Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators refine S.124 to use 'waters of the state,' add stakeholder experts after EPA feedback
Summary
Sen. Ruth Hardy told the Senate Agriculture Committee that S.124 was edited after EPA feedback and that the chief substantive change was adopting the "waters of the state" definition; the bill won a 4-0-1 vote in the Senate Natural Resources Committee and is expected to be attached to a miscellaneous act and reviewed in Finance.
Sen. Ruth Hardy of the Addison District said Wednesday that changes to S.124 were largely clarifications and edits made after the Environmental Protection Agency returned comments on earlier draft language.
The senator said the major substantive change in the version now before the committee was replacing a federal definition with a state definition — "the 1 substantive change that we made, was going with the state the waters of the state versus waters of United States." She told the Senate Agriculture Committee that lawmakers made that choice to match other state water-quality programs and to reduce confusion caused by frequent federal changes.
The revisions also added water-quality advocates and technical experts to a stakeholder process and made explicit references to the Clean Water Act, Hardy said. "We did add, the water quality advocates, and experts wanted to be involved in that stakeholder process," she said.
Hardy told the committee that legal counsel and agency staff incorporated several edits the EPA suggested after the Agency of Natural Resources sent S.100 — an earlier related bill — to the EPA for review. She said the Senate Natural Resources Committee voted 4-0-1 on the measure; "Senator Williams was out for medical reasons," she said, and the vote was otherwise unanimous in that committee.
Committee members discussed whether using the Vermont standard would be more restrictive than a federal definition. One member noted the Vermont water standard is "more restrictive," and another cautioned that federal definitions have changed frequently in recent years. Committee members also discussed preserving separate "safe spaces" for agricultural and water-quality stakeholders to meet separately and then together so each group could speak candidly before joint discussions.
On procedure, senators said they expect to attach S.124 to another miscellaneous act bill to meet crossover deadlines and send the amendment for a second look in Finance. Members discussed a planned straw poll at the present meeting to signal support, and asked staff to return the edited language promptly for Finance consideration; the transcript records no formal vote by the Agriculture Committee in this session.
The record shows the change to "waters of the state," addition of water-quality advocates to the stakeholder group, and the prior 4-0-1 Natural Resources Committee vote. The committee discussed potential legal and administrative consequences if the state did not act, with one senator saying the state could risk "de delegation of authority" and have to "take orders from Boston, Massachusetts" if it failed to act.
The committee asked staff to prepare S.118 and S.1/18 materials for upcoming sessions and signaled interest in continued intercommittee cooperation between Agriculture and Natural Resources. No final floor date was given; senators said the measure likely will be attached to another bill and reach the Senate floor later this month.
Votes at a glance: The transcript records that the Senate Natural Resources Committee approved the amendment on a 4-0-1 vote, with Sen. Williams absent for medical reasons. No formal roll-call vote was recorded in the Agriculture Committee during this session.
Context: S.124 grew from earlier work including S.100 and a petition prompting EPA review. Committee members described the work as bipartisan and as filling gaps in the agriculture bill by adding clearer water-quality language and stakeholder processes.
