 Okay, so we are back again. Again, it's Wednesday, February 21st, 2024. We're resuming our work on S-13 and actually leading the revolution with river border development and dam safety. Thank you to everyone who did that. So yesterday our council was coming back with a rash. So we are on the one way to do a read through and vote. So Mr. Reed, if you could rejoin us this panel, we have copies of a little latest and greatest all overcap copies. I think we all have this. What do you think? The inside would end up under one piece of paper. I'm sorry about that. Thank you. Okay, so Mr. Reed, you can just support people following, extract 7.1, date in 2021-24, timestamp 8.24 am. Thank you very much. You can watch us through the highlights, the changes since our last round. That would be great. Okay, so your first change on page three, line five, it's just time for correction. Remember, yesterday it's on RI 3D-D-E-R. And then your next change is at the bottom of page three, line 20. It's really the breeze. And until currently, the only not really part of it begins in the 10th, let me say 1754 based in that report to you. You can remember you wanted a update report, right? Yeah. And they're already reporting on education and outreach for a couple of years now. And so it's just basically using that report to on page four, line 11 through 13, give a summary of the progress and adopting the rules prior to the 10th, let me say seven, five, four, four, four regulations about the progress. So that will be a summary of the public education and outreach. And it will also be an update on progress. And two, page four, line 16, the agency at the end of the meeting yesterday adjusted some appropriations amounts. So for staffing to conduct infill and redevelopment, they asked for $900,000 for six human table time positions to do the mapping, map report, education, outreach, and chicken delivery globally in the permanent undersec five. And then on page five, they asked for money for comprehensive costs necessary to implement the mapping, education, and outreach for the permanent undersec five. And then on page six, this is the beginning of the changes for the time frame. This is the deadline for adoption of the rules for map report or development. Now we'll be on the 4th of July of 2027, had been January 2029. The next thing is on page nine, which is when the permit would be required. Getting January 1, 2028, it had been January 1, 2030. That's when really the program comes effective. And then we can skip very far in advance to the transition section with page 21. And that has similar, it has a requirement for when the mapping must be initiated to July 1, 2025. And then that's seeing deadline for adoption July 1, 2027. And then on page 22, this is another appropriate intersection, the money for the new positions at the state flood hazard area, for state flood hazard area standards. That remains 300,000 for two new positions. That was in the previous draft, but as the new was on page 23, top of the page at $225,000 for contractings to support adoption of the state flood hazard area standards. We choose again, page 205. At the end of the meeting yesterday, some questions about why, which I was potentially ambiguous in the necking of wetlands, state bowl, there have been a set and success and condition of the permit for activity in wetlands, secretary shall require necking of wetlands. Do you, Senator, ask what that was and how it might cause confusion? I would recommend that you instead of move it to page 25, why not, it was moving on. Moving on from there, you have your one last remaining question. And that is whether or not a wetland river and flood plain restoration project, including dam removal, is it allowed use or exempt from regulations under the wetlands rules? You did not address this, yes. Can you just say that one more time, whether or not? Whether it's an allowed use. So, there are exemptions from wetlands permitting, where if you are exempt, you don't need to engage with the agency. It's an activity that just can't go without any regulatory oversight. There's also whether you're an allowed use, which is something that the agency specifies in its wetland rules. If you're an allowed use, you do need to engage with the agency and how you perform your allowed use. I mean, there may be criteria or limitations on your allowed use, as well as exempt from your allowed use. The concern, excuse me, from the advocates is that allowed uses are sometimes used differently by the different wetlands ecologists that work for EEC. So, what some might think is allowed, others may not. And so, the advocates are looking for our specific exemption. And the agency wants it to be allowed use. And they want it to be allowed. And allowed use. And the department wants it to be regulated as an allowed use. It's another way of thinking of an allowed use and exemption that you qualify for by a property agency. And they say, yes, we're doing that's an allowed use. Yeah, I mean, some of them are, you know, some of them are not repair of a utility pole on a wetland. I don't think the utilities say, hey, can we do that or not? I think they probably just do it. But they probably informed the agency that they are doing that. Yeah, that would be an allowed use. Well, so this one seems a little upside down compared to the usual dynamics that I'm used to, like I'm used to with the environmental orientation, meaning check in and make sure you're doing the right thing before proceeding, as opposed to applying the new invention. And so, maybe someone who wants to have it, that's I think why. And we had to have one thing down and leave it flagged. I asked Michael to draft it as sort of what I thought of as you more conservative, the two check in with the agency knowing that the committee needs to decide, but that's why it appears in this form. Mr. Carpenter, do you need to explain the case we're going to invention? Well, no, actually, so Chair Carpenter, Lake Champlain, committee for the record, we certainly have the concerns that Mr. Obrey cited about some subjective interpretation sometimes, but after discussing in the last week with the agency, we're okay with the allowed use language. I don't know if we'll discuss that. So thank you, sir. Thank you. Steph, taking a flag. This is the key out. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Your next team on these 31, this is newly just a technical conforming change to recognize the restructuring of the bill to move the board of sections to the front and then reference to the two new positions where wetlands had to change from the latest to 3.5 to 12.15. And then your next team on page 43, and that is a definition of dam removal to recognize the agency's concerns and their service and agreement. So it means all actions needed to eliminate the rest of the dam by a related limitation below the dam and in partial or complete structural removals with the extent that the dam is no longer capable of both impounding water but 20% of sediment. Next page is checking anyone, anyone have second thoughts? Next page is the language that GMP through, I think with GMP through don't look he or did for the clarification on jurisdiction over those non-pedal vans that TEC has some structural jurisdiction over. So it will say sex of the extent of regulation at those facilities related solely to electric generation under the federal power. Which is pretty great. And that's basically what's why I said previously. Which drive-ins. Page 41, line 15, the dam liability section previously was section 1091 and you ask that if you remove, you will see that the sections jump on 1090 to 1095. That's because everything between has been repealed in the past and it does not need to be jumped. So if you get that question on the floor, that's, that should. For a short, for a short period of time or where? Those Addison County folks. So page 46, lines 12, 16, these are the, the two subdivisions are left open in 19 and six subdivisions for the dam safety revolving fund and eligibility, predominance funding. There was the agreement for sub B that there will be an alternative analysis of dam repair, rehabilitation and removal options that considers an evaluation of risk reduction and dam safety and ecological resilience and public benefits considerations and costs. And then under subdivision B2, this was the, the idea about whether it should be dam removal or the structure, that was all, that's about him. Are eligible for loan subsidy, and you chose to go with the executive, this is the induction. Thanks. Moving 510, let's get. To page 52. This is on seven, section 21, the appropriations for the expanded role of dam safety and just their general need. So there is 900,000 appropriated for the purposes of funding six new permanent full-time classified decisions and two million appropriated for the channel on, for instance, with basic dam safety revolving fund. I admit that that two million is, well, let's just be real, all of the money is going to be taken out and put into the appropriations bill or played with right up until the last day. And one of the things is the two million will probably hang in limbo until you pass 213 and the dam safety revolving fund actually exists as proposed in this bill. I also talked to the center of emails and see if institutions, capital funds, would so he's aware of this has happened. I don't know that committee would necessarily take any action and support of establishing such a fund for this. I don't know. I mean, I would find that in the house for a percent of them, I mean, to never let anything like this go without having some computer. So I'll keep clarity in those fries, but he's aware of where the status is from. And we talked about the ending of what we'll get there. Mentor, I'm sure. I thought to the need of the house. On page 53, you're now in the provision for the study meeting on dam emergency operations planning. Yesterday, the PUC requested to be removed from membership. And you did that and so they've been removed. Then for me, some divisions have been re numbered on page 54 and what that study committee was going to do. They had previously said that they will identify dams in the state that are classified as high hazard and not significant. The probability of flooding or something while I need to stress that that was not necessary. We removed that. On page 56, what was a remaining question when you broke yesterday in September 23, that's to which regulatory agency to lead and the positioning of for regarding the 21 dams transferring the PUC, the DC this morning or actually very late last night, the DC email and said that they will be the entity, but they moved the dam behind them to July 31st. What is that law? They said blind cat. And had been December 31st. So here you are starting out. Do we have any notion of how long after that filing might be that for the answer. And then I think the last change in the technical change, page 60 cents, in the effective case, removing the reference to the meeting by building set. Oh, that was removing reference to the emergency permanent section. You took the market to see time it's out previously and previous draft. So I will say I just still have an idea I think your base appropriation is going to be $4.9 million with 16 new FTEs. The money might go over $4.9 million because you have probably not that much because you have a few different study committees with compensation. So I don't think you're going to spend $100,000 in compensation for those study committees, but you're probably going to wind up about $4.95 million. Is this JFO? I know that JFO is working on a note. So you have two people assigned to it. I will send them whatever is the final. Okay. So, all right, thank you. That's all. So well enough probably about the time for both. Yeah, the other thing that's unclear to me is just to what degree all these positions land in the FY25 budget versus some sort of, say, practically speaking, the appropriations will get more feedback in the center. Thank you, Mr. Jack. Yeah, my question around the 16 FTEs and it's similar to yours, which is some of them are already temporary employees that were transitioning to two of the 16. Two of the 16 are limited service positions at DEC for dams. And because you can't just magically create them as permanent, you have to basically still create those two permanent positions, those two are in that 16. Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Do you want some? Okay, two things. I apologize for taking these back. Page 33, definition of dam removal. But one part of it that I just, I'm having a hard time rubbing my head around. So dam removal means all actions needed to eliminate the risk of getting failure-related inundation below the dam, including partial or complete structural removal. And this is the part that I don't understand quite to the extent that the dam is no longer capable of impounding water lipid or sediments. So that would be the goal of the removal, that it's no longer capable of impounding. Because that's what a dam is. It's something that is capable of impounding water lipid or sediments. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I was thinking about it in a different way. What you're saying makes sense though. And just to start to put it the way it had struck me was like that one thing that you could remove it to the extent that it was already not functioning as a dam. You probably wouldn't move it if it wasn't capable of impounding. Okay. I think what you're saying makes sense. Thank you. And then the only other thing is that I did have it suggested to me that one possibly swine, but out there is for the short title, could it be a flood safety act, or do we like it as this? I'm not sure what it is. So that means particular thing, just that starting November, I started calling it something like this, you know, before we had built. Oh, man. I like that it's short. Any other thoughts? It's no aha. It is, you know, that is the that has been the driving force. I mean, yes, underneath it all is fine. But yes, it's the flooding that says that people held right in the bill. So again, find the left. I think that's a nice one. Okay. I think it requires me to tell June print another form for it. So it's really a big one. Can you go on and change each type? Can you go on? Yeah, you need to go cross it all. In addition to the change, I have to remove all the highlighting. Oh, okay. So whoever moves, moves to go conditioned on the changing. So we're going to change the policy. Yeah, learn the power, crazy call. Thanks. You dream that last night? No, it was suggested to me, but I I worked really hard to avoid using where it was floated to me. Yeah, it's too late. I said it, but I don't think it changes your form. Okay, so the court means something. Yeah, and we would need a motion to amend the bill. And with that extra condition, there's change to the idle. I move that we amend the bill to be the version of 7.1 with the additional change to the title, as mentioned, and that we find this draft favorable and recommended. So first week. Oh, we're going to do it for the second part. Okay, sorry. So just be adopted as 7.1 draft with the title change. And you're all on here then. You have that. Okay, yeah. So it's problem. Great. McDonald's. Yes. McCormick. Yes. Watson. Yes. White. Yes. Gray. Yes. Five zero zero on the name and adoption change. Now we need a motion to report out favorably the bill. And so I'm in. Oh, so. McDonald's. Yes. McCormick. Yes. Watson. Yes. White. Yes. All right. Yes. Again. Five zero zero one. Good job, Senator Bray. Yeah. If people would like to take a section, we know. For now, I'll just deal with it as Senator Bray. Reporter. Thank you, everyone. It is February 21st. We've been on this since the first weekend. Yeah. And so. A lot of the work. Now we're off the approach. Eventually to the house. Honestly, it's been a lot of people have worked all sorts of hours. And they just have inside and outside still. And I really appreciate you. Improved. Partly. The work became over time. Oh, no. Maybe going to finance, too. Because the use value study committee. Yeah. And the effects on the. That's not really great. Well, so thanks for that heads up. I'll talk to some things. Either she might be willing to. Just ask. I'll put it full of in. Come on. Is there anything about being mindful? Yeah, I'm going to go do that. See how many kinds of things. Guys, I have a whole thing of funds. This is our camera. I see. Really. Flood. Slow. Well, Dan. Yes. Sam is back. Yes. So more than one bank. This is Dan Bill. Okay. Thank you. It's not easy. But we're doing it for all of the monitors who are deeply impacted by the flooding in summer and in summer. I mean, this is what's motivated the work. So I really. Yeah, we did. Yeah. I mean, especially, um, you know, we're, we're all entirely cognizant of the fact that we're also kind of, we got housing. Yes. So, and the preference is housing development areas. Development areas are also so big flood. So we want to be smart about not constructing things in the hardest way that are vulnerable to flood things. And that would be a sad story. If you build an old foreign house, I mean, you have a, uh, well, it was quote section. Yeah. No, I don't know. No, it's not. It's not. Yeah. There's a little typo. It's all for free. All right. So really, let's take, we didn't really have a break. So let's take a break. So.