 Good morning. It is Thursday, September 17th, 9 a 2 a.m. This is a meeting of Senate natural resources and energy. We have two things on the agenda for this morning. One was we make making ourselves available in case there are any amendments being offered. And then the second piece of business is we went through each 833 yesterday the interface and water bill yesterday and asked for some edits to it and wanted to go through those today and if we think everything's in order vote that out and get it to the floor. So I'm looking around the room and at the moment, the one amendment that was that is in the Senate calendar is from Senator Benning who emailed me last night and said he wasn't going to offer it. Well, it would be, I would feel a little better if you showed up in committee to tell us it wasn't coming as opposed to me just saying I didn't want to be sort of. But he'll be, I think he's going to move to formally withdraw that amendment before third reading. So with that, yes, Senator Rogers. So Senator Bray. I just forwarded our council a proposal. So, and take the committee's lead on this but from what I understand, the anti degradation language that we put in a bill several years ago still hasn't been implemented and I wondered if the committee would be interested in including that language in the I would, you know, with. So I was, let me ask what the rest of the committee thinks I'll just hold my opinion go last as moderator. What would the impact be and you know, this one's the last time we've taken testimony on it. Well, it's already, it's already law they just haven't implemented it and I'm, I'm just saying that if it's law, they should have implemented it and I'm just asking the committee if we're willing to put a thumb on them and say do it get it done it's law. I think they haven't done it. Well, we do have Mr chappan here from an hour I don't know if he's sort of ready to speak to that but he probably knows could fill us in a little bit. And I asked my first reaction is not to be opposed to it just to understand in the process and if it's needed. Yeah. I'm, I'm not sure Senator what Senator Rogers is are you talking about adjusting or amending the date on the rulemaking as it relates to the anti degradation implementation procedure. Yes. Okay. And, and can I ask what the proposal is as far as an amended date. Well, I thought there, I thought there was an existing date that hasn't been met. Okay. And so I guess my question is, when are we planning on meeting that and is there anything we can do to hurry the process along. So, there's an existing anti degradation implementation procedure that's not a rulemaking but is a guidance document the agency follows when implementing the anti degradation policy that is in the water quality standard so there was a desire, numerous years ago to have another rulemaking related to the implementation procedure. I don't think we're opposed to that in the large sort of set of rule makings that are out there it is, it is not sort of come up to the top of priorities within the agency and I think that the legislature, you should just again for context, we were prepared and started the rulemaking process in 20, I believe it was 2010. Then there was a legislative enactment that basically said you can't move forward with rulemaking. So we stopped the rulemaking process at that point. It had to do with a change of administration that was about ready to take place at that time. And then there was, you know, there's basically been a pause, and there hasn't been a lot of focus on it since then I don't. I certainly don't think that there would be an objection to a change in the date to give some reasonable period of time let's say to two additional years. I don't know for the agency to go through a rulemaking process and put a deadline on the agency to get the rule in place I mean I'd like to talk to folks back at the agency but I know this is something we've, we've talked about internally on several occasions to bring it up and try and get through it it's it's it's complicated, and there's a lot of people who haven't interested in it, but I, we, it is on our radar and we know it's something that needs to get done. If I, if I could Mr chair ask a couple more questions. So our permits being issued now in accordance with the law or. I mean, sure I mean they're they're being issued in accordance with both the anti degradation policy and the water quality standards, and the implementation procedure guidance documents that have been developed by the agency. Just, Senator bang is here if he had a short communication to make to us we might hear. Yeah, thank you. I see he's in the room. So we'll go back to our previously scheduled programming. Good morning Senator Benning. Thank you for joining us. We convened our first order business was is hearing any amendments possible amendments for nine to six, which is up for third reading today. And I know you have an amendment on the calendar. I shared with the committee I heard from you via email that you were considering with you were planning to withdraw that amendment but I was hoping you'd be here in person to talk to the committee, rather than me speaking about emails. Thank you Mr chair and I apologize for being targeted this meeting but my, my office, my legal office took priority this morning. I do have a an amendment on the calendar which was basically asking to remove the sunset provision on the trails portion of the bill. After consideration and our discussion last night, I have come to the belief that that amendment probably will cause some heartburn on the other side of the building, and might actually lead to jeopardy of the bill in question is very important for my constituents to have the trails portion of this bill go forward. So I'm withdrawing the amendment, and it will not be presented on the floor today. Hope that takes care of that issue and thank you very much for the opportunity. Okay, thanks for coming in and letting us know in person. And then I'll speak for myself if I'm back, I can, and I, I think this was a shared sense in the room. There's a very genuine interest in getting to a longer or durable solution. And I know that this is kind of a bridge solution. So, well, I think people genuinely want to do their best, and we'll need more time but there's a, there's now a pathway to get there. Thank you for letting us know. I love fun and working with you all on that issue in the future. Thank you very much. Thanks, gentlemen. Mr Chair, I want to apologize to center for Rogers for interrupting him to deal with no apology necessary that's that's the way things roll. Thank you. Okay. So, Mr Chair. I totally understand that this may be too much for the committee to take up it's late. Okay, and all this but as I understand it. 10 vs a subsection 1251 AC on or before July one 2016. The secretary of natural resources shall adopt by rule or implementation process for the anti degradation policy and water quality standards of the state. The implementation process for the anti degradation policy shall be consistent with the state water quality policies established in section 1250 of this title, the remote water quality standards and any applicable requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. The secretary of natural resources shall apply the anti degradation implementation policy to all new discharges that require a permit under this chapter. And I understand that this is law and this has not been carried out. And the question I have to how many permits have been issued since that time. Well, maybe Mr admin could, could answer. Because one of the frustration things I hear from constituencies, you guys aren't doing anything on water quality we say we put these laws in place and we put money here and then we see, you know, we're four years behind the ball on this law. Right, you know, we missed the deadline on the last administration with this one. So, Senator McDonald and then I'd like to check in with Mr a great use with us on the call. Mr chair, the, you know, being for a late four years late is, it's not appropriate. You and I serve on the rules committee, along with Senator bedding. One of the things that the rules committee can do on its own action is to call for the writing rules to carry out statute. That might be an avenue but I would hope we would not. We're put put it on the bill that's coming up today. So, okay. So, Mr. Brady, you turned your video on that's often a signal to me, I think you have something to share with us. Is there anything you want to contribute to the conversation. I turn my video on because I generally staff these issues and I just wanted to be available. I don't want you to turn down and not that she wouldn't be able to handle it just that I usually staff these issues. So, you know, I guess, I appreciate Senator McDonald's point, you know, the L car, which is involved in rulemaking can actually act on the question. Another avenue to us I don't know if it's, I think it's probably helpful in that it creates a little more momentum in the direction of getting a rule or final rule is the this committee can send a letter, both to L car and to the agency. You know, inquiring on the status of it and an urging completion. So let me offer that as a, and, and then the conversation is suggesting to me, there's a lot more to the story is Mr. Chapman said, and so that's my reluctance to sort of ensnare the 926 and something that we really I'm feeling like, even though I've worked on this with all of you. I don't know enough to say exactly how what we would ever say, even if we were leaning towards, you know, amending 926 at this point. Yeah, well I would be, I would be happy Mr chair with with any movement. I think the letter from the committee. If it's L car taken over the reins. I just think that something that was supposed to happen some years ago should get some pressure to be completed. And then I'll work with Mr. Grady to draft a letter and will write to both the agency and to L car to, since L car already has a mechanism under the Administrative Procedures Act to inquire about just such things, and to urge completion of things. Mr chap can I ask one quick question. I know that you that agencies aware of this is. Can you just describe what the most productive. So you're here in this conversation, you know people would like to see the rule completed, can you say anything about where we are now and what a productive next step is like how would you proceed if you say okay we hear you we want to get, we'll get going on this moving up on the priority list what happens next. It's going to be I mean you know the process of drafting a rule. I don't know whether it's useful or not, and whether the committee wants to take a trip through the land of anti degradation because your right Senator it is more complicated than that, and I don't want the committee to be left with the impression that the agency is not implementing the anti degradation policy, but I will say that there clearly is procedural requirement to adopt rules that has not been that. And to that end I mean I certainly have already have an email queued up to go out to inform the agency of the committee's interest with respect to this. I mean the next step with respect to the agency is it's, there's an internal process to basically take either existing guidance document or develop a new document to draft a rule. And then we begin both a pre rulemaking stakeholder comment and we start the rulemaking process. I mean on average, an uncontroversial rulemaking takes a year. So, that's normally the timeframe. And can you just describe what would be the sort of meaningful difference between you already have guidance in place we already have regulated it's not that this is unregulated is that the formal rule isn't been adopted. Can you say something about what out there in the real world, say this rule is completed. What happens with that rule that doesn't happen under the current regulatory scheme you operate. I think would change necessarily and I say that in two fronts, one is there's been an anti degradation policy. So a requirement that we look at sort of the impact of discharges on existing uses since the adoption of the water quality standards back in the late 70s early 80s. There was a desire to have a more express implementation procedure. A while ago, and we started through a more detailed input anti degradation implementation guideline to help the agency sort of work through some of the issues on implementation. It's been in place and it's been utilized since its adoption. You know, again, I would like to say it's like Mike you may remember it's been 10 or 15 years ago at this point. And then, and we've been under a requirement for some time to transition into rules. I think it's speculative to me to say, whether the rulemaking process would yield a, an outcome that is different than our existing guidance document. And I'm not for certain whether the agency and reviewing its existing guidance document might not decide to take a different approach right so that guidance documents been out there for a while. And I'm certain that we've learned lessons along the way that might get incorporated into any ultimate rulemaking that we choose to do. Right. And what's the relationship between the anti degradation rule you have or and any kind of federal law is the Clean Water Act for instance requires such a policy and that's the basic driver for having an anti degradation policy and raw. So the Clean Water Act requires that state water quality standards have an anti degradation policy. Okay. Well, thank you. Senator Rogers. So, um, I guess, if we have a couple issues. And number one, we've had several departments and agencies over the years. We have not meet the timelines that the legislature puts out and that in and of itself is disturbing in the so much as we have just asked them for a timeline on trails. And so with with them not meeting timelines that we've laid out previously it makes me a little bit nervous about if they're going to meet the timeline on these trails. And that's that's point number one point number two is if the anti degradation is being implemented just in a different way, and not by the rule that the legislature asked them to come up with. Then it seems that none of our waterways should be degrading yet there is some evidence that there are still some waterways degrading so I'm a little skeptical that the that it's being total totally carried out in permitting at this point if we're seeing water quality still degrade in some areas. I just want to the degradation policy that a and r has. There's three tiers maybe even a fourth. And I can't remember I think there's three though. So in the commonly used here, what the agency is going to look at is whether the proposed use a proposed discharge is going to degrade any of the existing traditional uses of that water. Right so so you can have a discharge. You can have development you can have growth, etc. And implement measures that will that will mitigate the effect of that new discharge on the traditional uses of the water, and therefore the agency can determine that there won't be a degradation to the water. Now some of the some of the issues that are degrading the water. They may have been there for for decades and you know I think one of the the most media friendly issues is the combined sewer overflows right. You know those systems were designed by the Romans. Right. And they work the way that they were designed to work. It's just that we've determined now that that's not a great thing for our water quality and for our recreational uses. And the location policy may not have been in place when those were first designed or wasn't potentially not being implemented in the way that it is today when those were first designed and constructed. There is a rule that that is designed to address them and and get rid of them. But it's going to take time and money so there there's this is this is a really. It has many moving parts. And so I wish it was easier. And some people will argue that it is easier that the stages needs to take take on the responsibility, but that really comes down to money. And so that's that's up to you guys. That's what you do. So quick question and center. So thank you Mr. Gates helpful to be reminded and when the anti-dake they were talking about so that that's when we have is this. Just remember the system class a class B B one B two. You're basically not trying to let anything move down the ladder right you maintain where you are. Or is it. I'm seeing Mr. Chapman. Well, so this is this is I think the challenging part. So this is this is the use protection provisions of the Clean Water Act. Designated and existing uses right and and existing uses or any use that's existed since basically the adoption of the Clean Water Act designated uses of the planning objectives that we have. And I view them as basically the planning objectives that we've set for how waters should be an anti degradation is, is really it's, it's better to think of it as a use protection mechanism to make sure that waters that are high quality don't don't impact any of those existing uses as opposed to sort of a. One of our other tools to clean up impaired or degraded waters we have, I think. And again people can debate around this and I'm not certain that anti degradation is necessarily the tool it is a tool that we use with respect to new discharges. Even the language that Senator Rogers quoted is focused on new discharges as opposed to existing discharges. So it's as an answer that's where the focus has been we've spent, as I know the committee knows much of our effort on trying to take existing discharges and address some of the challenges that that are on the landscape based on our evolution of knowledge and how how these these discharges impact water quality. And my last question, I think from me on this one is, what's the relationship between the anti degradation procedures or rules policy and nonpoint discharges because we've been doing a lot of work and recent years related to nonpoint discharges, particularly around agriculture. My, my interpretation is that the, the anti degradation and the discharge policy of the water quality standards applied to discharges and discharges generally speaking, our point source discharges. I'm not sure and you probably need to talk to the agency of agriculture about how with respect to nonpoint source discharges. They look at things like the discharge and anti degradation policy. Okay. The question I have for Senator Rogers is so you serve on institutions which has the revolving loan fund where municipalities go to do things like wastewater treatment facility or sewer upgrades. Are, are those funds fully subscribed, you know, or what's your experience been in the last year or two in terms of people, the willingness basically municipalities to take on some debt to do this kind of work. Those, those funds are, are generally all spoken for and used up and it seems like all the municipalities are willing to do what there's money for and we know they're expensive projects and it takes some number of years to plan and, and, and do the actual construction because they're under city roads and stuff but yeah, yeah, there's never enough money. That's money always seems to be the problem, or a significant portion of the problem is money. Okay. Well with that any. So, thank you for ringing up anti day, Senator Rogers. I'm sure somewhere right now. Committee member chair smelling is having a good feeling and she doesn't know why but because you're carrying the anti day flag forward. So, will I'll work with Mr. O'Grady bring back a letter to the committee for review and sign off. And I think we can probably do that. Yes, they are to or by the beginning of next week. I'm not sure what Mr. O'Grady schedules like I know it gets busier by the minute this time of year. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we don't there's no one else who has shown up that I believe well let me check in there's some comments here. Mr. Fidel is here. I don't know if you're appearing because of Senator Benning's amendment that he's chosen to withdraw on, or if there's any other amendments in play that we should be aware of. Senator Bray I was just here in response to the invitation related to the the bending amendment. Okay. Thank you for coming in. Good morning Mr Coleman. Same here. And unfortunately I know more about anti dag than I care to admit and I will stay out of that. Stay out of that discussion and put that on the back burner for a future, a future day. Right. All right. Okay. So with that, then I think we're finished on topic one 926 amendments and go to 833. Mr. O'Grady, you put together an amendment from 833. Could you walk us through the amendment and then we'll have some discussion and perhaps we voted out. Sure, I'm going to share my screen. I don't have host capability or co host capability. I'm working on it. Okay, now let me try. Okay, can you see my screen. Yes, sir. And so this is the amendment you requested to 833. The first instance of amendment would amend subdivision three and the duties that the study group would have. To identify whether the state of Vermont should develop and implement the statewide permitting or other regulatory regime for diversions or other transfers to surface water, including the scale or size of a watershed subject to regulation. How a permitting program will comply with the Vermont water quality standards how or if the per permitting program should address the impact of the diversion on groundwater. And how to address reducing the demands for water through water recycling reuse and efficiency measures. Should I move on. Great, I think that those were the extra considerations we hope they would put on the table. Thank you. Yeah, the next instance of amendment addresses the date of the report of the study group, moving it from January 15 2021 to December 15 2021. And similarly in the third instance of amendment addressing when the trip the study group would terminate, moving it from February one 2021 to February one 2022. And that is the end of the amendments to the underlying 833 bill that came over from the house. That takes you then to the fourth instance of amendment, what you do is you strike out the effective date of 833 and you add a new section. And relating to the financial surety provision for holding tanks and 10 vs a 1979. You'll see as you requested that the entire requirement for financial surety for anyone receiving a holding tank under section 1979 would be struck. And I would clarify that this is not a requirement financial surety is currently not a requirement for the best fix standard so for residential home, their system fails and holding tank is the best fix. They're currently not required to have a bond, etc. And this doesn't affect the residential user this affects the public buildings and the nonprofit charitable etc that qualify for holding tank under 1979. They will no longer have to post that bond. And then there's a subsequent conforming amendment on lines nine and 10 and subdivision 3B. And then the the act takes effect on passage and that is the amendment. Any committee questions for Mr. O'Grady. All right, thank you. It looks great. If there's no questions for Mr. Grady I'm wondering if the committee is ready to vote. Vote to amend 833 Mr. I couldn't make the testimony with ag can you just give me a brief description of you know what the problem we're trying to solve here and you know what what brought this about. I don't have the holding tank language. Yeah. So, a few years ago someone donated money to the Asin County field and fair days to build a welcome center. When they built that welcome center. Certain wastewater requirements were triggered for a permit to do what's required under the rules for like a mound system etc. It would have been very very expensive. A few years ago you amended the holding tank law to make events nonprofit events that are held for no more than 28 days a year. Eligible to use a holding tank and the Asin County field and fair days applied to the agency for that holding tank permit and they got that holding tank permit. Part of the permit was to put in a temporary tank and then do some flow monitoring to see if they would need a bigger tank. Turns out they need a bigger tank. And as part of their overall permit whether or not it was a temporary tank or the permanent tank. They have this financial surety requirement under 1979. But it's very difficult to get a bond for a holding tank, regardless of if you're at Asin County Fair or or anyone else. And so the agency has proposed eliminating that requirement. There's still a provision in 1979 that requires anyone that gets a permit under that section to have a contract with it with the current septic tank pump company, so that there is continued maintenance of that holding tank so that there isn't an issue with its its operation or it's overflowing, failing, etc. So, and the permit itself will have conditions on it for maintenance, etc. By removing the financial surety provision, you take away a potential burden obstacle for nonprofits, public buildings, municipal government to get a holding tank, while still retaining under the permit and the remaining provisions of 1979 control and surety of the maintenance and operation of the tank. Thanks. Thank you. If I was good at memorizing I would put that in my head and be bring into the floor, if I asked. The other, the other piece to from the, the board that runs the field days point of view was the cost of that bond was, you know, considerable. And they, because all the fairs run under some financial pressure and this year especially with having to not have even hold field days. It just helps them have a little more money on hand to go ahead and do the tank replacement. And the timeliness issue was, while they're not really doing much over there these days. It's an opportunity to do the construction this fall and be ready for next operating season. Okay. Right. So with that, I wonder if there's a motion to amend age 33, as in the amendment Mr. Gary just walked us through. I just, I guess just one quick comment, I guess. I don't really have a issue with the bill as proposed in and of itself but as as with many other things that we ask agencies to look into. I do have some concern that there's going to be a substantial effect on agriculture. There's a lot of folks that grow things hemp be in one of them, but you know, live, livestock and a lot of other stuff. Do use surface water and I'm, I'm just concerned as always that somebody will come back with a plan to add more cost and and more regulation to an already struggling sector so that does give me some pause on the, on the underlying bill. I just wanted to make that point. Okay. Yeah, I think, well, you know, from I under, I understand that and I'm trying to remember the I don't know enough about this topic. There is sort of a privileged position. Isn't there a stroke Grady in law in terms of water withdrawals for agriculture or is that not true. Agriculture culture was actually a protected use of waters under the rock water quality standards. But to back up you don't potentially don't even get to that because most irrigation in Vermont farmers are using groundwater wells and not surface water diversion for for their water. You wouldn't put most farms currently aren't going to trigger that issue. With that said, Senator Rogers mentioned hemp hemp cultivation is is is a heavily water dependent crop from my understanding. There might be if the industry grows or if cannabis outdoor cannabis cultivation grows. There might, there might be some farmers that look to surface water for irrigation. In many states that that type of of irrigation is either protected. If you're like out in the West and you have the protected water rights but we're in the East, where surface water diversion statutes usually have some sort of either lower threshold for exemption for agriculture. I think that that's part of what the study group is going to look at and make a recommendation on you ultimately as the body are going to be the ones to decide whether or not agriculture would be subject to diversion permanent system or not. But I think for the most part right now, most farmers get their water from the ground and are exempt from the large volume groundwater permit by statute. And most farmers aren't going to be affected immediately into the future with cultivation of water dependent crops, maybe it becomes an issue but that's something that you can address on any statutory scheme that you create. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Rogers knew a lot about hemp cultivation, did you do like drip line irrigation or depend on the weather. And some of both we do some drip line and some that's subject to the whims of mother nature. And that's the one of the reasons I asked is because I don't think Senate ag has has weighed in on the bill or I'm not sure how much they know about it or if they would want to dig into it. So that does concern me a bit and, as I said, we're in the 11th hour here so I think, I mean from my point of view, since it's a report to get us started, the next legislature, that should be the legislative session of 2022 right into a position to be better informed to follow up so did we get a cost on what what the projected cost of this. There, I, I forget. No, I didn't ask for a physical note I can do that I've, there are up to six meetings allowed and limited number of people who are eligible for per diems. I think JFO, I think that you know, pretty much they have a recipe for X number of meetings X number of people leads to how much cost my guess is it's probably 2000 or less. But I'll ask for a note. You've been through this before with with work groups and approach. Do you happen to have any knowledge or let me just go to JFO and ask them. I would have said $2,000 you've got eight people that potentially qualify for the per diem and expenses. And from my experience in the past that that's basically a $2,000 cost for six meetings. Back to the white land study group for instance there are six legislators, there are six to eight meetings, and it would cost out at $2,000. So if you're here in that you're in that ballpark. Okay, not big money then. Senator Rogers do you want me to formalize that with JFO or that. No, not necessarily I was just looking for a ballpark personally. Okay. So if there's nothing else. Looking for someone to make a motion to amend a 33 as presented in amendment Mr a great just walked through, ready to make motion. Thank you. The chair doesn't make motions. So with that all those in favor please say I and raise your hand. I. So the committee vote is 401 to amend the bill. I'll be looking for a motion to move 833 as so amended. So move. Thank you Senator Rogers, all those in favor please say I and raise your hand. I. I'm just scratching my head. I'm just scratching my head. Senator Rogers I see you moving your hat that's usually the signal you would like to report this bill. I'm just scratching my head. Anyone I'm happy to report the bill. It's no one is anchoring to do that. Okay. Seeing no no takers 401. Can you, since we do this thing a little differently in the electronic age, the zoom era. You send both the amendment and the base bill to the secretary. Is that right? I think you send them to me and I send them directly to the right. I think that that's what the Senate secretary prefers. She prefers to get it directly from one of the senators. I'll send them to the committee. And I'll send them to the committee. I'll send them to the committee. And I'll send them to the committee. I'll have no change for the base bill and the amendment. And then I'll send them on with a committee report. I have no changes to the amendment. So I will just resend what I've said previously. Great. Thank you very much. And. So let me check in with the center parent. Okay. I'm thinking ahead that the time is running short. Would you be willing to approach the. Minority party and see if they might be willing to expedite floor work on the bill. I have not checked with the majority leader, but I'm just. Asking that question ahead of time. On the 33. I'll check with Jeff. Okay. Thank you. And I'll check with center battle. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any else. Anyone wants to bring up. All right. So thank everyone. That completes our work for today. I do have a question about. One of the bill that is in the in basket, you know, we don't usually. Meet as a morning committee this far. This close to adjournment. And I think that's one of the things that we need to do. And I think that's one of the three. Three wardens bill that is. In our in basket. I think there is more controversy attached to that. Then, you know, this report on water. So I'm. I'm game for doing that, but I also want to respect people's. Schedules. And frankly, the fact that we've been going at it. Week after week for a long time now, and we're closing in on adjournment. Any. I have, I have heard from some of my constituents about the long overdue need. To address it. And I'm probably the one that has the least amount of flex time at this point. I don't know where the controversies coming from. I haven't heard any opposition. From my perspective, but I. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time in committee. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time in committee. It does seem long overdue. Okay. Any other. So how about this? I'll. I'll send the bill out to everyone. Maybe people could give it a read through. And. And just take a look and. I'll follow up with. Well, so let's do this tomorrow is Friday. We're going to try to meet tomorrow and maybe just get a bill introduction. That might be a way for us to size up. How achievable it is with the time we have left. Does that sound like a decent approach? Do a bill walk through. And then we'll know what we're talking about. Mr. We use the drafter for. For that. Or. No, somebody else. I was not Tucker Anderson. What was the drafter? Oh, that's right. Thank you. Okay. So. Great. Then planning wise, we'll have our regular nine o'clock start time tomorrow. I'll see if we can get. Mr. Anderson to come in and we could do. Initial tee it up walk through size it up. And see if it feels like something we could. Work through, you know, the time we have left. You know, and Senator Rogers on the controversy side, I'm, I think some of what is coloring my memory on this is because over here in Addison County, there was a case that was pretty high profile and prolonged. Some struggle. Related to trees being cut and. Conflict between the landowner and the municipality where the cutting was happening. So. Do we have any idea when. I know the budget's going to be on the floor today. So do we have any idea when we're done, done, done. The hard stuff I heard was next Friday. A week from tomorrow. God willing it's next Tuesday. Yes. Let's take a look. I mean, that's what I don't want to do is have us jump in. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. I don't want to do that. The budget's done. We go home and we've been training away for two meetings. And can't get anywhere. So I think that's a good point. I'm going to double check the calendar. So we don't start down a row that we can't, you know, complete. But meanwhile also see if we can just get the bill teed up tomorrow morning. All right. So thank you everyone. See you on the floor at. Well, there's a caucus on budget. There's a caucus at noon. And then we're on the floor at one. Mr. Are you, you just said, you'll see us on the floor. And I was looking at a digger. Story this morning, which showed a picture of you. And the caption was that you were presenting. The bill. I noticed that it was a little strange. So perhaps we will see each other on. Zoom where we conduct legislative business later today. Yes. Well, it was pretty odd to see that picture. And. And then in the tech that says. They did this work via a, you know, a zoom session. So. We're probably confused more than one person. All right. See you at noon. And then again at one. Thank you. And we are finished for the day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We are finished for the day.