 The intent of the bill that I introduced is to strengthen the state protection, the Vermont state protection, through the Vermont water quality standards in relation to wetlands. Existing, when I'm talking about the Federal Clean Water Act 401 certification process, that process does not include substantial protections to wetlands, including any requirement that alternatives to a proposed project, a development project, be considered. They do require an alternative review, but the state does provide exemptions if the project is using best management practices for storm water. And using that exemption language, nearly all or nearly all are approved. So the actual analysis of alternatives in relation to the impact to wetlands doesn't happen. So without amending the statute and the Vermont water quality standards as this bill proposes, there would be no substantial in-state environmental review of, in particular, of interstate projects where development would cross state lines and impact wetlands that way. And federal laws is the only way that states can do in-state review is through Section 401 of the certification process of the Clean Water Act. So in actuality, the federal law and Vermont water quality rules reveal that wetlands are not covered by Vermont 401 process, only surface waters. And the state of Vermont has never denied a 401 permit for proposed development of a wetland. So do you want to go through the bill or ask questions now? Do you have questions to R.C. Miller if there's someone else with you who want to walk through the bill? How about one of the, Jim, do you want to? Sure, maybe I can give what I see as the big picture issue here, the state sovereignty. Can you speak up, and for the rest of us, say you're here? Yeah, this is Jim Dumont speaking. This is Jim Dumont speaking. I think the big picture issue is state sovereignty and whether Vermont can control its own future. And I say that because I'm talking about interstate gas pipeline projects in particular. The courts around the country have held that there is complete and total preemption over state regulation of interstate gas pipelines. The state has zero say whatsoever with one exception. The one exception is what Representative Cordes has been talking about. It's clean water, it's water quality certification under the Federal Clean Water Act. Alternatively known as Section 401 approval or water quality certification. Because it's right in the Federal Clean Water Act, it's not preempted, it's part of federal law. And on this basis, both the state of New York and the state of Connecticut have required examination of alternatives when going crossing brooks, streams, and in particular when filling wetlands. When reviewing interstate gas pipelines that were proposed for Connecticut and New York. And their exercise of that authority was squarely upheld by the federal courts. But for those states 401 water quality certification regulations, those gas pipelines would be traversing those states right now. Vermont does not stay in the same position as Connecticut and New York. Because as Representative Cordes said, on their face our water quality certification regulations do use the term surface waters. And generally wetlands are not known for their surface waters. And you could argue it either way. I'm not saying it's clear cut, you could argue it either way. But we don't want to be in a situation where a massive, you know, a huge interstate gas pipeline company with a huge out of state law firm can litigate us to death. And it better to know for sure that the state actually has regulations in place so they can require examination of alternatives as New York did and Connecticut did. And as happened in, I believe it was in Connecticut where the applicant says, we're not going to give you information on alternatives. You can say no. So that's the big picture. Are there projects on the horizon right now where the proposals of this kind of infrastructure have a vested interest already? No, there are no applications pending. Thank you. That's a good thing. Can I just add a couple of clarifying points? So I want to be really clear about John Groban for the NRC. So the practice has been in the state to, in applying the water quality standards to address wetlands. I just want to be clear about that. So currently the way the Agency of Natural Resources has administered the water quality standards to 401 water quality certification projects and just to kind of take it like one step a little bit backwards. So you need a 401 if there's a federal license that, so these are big projects, right? It's a product that needs a federal license and if you need a federal license, then this section 401 of the Clean Water Act requirement for this water quality certification of permit kicks in. Often it's FERC licenses, so hydroelectric projects, get these 401 certifications. Vermont Yankee needed a license, they needed that sort of certification. If you need an Army Corps of Engineers permit, that triggers, so they're very big projects. So just to kind of create some context for this. And when the Agency historically has applied its 401 authority, it has looked at wetlands. I think what this bill is trying to do is, as Jim said, just clear up any ambiguity, because we've seen litigation in other states where this issue's been raised. If water quality standards are written in a way that opens a door for an argument. But I want to just be clear that kind of what the practice has been for the Clean Water Act has been in existence since 1970. So it's been a long time that it's been applied in one way. And then the other part of it is the alternative analysis which, as Jim said, really borrows from what New York and Connecticut and some other states have done. Because if you don't have that requirement in 401, you can't go beyond what's the minimum required to meet water quality standards. But looking, are there alternatives for a project that would have less of an impact, right? So that's what some states have, which we don't. So this bill would insert that requirement into the 401 process. So even if there is no question about whether the regulations apply, which is what John's been talking about, because you could argue it both ways. And the state has been applying it. Once you get through that hoop, over that hoop, you still have the question of whether alternatives analysis is required. And looking at alternatives to see if there are alternatives with less impact in the environment is really at the heart of environmental review. Right now, the existing regs say we only could do that when we're looking at the highest quality water. I forget the exact term, but in general, it doesn't happen. The proposed changes by the federal administration regarding waters of the US, do they have any impact on this issue? You know, Vermont's definition of waters is broader than the federal definition. It's not good, right? I mean, it's going to create legal argument. Opportunity is a major degree. I mean, it's a very negative step. And I think we have good arguments under state law that our definition is clear and broad enough that we could be more stringent than the federal government on this. But yeah, I'm sure it could open the door to somebody coming in trying to make an argument if that rule is upheld and remains in effect. The Trump administration last spring indicated that it's aware of the tremendous power that Section 401 certification gives each of the 50 states, and they announced they're going to try and cut it back. But they can't do that without changing the Clean Water Act, which we have to go through Congress. So the Trump administration has recognized the power that states potentially have if they have good water quality certification regulations and then can use them under the Section 401. So I have to rewind, maybe it's just so I missed, I might have missed it, but I'm hearing that our current 401 process doesn't consider wetlands, but that it does, and so can you help me? Well, what I was trying to say is that in practice, it does. The agency has interpreted, the gym is saying, you know, the word surface waters are used in the standards, it doesn't say wetlands. Surface waters have been interpreted, and there hasn't been a legal challenge to include wetlands. But what Jim has identified is this potential, an argument that somebody could make. No one has made that argument to date, but it's an argument that I'll say there's a company that wants to put in a large pipeline and they have a lot of legal resources, they could push that argument. It has not been made, it hasn't gone to court, there's no precedent on it. The practice of the agency is to look at wetlands when they look at the water quality standards. Because that's been my experience. Yeah. But what you're saying is perhaps when a pipeline is proposed, the alternatives analysis would have, there's no required alternatives analysis in our current practice. That's correct. Or in the standards themselves. Jim? Madri, in your presentation, said, I think there is no project has been denied under 401k or. And my question. Not the K. Oh, 401k. Yeah. It's that time of the year. Yeah. Under 401. And so the question to anyone here is that's because we, the state of Vermont has been giving exemptions with, with, with, to. If they're using best management practices. Well, best management practices or even the name is failing me, but we can't do it here. So we'll give some money to the agency mitigation. Yeah, or has that been because of mitigation? Um, and, uh, or is it because we're not really doing 401k under our delegation? There's a bunch of four. Jeez, I love that K. Don't I, um, 401, uh, how come we haven't, what's going on? You want to take, you want to go for it? You know, that would be a fascinating study to engage in. I don't, I don't have an answer for that. Yeah. You'd have to go through hundreds of permits. And I want, so the 401s are different. Like I'm saying, like you have hydroelectric 401s that, you know, they're mostly conditioned. The conditions could be such that it causes hydro operators significant concern and that we have appeals with those sometimes because the flow restrictions are such that the hydro say, you know, we can't, we don't think it's, we want to operate in that way. But there could be four, the wetland 401s, it is usually there's avoidance and there's minimization, there's mitigation and, and I think the gas pipeline in, in Addison County, I mean, there was intense work done to try to address like every impact, right? Like it wasn't no alternatives analysis, but so the staff would basically, if the applicant could say, we're going to keep on minimizing what the impact is, you know, we could get through to a permit requirement. And it was a lot of work in the months of back and forth. But yeah, I just, we read that permit decision this morning, lots of mitigation measures, no discussion at all of alternatives. Yeah, because it wasn't required. So, so I think it's a mixed bag, depending on what the formal one is for. Right. And, and, and this is not to minimize in my mind or my, the answer to my question, the need to get a declarative statement done here, just information. Thank you. Good morning. And thank you for coming today. I think we can all agree that the value of a permitting program is to ensure that we are meeting ultimately, fundamentally, our water quality standards. And I think the public is interested in interesting clean water, maintaining that. So permits are a way of helping to, to, to manage and address potential impacts and to avoid those impacts. And so I, I appreciate you coming to, to identify a potential loophole or concern that, that we may be faced with sometime in the, in the future. But my question is in regards to the language with respect to no practical alternative language. And wanted to know in your minds whether, by including this language in here, we're setting ourselves for a potential abuse of that language. Or in your minds, are you feeling comfortable that, that having this language with, will in fact help to provide some direction to ensure that, like any permit program, it will be managed appropriately with the outcomes that the public seeks, which is fundamentally clean water. John, you want to start? Sure. So it's a good question. And there's something we thought about a lot, right? Because we're not trying to say in the bill, and we need to make sure it's drafted correctly, that if there's no practical alternative that you could avoid meeting minimum water quality standards, which I think is part of your question. So this would be sort of an overlay on, you have to meet minimum water quality standards, you know, and the standards are complicated, as you well know, and they deal with habitat issue, physical, chemical, biological integrity of the waters and quality of the waters. So you have to meet that at a minimum. But this would be an overlay. And this is how it's done in other states. And it's almost like the part of the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, that's basically saying, not only do you have to meet minimum water quality standards, but you have to show that there's no alternative that would have less of an effect, even if your effect would, you know, pass a muster minimally under the rules, that there's not a way to implement the project that would avoid some of the significant impacts of these very large, and again, I'm talking really large projects, right? We're talking you need a federal license, talking these big pipeline projects, or, you know, Vermont Yankee type projects, you know, you know, this is where the realm we're in. So in other states, we really want to mimic that what they have done and require applicant to take that additional step to analyze, really, do you need to go through 75 acres of wetland? Is there another way? Because cumulatively, you might be able to meet the minimum standards, you know, in each and every one acre of that wetland, but that's still a lot of impact, right? And is there a way to implement your project that would be an alternative that would meet standards and do, you know, have less than 75 acres of wetland impact? So I don't just... Sure, in this draft, we came up with a three acre threshold. So if it's class three wetlands and it affects less than three acres, the standard doesn't apply to John's point. This is for big projects. And the example that John and I have talked about over the last year of no practical alternative that is known nationally is under Section 4F of the National Highway Act, which people sometimes learn about when they're getting planning degrees and law degrees and spend on books for decades. And it says, regardless of every other environmental standard, if you're going to use federal money for a highway project that's going to affect a park, even if it meets every other standard, you have to show there's no practical alternative. So that's John's point. It's an overlay. That's the intent here. 401F. 4F, not K. Ellen, take house, we can draft this for you. Michael LaGradie. Other questions? You meant national parks? No, actually, the Section 4F applies to all, if you can use federal money. But it's going to cause a taking of any park, whether it's a state park, a local park, or federal park. The famous case in the Supreme Court was the Overland Park case from Tennessee, I believe. There was a state park, a city park. I think it was a city park. Here's a question. One more question, if you don't mind. You mentioned that these would involve the larger projects where it would trigger this federal project. I'm very interested in state engagement in projects like this. Would this help to ensure a greater or at least a voice for the state to weigh in on projects that are the magnitude you describe? Does this help to facilitate the state's engagement as opposed to the federal engagement? Absolutely. The state's advice is what I'm looking for. Right now, if it's under state gas pipeline, the state has no cards to play. They can ask, but they have no cards to play. They have no rights. They can intervene just like I could intervene. And this is in front of FERC in Washington, which is not a very user-friendly place, unless you're a large company. So this would give the state, the 401 process, gives the state actual leverage. Thank you. Thank you. We're trying to schedule a follow-up on the Aminox or Friday at once. A couple more witnesses will hear from the boarder and also Commissioner of Native American Affairs, Harry's Instituent. So hopefully we can put a wrap on that Friday. And other than that, I don't think we have anything else unless folks have something to share now. Jim. Put a wrap on it. Does that mean vote? I mean... Yes, on Friday, on the Abadakian, right? Yep, yep. And we can also be sure to ask Lewis about his perspective on the disabled fishing bill, which helped... Yeah. Maybe I heard we're not going to join them, but that may fit somewhere else. And it's a similar topic, so we can minimize our use of the commissioner's time. And then tomorrow afternoon, I'm not... I don't have a read on how long the floor might be, but we'll see if there's anything else we can follow up on in that timeframe. Other than that, I don't have anything else for now, so we can pre-sets for lunch. That's awesome. All right? Awesome. That's awesome. Thank you. I just wanted to say thank you to the committee members for telling me what it was mostly about. And I appreciate it.