislatively Before the rulemaking which is January 1 So the rulemaking pre rulemaking probably will start right around the time of January 1 2027 If not before then it's it's all about what you want to do with the dates and how you want to account for giving the agency time or not Me you don't have to give the agency time. They'll just not meet the deadlines Seems like a non-ideal So One pause on the timeline is important. I mean the committee spent a long time Doing a pretty much a complete rewrite of the EJ bill two years ago, and we're gonna hear from The agency tomorrow Carla Ramundi's coming and we're gonna be talking So I want to make there in and there is a phrase that came out of that work And also at the climate council about you know moving at the speed of trust. So we're talking about a Process that's going to affect a lot of people's lives the way they live in spaces and how we develop so my concern is that we build a timeline that allows for adequate participation all the way around and while still making timely progress because we're under pressure from Increased student floods That seem to be generally more damaging year-to-year. I don't know if anyone from agency has any Feedback to offer Mr. Evans For the record Rivers program manager in our I'll just Restate yeah, but the agency's timeline that it provided a few weeks back is still what we're more comfortable with just understanding It's going to take time to staff up. It's going to take time to then Train that staff to free up expert staff work on this has been required expert staff and new staff And so yeah, we're more comfortable with the timeline we provided a few weeks ago stretches this out to 2029 2020 2030 Okay, so if we're if we have a started on January 1 2025 line for page 10 this Rolls out through Rulemaking I'm trying to see them rule making So the rulemaking is not you don't see that day. Yeah, it's okay. It's 12 1920 They adopt the rules Page 12 Okay, so we have a three-year Think whatever Engagement and outreach education and then rulemaking itself is another in here. So you put that into nothing That starts January on 2026 no deadline for Except that the rules for permitting development have to be adopted by January So I think Thank you. There's not a provision here that When rulemaking or pre-rollmaking ought to start There's two different rulemaking so there's the River corridor Rulemaking and then there's the rulemaking for state minimum flood hazard standards that are currently in the draft So the previous the River corridor So on page 29 Agency shall initiate rulemaking including pre-rollmaking for the rules required on the section nine Which are the River corridor And They have to initiate that on a report January 1, 2026 So how long if if they If they're starting on January 2026 How long just one more reminder how long does we're making typically take If you are going to comply with the requirements of the APA the fastest you can do it is in five and a half months It's typically eight to nine months Sometimes it is longer. Actually one L car Takes a long time to review So I'm a long and it's Okay, so somewhere in the 810 and that's just the APA. That's not pre-rollmaking We use a Visual timeline to help see how these pieces were lining up, but then starts and stops were Unless someone wants to flag a date in particular and make a suggestion I propose we leave the date as is draw that timeline back out and Circuit a circuit on put that something to do with Circulate the people who are in today's meeting so that tomorrow we can come on and come in and see it more clearly and make adjustments We think if they're married it One day definitely needs to change that's on page 29 line But back to data the rules that that should be 2028 underneath the timeline right now Right this line up with section 9 Which is on page 12. It should be January 1 And you do have to go I There back down and then we'll go to Mr. So we're this is all goes smoothly according to plan everybody did what they were Supposed to do by 2028 per month would be ready to implement rules to tackle 2023 type You would be ready to permit development in infill in the river corridor Addressing 2023 type floods again, you would You're not going to prevent a flood You are you're going to permit the development in the infill of the map for the cordless in an effort to think of minimize Reduce future Damages to people who are If I may I'll just find a point to that. It's just minimizing those new encroachments that aren't greatly in now new homes going in the river corridor That are at risk Channelization and follows to protect those homes that increases the risk So it's dealing with that kind of piecemeal development up and down the River Valley to try to keep it outside of that Chris can be one reason to mention the record The only thing I would just throw out is that you're amending an existing rule And you're amending an existing rule that was created in a way to Irene and subsequent events that caused substantial damage to Property and this is also particularly violent type of flood of it That rips the land underneath structures and I Would just urge you to move as expeditiously as you feel is Possible because we've been talking about this for over a decade now and And the challenge has been Deferring to towns having the political and operational capacity to actually adopt these rules and then be able to administer them Once they are adopted and the point of what what I've been saying in the past is You need to regulate this at a point where it has the most effect in order because this is life-saving policy This isn't habitat this isn't This is about real harm being done for monitors not only is it the property that suffers the immediate harm of The Stream bank or river bank erosion, but then also whatever gets carried downstream to plug a culvert Plug a bridge or flow into another dwelling, so I guess I would just say it's up to you I mean, I'm not obviously not okay Take what to do, but I feel a certain sense of urgency because in our region. We also had significant flooding in 2021 We had flooding in 2023 the last four Christmases right around the Christmas season We've had significant flooding so that's looking more like a trend as opposed to I mean But in the southeast part of the state where we're particularly flashy and have lots of erodible River upstream corridors. This is a problem. And so I would just ask you to move as fast as you feel like it's Responsible for Vermont and Vermonters Thank you, so I guess I would So if rulemaking starts January 1st 2026 and making typically takes Longside 11 months. I Guess I'd be more comfortable pushing back the rules effective date into 2027 Was that versus 2028 versus 2028 and Yeah, because we got a yes that I because I feel that sense of urgency as well Yeah, I guess I I'd like to at least I Would I would like to start there, but sure if for instance it says begin rulemaking honor for January 1 2026 to have an effective date of July 1 2027 builds in a year that feels like Even and contentious things that seems like When do you want the public outreach? Education to go on During the rulemaking I may yes, but I could just reject here I think that we prefer for the rulemaking to be after the education outreach because there's information We might get from that feedback that back and forth that informs how we update not just the rule But our general permit our mapping procedures all of that There's a number of things that have to be updated and fine-tuned not just the rule And so I hate it, you know halfway down the rulemaking process and then they're have to go backwards Generally behind maps first How much outreach starts follow-on during the mapping process rulemaking follow-on that So Mr. Green, can you help us look in the bill when It's page 10 line 4 so the public outreach is supposed to end January 1st, 2027 and So It seems to me that there's a potential to have because the mapping is overlapping With the education And so it makes sense to me to have at least even pre-rule making start and have it overlaps With the education outreach with it starting in 2026. So that's sort of in the middle So hopefully with education starting in in 2025 there'll be any Hopefully what needs to be done in terms of determining Um, some of those questions for the pre-rule making can be done early and then we can Start to At least the rulemaking process can get underway, but obviously, uh, it will go beyond Well, if we were to end in July 2027 then there's even a time after the Education and outreach is even completed So not having been involved first time in doing this work If you were to have an education outreach program that ran two years and at the midpoint of it rulemaking commenced Does that seem workable or you would want more education and outreach time before rulemaking itself would Again, we all make headway with the resources we have That's the only way it comes to We will shoot for whatever dates are put in front of us. I was passed into law, but I just can't guarantee those dates Yeah, of course And we're trying to make a best-eighth effort to provide the resource to make the dates Feasible, you know for for everyone's good Simple What is the very first step in this process? So the the mapping There's no an initiation for the mapping, but it's it has to be done on report january 1 2026 And then education is going to begin january 1 2025 So that those two are probably kind of the the first two things that are going to happen And the education Does not have to be Does the mapping have to be done before the education or the education have to be done before the mapping Uh, that that the mapping and the education are ongoing requirements. They're simultaneous requirements under what's proposed I would defer to the agency as to whether or not They can do both And that begins this process. What why are we waiting till next year? To begin Just because I don't have resources to dedicate to it We're still in flood recovery mode and down three staff currently in the program So it's again, it's that lag to get new staff training them up free of existing staff So that's that's just a harsh reality in all this. It's really hard to hire people right now. Yeah You can Let's hear to your question about The mapping and the outreach we want at least some set of draft maps. It wouldn't have to be statewide for every Downtown and village center, but we'd want some draft maps so we could take out to do that education outreach with those I in some of the education and outreach will probably help inform the mapping process as to whether we want to Does anything need to be changed or updated? What do we consider for the infill mapping? So one will probably inform the other that they're having concurrently Just chris can we want to reach a commission? I think I mean I can certainly volunteer our pc that If part of that education outreach is doing webinars working with conservation district and other partners And we've got the information about why river corridor Development is dangerous and why we need to Allow rooms those rivers and streams to move we can do that. We can start that process now I'm a little nervous to volunteer all my colleagues, but But the information exists we can collaborate together to put that information there We've got information on flood ready site so we can harness that information So we're there may not say now these are the civic maps these are the changes, but we can talk about what the risks are Well, thank you So I have a question on the mapping I started the conversation. I think I said two comments and we got into timeline But the mapping as I understand it from the committee's conversation on friday Was that you would pull that mapping language out of rulemaking and insert it into the front of the bill as was done But I see it in both places Was it intentional and if so Just to understand that if it wasn't intentional I want to fly that the language around the mapping has some changes for the language of the top of the bill page nine Line 20 where it starts is different from When the committee had agreed to to changes in the mapping language in the past so I'm fighting that the mapping is in two places and is Worded differently and what's the second location the second location where the mapping shows up is in rulemaking Page 13 lines 19 Page 13 line 19 So if the intent is to pull it out of rulemaking The language that the committee had agreed to that several months to testify and support us was the language that's currently on page 13 line 19 So we don't just like to see that it's pulled out of rulemaking that be the language that's carried out to page nine the line 20 That you can see would prefer that it not be in rulemaking our Existing role once to our mapping procedure. Yeah, which is signed by our commissioner. So we would embed all that in our procedure Right, but I don't think it's necessary to do the infill mapping by way of Sure What the language on section About areas within municipal designated centers that are suitable for infill I believe that came from the discussion on Friday about needing infill mapping I don't know if the language on page 13 going on the 14 is the same And the agency's perspective or not I will do whatever the committee wants me to do That section has come more tied to like just the authority to regulate those areas Lesson kind of the mapping itself I believe the language that's currently in page nine by 20 So mapping by procedure is more flexible Um, and there's an education and outreach program going along with it. Um, that's a clear concern even articulating Then, um, can you just say a little bit about If someone said well, uh, are you will the procedure guarantee public process? Can you just comment on the public process piece of procedure? Look in depth at our procedure, but we walk through notification of towns and district commissions and we publish draft maps for comment So that's all laid out currently in our mapping procedure and we'd say we might fine tune it, of course, but Okay, so if that makes, uh then Section seven begin the fourth line in 2021 what we don't need to specify as a rule Um, I just want to make sure that we have coherent language that triggers it as a procedure later and required rulemaking content the rule shall And then marches through Again helpful like to send a specific text from the rule right now links the mapping to our procedures. It's codified in rule So we still have the rulemaking and line four of page 13 says here's what the rules address But then in sub five line 19 it says a process Yes, so that's the flexibility pivot there like it's a rulemaking that specifies the process, but Yeah Then the process is you administer it under your current procedure. I take that as a directive to amend our mapping procedure accordingly Is that me It makes sense to me, but I don't know if it makes sense to others I don't know if the language on section seven Is what the others want Right, so then we have to It's cool I understand that the change and I just want to kind of make sure that we keep the All the gears matching together mix Smith. You have your hand up to Emphasize Rob's point the agency has the directive to move forward with the mapping It will we'll move more we'll be able to move more quickly if it's not tied to the rulemaking But there is a distinction in the language On page nine going on to top of page 10. It talks about mapping areas within municipal designated centers And on the top of 14 it talks about areas that exist a settlement suitable for development And I assume there was a reason for that distinction The other piece on line 13 on page 13 is the Collaboration with rpcs, which again, I think could be part of the process Doesn't have to be tied to rulemaking But I would suggest that in that language that begins on page nine We just clarify whether we're talking about designated centers for existing settlements and add the piece on collaboration with Our partner organizations I think the existing settlements was desired by partners More expansive than just those maps designated centers. It's going to develop footprint I think I think most agree with the existing settlements being focus on and So I'm Edit in two different places at the same time But the existing set right I think we talked about the broader existing settlement So I it's on the top of page 14 okay 14 taking that section essentially moving at a rulemaking moving up to page In where there's the other conversation Page 10 But you have the rules to include a process for amending the maps going into the future We're comfortable with that So that would mean it's in both places No, I think basically You move as was just said The language from 13 to 14 to nine And then you refine the language on 13 to 14 about the rulemaking process For amending Future statewide or recorded base maps to identify I just just say amending for future amendment of your required base map. That all sounds good to me So you build the process the ongoing process you'll use over the year And then as tana suggested That coordination or collaboration with a ccd and the national planning commission will be moved The page 9 and 10 as well So let's do that And of course, we'll see it highlighted in any straf so we can see if we got all the stars in alignment Okay, thank you everyone. You still haven't decided the timeline Sooner the better so Senator Watson had a suggestion that came up on page 29 that rules Are completed It gives a 18 month window right jane right 126 through the live 1.7 That's I don't know why we have 28. That's a two and a half year timeline which Seems uh longer than I've ever seen before I feel like but I was just following my notes from I know I'm not Blame there's no blame. This is just trying to make sure that we kept uh all the adjustments alive So Okay, let's start from the beginning. Yeah, so mapping is going to be done January 1 2026 Okay, and When does education enough? January 1 2025 and it ends january 1 2027 Okay, then moving on to page 12 When will rules be required to be adopted? July July 27, which is really only six months faster than what's here And then since we don't have to skip 20 pages of the future. When do you want that pre rulemaking to start? I just think it's Outreach, I would think I don't know if you can That's a well, I think it's helpful to specify start date But I also feel like agencies will know as they're doing their work when they want to get started Okay, so you're not going to have Because I defer to the chair's preference to always have to sell by and by the So you're not going to have a start by the Well, so I'll need to check in with mr. Evans. So shock will be most in charge of Introducing outreach, right? What is if you work for clarity in the bill to say when these different activities begin What would you Recommend is to start the Education outreach. Oh, I think what you have in the bill now is workable in terms of time frame If we have partners that are helping us, absolutely And I know we at least have a few so we can get started this and for sure How long it takes to do injustice? We'll see For the start date That's 26 And then on page 13 knowing that RPCs might voluntarily begin the work It's page 15 when you want to permit The requirement to commence right now, it's July 1228 That was six months from the previous rulemaking deadline So do you want it to be January 1, 2028? Right, that'd be six months That would sink us It's once following the end of the year Yes Is that a recording? You just so happen to sleep The people who actually have to do this The people that feed on the ground Are of the opinion that we can't Start any earlier Or finish it any earlier than this We're concerned at this point It's not that way It's not the lag time it takes to staff up and train on it It's a concern meeting But again, you'll soon form if that's what ends up coming in The worst bosses I ever had were the ones who were Sorry, they want it done and just say Just do it No, don't do that, just do it So you can't do that You are saying that this is the schedule we have To be realistic On the three open positions So this is under current authorizations It's just you don't have people to fill slots So we're starting a little bit in the whole It's what I'm learning I'll just say from our hiring perspective We used to get 50 applications We now get four and two of them are qualified Right? And I'm like that's the nature We often have to go out and repost again Because while my interview folks is like That they're not a good fit We need to see if we can So it takes time I can't currently I would say everyone's trying to make a best state effort To go as quickly as possible Without causing problems For those who have to do the work itself So we also are going to have legislative sessions Each year in between There's a report coming back We'll have the conversations But I think I would just want this committee And just stay aware of how things are going That we make adjustments as necessary To make speed And do it well Okay And just to make a comment It's not that there won't be any Outreach and education around River Quarters between now And this beginning of the outreach session Because we are currently working With regional planning commissions To do outreach to towns On River Quarters and flood plain bylaws So we're having that conversation It's mostly focused on municipalities And planning commissions Like decision-making bodies But there is some of that Kind of pre-work going on So it won't be starting Totally from scratch at that time So we want to Based on the conversation Discussion, decision-making Where do you want to begin? Page 13 Yeah And the required rule-making contents One of the things you wanted to specify Is that the rules The River Court of Development Will provide for exemptions From permitting Or use of general permits For certain development The agency already has General permitting authority On page 14 This is just gonna And you'll see on page 14 That it specifies That the general permits Don't have to be implemented by rule But what you'll be doing On page 13 In the rule-making is When they can be issued For what type of development Low I mean the River Court Will already do that So you're just basically duplicating That kind of Is there one something? Just to clarify So this is like the part Where we say it's okay to It's okay to do the general permits Right And what are you going to do The general permits for When you actually issue the general permit You dump to the final rule I have a cool question on Because we have existing Rule-making authority For things that are exempt For municipal regulation Does that need to be maintained In the language of this bill Until a new rule of some sort Goes into place Because right now it's struck I'm not being a lawyer If you have a There's a transition section Later on That says until You adopt these rules And are permitting But you operate under the old rules Let's keep it Page 13 Line 19 They're going to mem-map It's no longer going to be As detailed It's just going to set for the process For a minute In the State Library Part of Maps Page 14 Reminds Page 16 You just talked about How the agencies will not have to go Rule-making to issue a general permit Page 15 Line 7 In the permitting requirement You're moving that date From July 1, 2028 And January 1, 2028 It's no longer about when I mean it's about It's about to A lot of The flood hazard area By law Or not And then you can go to Page 17 Section 10 We're moving out of River Quarters We're moving into State Club Hazard Area Um, before we go Let me go Uh, two things This is a question for anybody In the room with a Juris Doctor Of which I am not Uh, page 15 Line 7 The Permit Requirements section My read of this Is now that it says Development in a flood hazard area Or Map to River Quarters That that would have the Unintended, I believe, consequence Of saying that the new Expanded rule would Be for the flood plain as well And not just for the River Quarters Which this committee has agreed to So I think I think that you'd want to Strike flood hazard area And have this just be In the permit requirement For the Map to River Quarters Right As I mean it Correct And I think going back To what Rebecca called out There might be some Additional word smithing Because the Municipally exact Activities for River Quarters And flood hazard areas That needs to be maintained As it is going forward And we're adding to that Development broadly In Map to River Quarters So there's going to still be State Regulation of flood hazard Areas for those activities The town will allow to regulate So there's some structural Changes we've been making In the text, I think Yeah, yeah, the This language right now That we're talking about In page 15, line 7 And also the language Beginning in page 12, line 20 It does still refer to Development in a flood hazard Area or Map to River Quarters So the way the bill is written Now the committee is asking A&R to take over Statewide regulation Of both of those pieces Beginning January 1st, 2028 I don't know if that's the Attention If not then flood hazard Areas should be struck From both of those lines I think what we ended up doing Was saying that the Standards we've developed And that the study committee Would address whether or not The state should then take over Implementing So the 12 Sorry, Miss Smith Where were you? I'm trying to look for It's really on the heading On page 12 Line 9 And then on page 12 Going on page 13 Line 2 So it would be Striking Map River Sorry Striking flood hazard Area out of that head You have a lot of decisions To be made with regard to What you're going to permit Through A&R And what you're going to Permit through municipalities Because you're going to come to Some conforming sections later on Where I'm not sure What you want to do And so the grade So this is just the Beginning of that Like what do you really want to do So we were supporting The statewide flood hazard area Standard bylaws But not pushing the question As to whether or not they were Going to be implemented Into the study group So in terms of like the rulemaking And et cetera We wouldn't want to Inimparatively specify that The state The decisions are already been made And that they're obligated Should implement So that means a change to the head Line 9 page 12 Right Yeah Okay So just walking through What you're going to change Page 12 Line 9 You're going to change the header Of that section Yep And no longer The government's flood hazard areas Page 12 Line 19 You're changing the date From January 1 to July 1 From 2028 to 2027 You are on Page 13 Line 2 Striking reference To a flood hazard area Bottom of page 13 You're changing the process Line years for amending The reporting apps In the future Oh, good question Sandy Watson Thank you Sorry, I just want to check Before we leave This section Because this This is existing Law We're amending existing law And so does I think my question is Do we Actually I think I'm going to hold up on my question Because I think it's really just wrapped up in Whether or not we have a statewide So a minimum standard Minimum standard And I Yeah Okay I'm worried that if we Well I'm going to hold up on that Okay, everyone Good time I have a quick question Maybe on the header So page 12 Line 9 With the header Because it's an existing rule And we will still need to maintain Regulation of flood hazard areas And fill in some answers Should we still keep flood hazard areas in that line? No We're going to deal with that Through a transition clause You're going to amend this section Like right away But then in transition You're going to say You're going to retain that as far as we're Municipally exempt in them Later on In where you're doing Where you're doing The state flood hazard area standards I think you might want to include language there That you're going to regulate The Flood hazard areas Yeah, municipally exempt Thank you for channeling my question That's why I was thinking that you were going to Yeah, because Because we will still We'll Again, I think the transition section Is going to be important And it's probably not sufficient right now Okay Thank you And can you remind me again Sorry The date you have online 20s of page 12 is And then the key what? It's July 1, 2027 Yeah, okay There is another change on page 13 And when I'm 13 to 18 Where it's referencing the requirements and process For municipalities to be delegated They're only going to be delegated And development in a map or recorder And not in a flood hazard area So that will change there as well Okay 14, 15 14 and 15 and then 16 Under page 13, line 9 Then I'm due If we're going to be dealing with flood hazard areas And transition language does Is that matter that that's in there? Yeah Probably not Recorder standards would not be tied into the requirements For the Yeah I think Sorry, what are you on there? Sorry, line 9 of page 13 It's B2 B designed to ensure the state rules As far as we can get affiliate firms for the NFIP Yeah It's lines 5 through 10 really By through 8 is NFIP as well Because you're just focused on the state rule of care Do you want Development and river corridors to be subject to The NFIP regulatory obligations? Well, there are different regulations and standards So if they're in map flood hazard areas They will already be subject to minutes Like municipally regulated flood hazard Like flood hazard area rules It wouldn't be under the state's jurisdiction It would be under the municipal jurisdiction Okay Okay Because we would only be looking at through a state permit River corridor Which has different types of standards But through the flood hazard areas He's a FEMA sort of blocking the river corridor regulation Yes Yeah They have language and statute That acknowledges erosion But there's no standards that are tied to it And there's no insurance that like No insurance requirements tied to 10 River corridors Yeah It's only in the map flood hazard areas Okay Thank you And I think on page 14, line 4 and 5 You have the strike reference and line 8 Strike reference to NFIP Well, this is all dependent on it We don't Right Uh It's Right Yeah I'm losing words If you go to the statewide state and hazard area Standards, yes Then we have to do this If we don't If you don't Then we might keep that Right Okay So we should take it out You know until there's a decision to add it in It's you know evaluated in the future Like the study can variable like recommendation and So later in the bill we do not set forward to state Standard visits or anything No, you do Yeah, so that's where But we Because municipalities might adopt it voluntarily Right They could step up Right This wouldn't say that you must step up I guess I'm now confused I think so Well, there's two things here As I understand it as I read it That there's a language to create a statewide minimum Flood hazard center that municipalities adopt So there's like a bottom level for municipalities For their participation Which I see that going forward There's language around creating a study committee To look at statewide regulation of flood hazard areas And how that would look And that recommendations coming out of that Would include legislative like suggestions And for statute change So it's kind of the question of There's a statewide minimum flood plan Standards from municipalities Do we as a state regulate flood plains in any way And make recommendations with statute suggestions And as it was before we're making these changes It's basically saying essentially like We would be regulating flood hazard areas Coming out of the study committee And but I don't think that that's the intent I think the intent is that the commission Or the study committee would make recommendations And from that you would decide Which where do we go So Mr. Chair I have compromised on not going further Than we Because of the administration's perspective on this And the inability to fully staff it To meet the needs is basically where I have landed Because what I heard is we would have to hire 15 to 20 folks to actually implement What we had originally discussed And I am leading towards the study committee Being more focused on how would we do this So it seems like that's what we are debating Is whether or not we want it to be more open And have the study committee potentially come back And say actually we don't think it should be state level Or not done exclusively by municipalities But for me I do think that that's the question And I'd like them to explore that Rather than keep it as is Right, right And maybe it's even a more nuanced question Of should it be done regionally Versus should it be done at the state level Or should it be supported at the state level But you know whatever the right authority Is leveraged to RPCs versus the state So I don't know what that means for the language So we'll make a study committee and let's But don't we need to make a decision on this And that would inform the study committee If I under feel stood Ms. Fikers point Is if this is assumed The way this language is written is it's assuming My perspective rather than what the administration Is advocated for which is a more open ended question You mean unresolved Yeah or like a less leading I don't know how to put that A less directed If I'm understanding and concerned This is based on the rivers behaving a certain way And they are directing the maps And now we're going to Once you have the maps And the state says you have to do one thing With the municipality saying Say no we don't want to do that Where's the tiebreaker Where is the tiebreaker And if you don't have a tiebreaker This is all talk What's the tiebreaker It's a question I think To the senator whites point I think If the assumption of the committee and of the legislation Is that there will be some other authority regulating Flood hazard areas besides municipalities Whether it's a mix or a blend or some other recommendation Then we probably Would leave all these references that we've been Striking to the national flood insurance program in Because there would be some assumption of some sort of State rule or program That would come back into some rule making Almost like the flood hazard areas would catch up to the River quarter through rule making Like river quarters are going forward We have a study committee to talk about flood plains And then they catch up It's kind of the way I've been thinking Or they're totally separated and I'm different That's really not how the bill's set up right now Right now the agency has to adopt Required state flood hazard area standards For development in flood hazard areas by January 1 Actually I have yeah January 1, 2026 And then all municipalities that implement an NFIP program Have to adopt those statewide standards by January 1, 2020 I think the 2026 data that I read was for the statewide Minimum standard for municipalities And then you have a study commission that's going concurrently with that And then the study committee would come out with some sort of That's a future legislative decision The legislation doesn't need to address that right now If they want to change it into like A&Rs regulating it all That's future What you're doing here in this bill is A&Rs got minimum standards Municipalities and NFIP have to adopt that minimum standard So you're not going to municipalities and like oh you don't This municipality exists and that but not that etc What you need in that language on page 17 going on the pg 18 Is that the rules will address how Development except for municipal regulation will be Oh okay On page 17 I read that as the statewide minimum flood plains area for municipalities I think what might be The state would have to this would have to be amended to include Our regulation of our areas except for municipal regulation So we'd be pulling the language that's currently in 754 Putting it in 755 Saying we're adopting a statewide minimum flood hazard area standard It's implemented by the state in areas except for municipal regulation and implemented by municipalities Who participate in NFIP everywhere else Yes and Mr. Chair, so there was also a conversation about places that the state does currently regulate in those areas that are special I can't remember exactly all the different categories that you State buildings agriculture silica culture and energy projects that go through the public utility Towns can't regulate so we do Okay, so we're not setting ourselves up for some strange system All I would say is we need to maintain that As long as towns can't regulate it because the state would be out of compliance in the NFIP if we don't Okay State in the state regulate that either Now, yeah, they do So I just wanted to make sure that We're not somehow So That helpful clarification about Page 17 We don't need to sort of preload the language in it will be part of a a coherent Statutory change in a future legislature. No, we don't need to like stub it in there. Maybe we're going to do it Okay, so Senator Watson Thank you. So I just want to check The state books about capacity Well So because I'm saying that we're on page 17. I was kind of holding off On this question. Actually, I'm going to do sorry The first I do want to flag on page 13 Lion 11 this exemption from permanent use of journal general permits for certain development feels really big You know, what what would class what would purify or will be classified as certain development that would then get an exemption It feels like a space for significant vehicles for development I'm happy to look at that more just seeing that I is applied for concern for me And the other question is starting on page 15 line 9 or line 18 the delegation section As I understand it the there was a recommendation that municipalities who want to opt in To the new river corridor program They could be the issuing they could issue or have issuing authority This first one that says secretary may delegate to another state agency the authority to implement these rules I don't know that I've ever seen Secretary to state agency to state agency delegation. I don't know how it's supposed to mean the municipality or No, it was supposed to mean it was post-Iberene legislation since we were regulating things that implicated other state agencies The idea is we delegate some or all of our authority to v-trans to regulate their infrastructure Delegates some all of it to the agency of ag We talked to them about it. We said we're ready to talk if you're interested He shows you have the capacity to do it. They've never raised our hands. So that's just it's idle in there They could raise our hand anytime though And I think to your point on page 14 starting on line 14 15 16 about the Oh, no, sorry Lying third or page 13 mile 11 about the exemptions. We currently have exemptions in our rules. So that's established by rulemaking but and is I don't know what that language means. Can someone explain why what the Exemption I mean what we need to know why would it be a hazard to guess? I think it's just a desire for some flexibility around certain types of development And I don't I don't know if that language is either helpful or harmful, but I think Exemptions is a Touchy thing the way we add flexibility through our general permit as we've As I showed or shared with you previously, you know, we have low risk things. We'll put in a non-reporting category We might be able to add some development into the non-reporting category The other thing we have like for linear development for power and transportation Knowing that those have to crisscross flood plains and streams Because we have an escape hatch in in our rule that they demonstrate There's no practical alternative and they have to walk through and demonstrate like we need to do this This is critical infrastructure. It has to be here. We've explored all alternatives We might need to do something for that from that river corridors I think about people that are in the river corridor now they need to replace their septic system Maybe they need to put the mound a little closer to the river because there's nowhere else to put it We can work that kind of language into the general permit Their current exemptions are like Maintenance of existing structures Like you don't need to come to us to get a permit if you're maintaining your structure without a change to the footprints like maintenance Of like roads like repaving roads But if you start to change dimensions or add fill or anything like that then all of a sudden now you're triggering permit requirements So the exemptions that are in the right now are removal of the structure Or removal of any other improvements of property in whole or in parts So long as the ground elevations under an adjacent to the removal structure or improvement the name unchanged The nexus maintenance or repair the development and the usual course of business Does not include substantial improvements to structures The next is repair replacement maintenance reconstruction transportation And utility networks provided that they're approximately the same bird on horizontal dimensions Shall include repaving of transportation networks And then there are further exceptions So There are exemptions. There are exemptions under the current rule So how about if we let them Chair right Mason over straight staff attorney with conservation law foundation for the record our Recommended language on this. So senator Watson raised this issue last week in regards to the exemptions the language that we're looking at on page 13 Line 11. This is just basically directing the rule in the rulemaking process And mr. I've raised point and mr. Evans point our suggested language would be To say something along the lines of provide for certain regulatory exemptions Under the rule and the rule be singular now Versus plural involving minor development activities with no adverse environmental effects That would provide a not narrow direction basically for the rule So as folks couldn't use it as a loophole And or say that this committee and or other folks during the legislative process were looking for larger exemptions Right I say we captured and read that objective through the non reporting category The farmers out there plotting his fee only doesn't need a permit. He wants to build a barn he needs a permit Yes, I think the language that you suggested is in line with what we have So if that's a little more specific and it doesn't give the agency any difficulty managing Then can you either read that? Again For further possible revision by our council Yes Okay, so let's do that. I'm going to put M. Oh right next to that Email, thank you. It's worth stating that through the the education outreach process that might you know enlighten us in terms of exemptions non reporting activities things like that I think that we're migrating to section 10 on Unless council has questions Based on a discussion Sure, um So this is the requirement that on a report general in 2026 an our adopt rules That establishes a set of flood hazard area standards that all municipalities enrolled in NFIP Should be required to adopt and administer It shall contain standards that exceed the minimum of the NFIP By reducing reducing flood risk to new development and ensuring new development does not create adverse impacts in adjacent pre-existing development Any municipality with a municipal flood hazard area bylaw or ordinance shall update their bylaw To incorporate the state flood hazard area standards and nothing shall prohibit a municipality from adopting protective flood hazard standards with language and standards approved by the agency and then on pg team Any new municipality participating in NFIP shall update their Standards to comply with the state flood hazard area standards by January 1 2028 If they do not Then the state flood hazard area standards shall become the applicable standards for regulating development and any flood hazard area Question here. Who does that permitting? So it's not clear I think from part of where that language came from is In our office. So we have new maps coming out from FEMA towns have to have um And updated flood hazard bylaw on the date the maps come out Otherwise are immediately suspended from the program So no one can buy a pledge new policies of flood insurance and old ones can't be wearing And so our concern is for towns that don't have the capacity or we don't have a ton of capacity to do the bylaw updates that this could almost be like trigger that goes into effect Where they would have and I don't know like we where the rpcs would think of this but We have concerns of some regions like not being able to get all their towns updated By the time the maps come out and that would have like mass suspension of many towns That's right. I mean and I was we have no The town still have to adopt it We have no ability to say town. He will do this and uh select boards actually be able to do that So there's that challenge so so we can work with our towns to Encourage them to do that the other kind of just while I've got the um The other concern I have about establishing a standard and requiring all towns adopted by said date Is I absolutely appreciate the theory that it should be outreach education easier but The fundamental problem is can they implement any flood hazard bylaw That they have are they tracking development that's occurring in the flood plan? Are they evaluating the value of those properties? I mean all the stuff that I used to do this as as a zoning officer in Maryland Is complicated And so my concern is it's almost like saying we understand you're having difficulty driving your Toyota Camry So here's a Lamborghini, which hopefully you'll have better luck with that. Um, so That's that's my my concern. So I do what you want about my my recommendation would be Unless this this Messes up with the flood map would be roll that into the study Like is that part of the solution of having what what does that actually get you by actually having towns Update the same standard because they all still have to meet the minimum amount by p requirements, right? Yeah From our perspective There's two pieces to it. So one is that we're doing this mass file update So it does allow for some level of ease of adoption Understanding that study is still happening concurrently that would come with some recommendations at the end of what do we look at for like a State versus Maryland school breakdown of regulation So like one doesn't exclude the other the other pieces my staff We're down two positions and we have Like every time we interact with a town or a developer Someone calls us to ask us what every single interaction starts with opening up that town's by-law because every single town is different and it allows us some level of Efficiency to be able to say well, we know you have to start here You may have a handful of towns that exceed that but those will likely be Less than every single town Being different and so it allows us to be able to provide tools and support and efficiency on our staff's end uniform So If we adopt a statewide minimum standard Does that increase your capacity? Or does that decrease your capacity? I think it increases our capacity because we're already doing the by-law work that's required by FEMA So that's already staff effort being spent By having a statewide minimum standard I think then it allows us to standardize how we approach towns and and I think the study committee may look at Like I think to chris's point or this family's point It's a bit one of like is does this become too sophisticated? It's harder for towns. I think the lens of like a no adverse impact standard allows for some In that transition period some level of higher assurance of reducing risk to new development or Rebuilding development and I think that it would allow there may be some more complexities But it wouldn't be just like wholesale. You can fill if you want to you can put in houses where you want to So it allows some sidewalks while a study committee would go forward to say What is a breakdown or approach to statewide? Is The statewide rule Enough of an improvement for many municipalities that they'll get lower insurance rates from NFIP um Not on its base alone There's FEMA has a community rating system the crs which can Help to provide some discounts to flood insurance But it requires me municipalities to enroll in that program Which is a very big effort and it requires ongoing administrative work to maintain that participation We have talked with you before about looks like a Like just by the fact that our state has higher standards You know do towns automatically get enrolled they haven't allowed for that to happen. They're they're right now exploring changes that I was just trying to think of incentives that might It's so it's less of a regulatory Push and more of an incentive to move There's a camp in here. Well, I guess my point primary point is I don't know that Having a consistent statewide standard and having towns adopted. I don't think it's necessarily to solve the problem So if it's part of getting it was part of addressing what the technical issues and the FEMA map of the that's Fine, but that if the if the suggestion that wouldn't I don't think this is was that because we're just putting this out there If I don't know that that is Unto itself going to solve the problem of municipal capacity to do that work So, uh, right Increasing the standardized test standard. That's still not going to help you learn Right. So that so that's the that's a concern. So if you're looking if you're approaching from the standpoint of efficacy of The new FEMA flood map rollouts and temp with attack that That makes sense. But as far as like to the extent this will ultimately solve the outcome of regulation of development flood plains and That is not a problem in my in my estimation. That's probably not going to help. I don't disagree Well, and it's a step. Yeah, it's like these people are really created a study committee. I think we had already kind of made the decision that To address that capacity issue. I know involved a lot of staff, but that Moving into the state then address the better standard. But can you into that question? And It's part of the committee's effort to like Take some pressure off the staffing maintenance for kind of some sort of intermediate Outplay that lets us Maybe defer that decision without leaving ourselves in that awkward place that you see how The 2028 game if we haven't changed the landscape capacity wise Won't necessarily get what everyone wants. So Deferring decisions by definition leaves us in awkward places And when I asked earlier what the tiebreaker is if you don't know what the tiebreaker is then Things are right for appeal because the tie breaking decision is Sort of unknown and been left for a later decision You got a tiebreaker They haven't adopted the state hazard areas by july of 2028 Then that becomes a default. You just need to clarify Who's going to be the But you have mr. Campion's concern that the municipalities Aren't suitable for that and and maybe you need to adopt the statewide standard but not make a mandatory but have the state study committee Recommend how to implement that standard whether or not it's through a state system or through municipal system So thank you because that was headed where I was trying to go which is finance committee of which we have three members Is trying to deal with how you permit solar projects or or communications towers and The object there's an objection when people Citizens in the town come in to appeal the application for a solar project And what we're learning in that committee is That's not the time the time to appeal Is when the town plan or zoning is being Written that's what you appeal You don't wait until it's been written and someone makes an application that conforms to the zoning And it turns out to be in what most people would say was in a bobbin of old place You're feeling the wrong thing might make any sense you yes so if we don't if we allow towns or encourage towns to make their own decisions the Time for the citizens to wear in way in is when those decisions are being Formulated to adopt the plan and people don't show up for that They show up for the application, which is too late Oh, I think I was just going to To agree with what mr. Campany and then mr. O'grady to characterize Which is like if you're going to create a study committee to look at the national fund insurance program And how to better protect remotors in the floodplain and future development It might make sense to fold all of this into a broad and scope study to say like What are the opportunities with the state? What are the opportunities with the town? How do we create something that is both durable and actionable? And at what level of government do those things take place? And FEMA's plans were born and grew in the Inundation floods of the midwest and to say we'll just follow FEMA is paddle them up the wrong stream They they're they're tying ourselves to planning. It doesn't fit our topography Is perilous So but that's what we're considered doing Uh, thank you, mr. Chair. I would like to keep the The minimum standard language in here and I actually do disagree with the idea of having it be in the study rather than implementing now And I understand the perspective I really do and I'm typically the person in this committee going don't burn in the town That's like my rally call Um, however, I do not believe based on the testimony we've heard from the administration That this is something that would be a burden to towns beyond I mean it I think the support that they would get from the administration would actually be better than what they're receiving now And would make it easier for them to actually do the minimum standard versus now where they aren't getting the technical support I think it would then Kind of move us in the direction of potentially having a different regulatory framework with the regional planning commission through the state taking it over rather than Having individual towns their own individual ways of doing it. So I am in favor of keeping this language I'm concerned we are running out of time on this conversation and I I just think this is a decision not a debate at this point is we have to decide Do we want to be standard or do we not want a minimum standard and we are not going to have everyone agree on it And I personally would vote to keep this language in and not roll it into the city committee So, um I'm flagging this as an open question. Okay, everyone And we'll facilitate My grandmother say sleep on it. It will be clear in the morning But let's leave that section On the altar Yes, so I have not I have not had towns having to digest s3 10 which is in uh senate govern ops But apparently there's language in there also about Standard flow. So anyway, just whatever you guys decide just a flag. You probably know this So just a heads up you may want to make sure that whatever you guys that I'll let it all is working together Yeah, I think 310 is with um building codes right No, 310 is arm bill. I believe in senate govern ops state responsive like Emergencies. Yeah, I don't know I don't know how it would relate to that. Yeah Yeah, the same language runs building standard like building codes Better general things. I was just I was just giving you a heads up Whatever I hope is that uh And I've talked to the chair as well as we had two people that made it We do complimentary pieces and don't Thoughtfully complimentary and don't overwrite each other's work or leave a gas So, okay, well if that's an open question then a lot of other Then the next 20 pages or 10 or 11 pages are open questions as well You can skip to dams because the study committee You you don't know what's going to be in the study committee And you don't know what needs to be conforming in the municipal authority and the zoning by-laws So you can just skip to dance Um Page 30 Okay, so let's do that I'm really the first change there is age 36. Can I undo what we're just doing here for a moment? Can you Just For the section that we're not going to pass over there are some gray Uh lines right so that that can you just point out the theme in these gray lines that you can do they all should river corridors Because currently municipalities have the authority to regulate landfill development in river corridors shorelands But you're going to have a river corridor permitting program at a and r So They won't be regulating river corridor development anymore. We just about Unless they're So you you would need to know that and so if that's your choice You're going to probably have to Straight this and have language about how municipalities can if they're delegated That's that's the what the great the great matter is Okay, and I only have a very small comment on page 21 the gray and highlighted river corridor protection Whatever happens with river corridors in there to stop or change We would change river we would start protection areas just river corridors We wouldn't have protection areas Okay, that was a like a revenue from previous mapping efforts Okay So so that that that's why river corridors are grade anytime there's reference to this grade You just need to make that decision There's a 21 22 kind of grade if river quarter stays we would just ask the state for protection Yeah, yep Okay, so and then the gray on page 25 in the study committee The study committee as language was originally proposed would have recommended whether or not to have state minimum but hazard area standards But you already had that earlier in the bill so and then So that's great. Just so you know that that should come out But it also now is great because you have to make that decision So And then the transition Implementation appropriations that really all depends on what you decide to do, you know, if you're going to do flood hazard area by Or not the transition depends on what you choose to do in those sections So I stated my opinion Yeah, we while we've drafted with the assumption that we are going forward The only question was what was the regulatory Of the permitting and regulatory authority before did that shift did it go to the state or did it stay municipal For the flood hazard area Yes Okay So on For purposes of time, I'm not going to go over every section in the dam safety. Yeah, because you've seen that a few times Well now page 36 is a change It's in the It's in the hearing that will be held You wanted to be clear that the purpose of the public comment Um, and was whether the product serves public good And whether it provides adequately for public safety that had been the standard On page 37 lines 1 through 10, but that was struck And there was a request for that to be re incorporated in as the purpose of the hearing And then on stage So the purpose of the hearing is public safety and determination of what needs to be done You don't need to conclude public safety under the cpg Um, which was I believe you want that back in Oh, yeah, thank you, uh, Ben Green, uh sex and safety and safety engineer Um, you know, we'd advocate for public safety to be in the public good criteria that that list is not necessarily a priority list And it's actually probably why I do agree is the most important thing to be in there. Um The value of safety if it's not in there in my opinion Okay, so 16 through 19 on 36 are, uh, agreeable with that We're just being, what's that? It's which removed is number 13 Page 38 line Well is what they want Steady they want the the struck through to be removed It sounds like remount on power is on the same page there Yeah, that's that's right. I think we'd like to see in both places and then just one additional comment on Intending five and those application period appreciate that Council added Public safety into there. We did just have the initial suggestion that It says the purpose of this public comment add the words and review just to make explicitly clear that It's not just the public comment period to look at public safety, but the department's review We also include the consideration of public safety I just for the record this language that begins at the top of page 37 that's struck through is an explicit reference to the process The puc currently employs and they review de-modification projects The agency doesn't Use exactly the same process and then we have we have a lengthy public process and Project review process would be applicant but from our perspective The language that was pulled from the top of page 37 is stuck in section 1085 Is not necessary our public comment period It is there for anyone to comment on any aspect of the project that affects them and putting these parameters around it doesn't seem to serve a purpose from our perspective I mean we obviously the public comment period is for comments on whether the project serves the public good And whether it complies with the requirements in 1086 But it also, you know, we encourage comments on other aspects of the project as well We're not sure why this is moving here Okay, so for anyone who was speaking in favor of adding This explanation of things eligible to be commented on that are If I understanding that Smith already eligible to be commented on without it What is the who's arguing and why for this meeting inclusion of lines? 16 Mr. Yeah, it's a little bit for jp I would be very welcome suggestions for where else to include it This the time Asking for the explicit Calling out of public safety is that we don't just want public safety to be one of any considerations that the department Takes into account when weighing these applications. It needs to be Equally weighted against the other considerations This is the do you want sort of You want public safety to be just one of many considerations Does not seem to be in line with that sort of philosophical intent of moving This jurisdiction over to the department So mr. Green, I'm guessing that some would take the always Structural always Well, no, it's always a consideration. It's our number one consideration. Yeah So i'm I'm just puzzled a little why why we need to Restate that if it's inherent in Chapter 170. Is it the section 1086? Provision that you're wanting to highlight So the concern here is that the department was giving due consideration to less than 13 or 14 different inputs And we would argue that public safety should be given greater weight in that consideration Then perhaps in the later considerations there you've heard testimony from dam owners that some of their for example water polypheras I have them from drawing dams down a key piece of the operation Hydrofacility and the fans of a Significant water event is to draw down Water we would not want to be put in a position of having to make the decision between violating or To the greatest possible Extended by the public safety and that's where we want public safety to be elevated and right now It would just be one of my considerations as the state ever are certain that uh, there's a Violation and then act it on it from like an environmental standpoint when environment and public safety Could have been seen to be in you know competition with my life I'm not aware of States for this action, but it just Your targets one will cover a contingency Okay Smith then tenor I think for the record, we don't disagree with green mountaineer's position. Um The concern is that this language seems to sort of Limit what would be open for public comment perhaps or motivate what's open for public comment And we don't want that outcome We hear your concern about The necessity to consider public safety in the criteria Um It feels like we're dancing around and if there was a explicit statement about in When there is a Conflict between other permit Other considerations public safety public safety will trunk those other considerations Oh I don't know if we say that somewhere along you may not be able to Because When the dam obligations, yes Reinforcement of the water quality standards I don't know If you can say that any public safety standard or concern will Supercede the water quality standards. There is a discretionary enforcement though as agency, right? There's always discretionary enforcement They don't always do it correctly, but there's always discretionary Thank you, um What if on page 37 Under a public good where we start that list And it says shall give due consideration to among other things the effect of the proposed book What if instead to be was called out there? She'll give due consideration to public safety and among other things the effect will which sort of calls it out of the list brings it to the top Recognize that it's kind of the priority But it is among other things Yes, and to senator watson's point that's what I was actually hoping to see when we made that change originally But it seems like we've created this set. We've added to the notice of application section to answer that I don't know why we didn't do it that way, but frankly it feels like We're spending a lot of time on this um So I'd be open to that point that senator watson is doing We're just not removing 13 and keeping it as is. I mean, I think either direction. Yes. Yes So just to clarify it would say shall give due considerations to comma among other things comma Public safety and the effect of the proposed project will have on sure But then when we take out the Public safety Well, you would be taking out public safety. No, no, it's just not moving It's more like highlighting it. Yeah I want to make sure uh, this uh, smith's comment that you Wanted he did not want public safety Because you didn't buy public No, no senator We want we want public safety listed in 1086 as a consideration or issue We the state was Confused or concerned perhaps about the addition of this explicitly which in 1085 Which then directs the public comment area to consider Whether the public good is sir because from our perspective that isn't here in the public comment period That is the intent of the state's comment period Get feedback on whether we're meeting the criteria So We agree that the public safety is a legitimate And that public comment is good Should I move on to the next stage That would be on the 40 In 1089 you're striking that old irrelevant language with the approval of the governor And striking the state agency having jurisdiction as the department may be part of the engineer And then you have that question on page 40 lines 12 and 13 Which you asked to gray or highlight differently This had previously said the department shall review and approve or disapprove the report And there was questions about their authority to disapprove I just um as in general comment the 1080 7889 are a little awkwardly written as originally written but um, I guess from the standpoint of the other program I think most important thing that comes out of these two sections would be that that the dam safety program Have engine engineering staff that carries out the requirements and statute and and It's currently written. It seems as though It's getting away from potentially could be read to get it. We're getting away from that. We're not deploying anymore requiring an engineer And uh, so from that standpoint, it's it's a little bit troublesome To the program Can you so are you focusing on lines like through 11 10 10 89? Yeah The engineer conducting an investigation out of the section shall we employee the department or shall we operating under supervision of the department as an independent consultant? Is that right a couple things going on there? I think in terms of how that would you know The either we The engineering program the density program needs to have engineers that can can perform this work There's gonna be cases where that's not going to be possible Whether it's an emerging technology or something that we cannot have the expertise to Opie and on and we're gonna need to be able to get assistance So we need to be able to have every available way to do that in my opinion. So we need to be able to Hire someone to do it or we need to be able to acquire an applicant to do that Which is probably more realistic Generally speaking then The latter but in my opinion you have all avenues open to us to have that application reviewed by a capable and qualified engineer Okay, so Most I'm oh slow on the uptake that option here to either do it in-house or hire it out through an independent consultant Is that um binding you in some way or is it that we're not we don't offer The applicant is required to submit Or the applicant required to do it in addition and again We're back to the original sentence where it got struck at the top of 10 8 9 With the approval of the governor and states the other jurisdiction department used to say may employ I guess We've got there's a deploy and require an engineer So we're necessarily requiring that the density program will be staffed by engineers We're not that's That's my point to highly kind of the technical Department and Senator watching Sorry, so you would prefer to go back to employ. I'm sorry. I think I think I would refer that also as before simple once that sent statement that this says that you know Engineers defined it will be on the department will be It runs by engineers that are required to carry out the requirements of the statute I think would be I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Can you say that again? If I have a statement here We're before we'll ask even the department shall employ an engineer or engineers to perform the duties required out of the statue Where would you put that? 10 in 10 10 8 9 Right right at the top of that section Instead of the first sentence It's admittedly awkwardly written in an existing context, but yes because I think one of the challenges here. I think the original construction of this was it was designed for both the puc and dc and there's two different Ways that Dan first roughly regulated and if we're trying to fold everything is uh Fold everything into one on the under the department then the department There's no department does it then Um, what's your partner? Chair carpenter like shampooing community mr. Chair Do you think this section's even needed anymore? You just start the whole thing Um, because like you said, it's it's written for the puc to employ an engineer when you have engineers already employed But you're also the consultants, so right I guess My preference would be the statement I just escape and then we also have the caveat where we could hire a consultant if we need it because there's going to be potential cases where There's emergent technology that we're not qualified to apply for a need assistant Or we have the authority to require the applicant to to do that and submit the information to us for our review and approval That's okay So thank you. I'm fine with that language that you suggested So if you could just send it over to mr Grady, and then we'll highlight it and come back to it again and see if we've landed the right place Some bleeding the tension a seven as well Okay So that takes you to page 41 liability for dam breach You know just that Yeah, so let's pause there. I'm glad we finished the bill off this morning It's really It's really surprising that we were able to do that There's a couple of doozies later on too So We'll be revisiting our schedule that actually Thursday Friday are blank and it was not for nothing that they were blank um All right, so If you can send those that language to mr. Grady, then we Look at putting that in Put my flag up. We stopped here At top page or 41. Did you have something before we Before I flagged that did you have something you wanted to say in a prior section? I don't have a small list in prior sections Yes, we sort of skipped over. Okay. So why don't you send Any suggestions for 10 87 and 89 For mr. Grady, and then when we pick back up we can see it in writing and it'll be helpful for people who Make decisions having it laid out um Thank you everyone Some edits are easier than others. This is one of the more challenging I Mr. Grady, are you in committee or meetings for the balance of the day? I'm thinking I might want that I would like to be able to catch up I am not I'm going to be redrafting this bill So I will uh, like to make an appointment for this afternoon with you while you're retracting See if we can Do some clarifications that will help us get over further for tomorrow. Uh, thank you everyone Um Please watch the agenda. I think we for instance. Yeah, we may make some adjustments. So we stay on this task until We've finished and then for instance the Visit with the secretary on budget. We don't need to hear the budget before we finish So we schedule to give us time back. Okay. Thank you everyone and we are adjourned