Committee weighs regional stormwater utilities, thresholds and options for orphan permits under 3‑acre rule

Department of Environmental Conservation officials told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee that regionalization and targeted municipal assistance could ease the burden on homeowners’ associations and small developments facing required stormwater upgrades under the 3‑acre rule.

Neil Campbell, deputy commissioner at the Department of Environmental Conservation, and Kevin Burke, program manager for the stormwater program, described technical and equity issues tied to the 3‑acre threshold. Burke said lowering the threshold would require rule and permit updates and could raise equity concerns about which sites would be regulated.

"If we were to lower the threshold, we would certainly need to revisit the TMDL...and update statute, rule, and perhaps the general permit," Burke said. He added that lowering the threshold could capture "low hanging fruit" but that targeting some sites and not others raises fairness questions unless financial support accompanies regulation.

Janet Petito, grant supervisor for the Clean Water Initiative Program, said projects on sites below the permit threshold (for example, 2.5‑acre parcels) currently fall into non‑regulatory funding streams — such as clean water service providers or state enhancement grants — which the program prioritizes by cost‑effectiveness. She said a regional utility could aggregate needs and identify cost‑effective projects across a watershed.

On the Richmond‑style scenario the committee discussed — where upslope development contributes runoff into a downslope 3‑acre site — the department said permitting requires the regulated site to address its impervious area but that designs often must accommodate or safely bypass upslope flows. Officials said municipalities that own roads or drainage could provide alternative, more efficient treatment opportunities for roadway runoff so the private lots would not need extensive retrofits.

Campbell said the department has prepared lists of permanent sites and investments aggregated at town and county level, redacting personally identifiable information. Committee members asked how many sites have completed permitting; department staff said the spreadsheet in the record was not fully re‑updated to the latest permit numbers and offered to clarify counts.

Officials said impact fees and municipal or offset projects are the existing pathways when on‑site mitigation is infeasible. Impact fees are one‑time payments that fund watershed‑level projects; municipalities can sponsor offset projects if they identify feasible locations within the same watershed. The department said the Clean Water Initiative Program and clean water service providers already prioritize cost‑effective opportunities.

Campbell and Burke supported the bill’s study provision for regionalization as a forum to answer technical questions — including whether lowered thresholds would generate cost‑effective, feasible projects — and to examine options for orphan permits and legal responsibility where a prior permit holder no longer exists.

No committee vote was recorded during the discussion; senators asked department staff to refine the site and permitting lists and to provide clearer counts of completed permits and unresolved sites.