Regional planner urges stronger rural resilience, technical assistance in Vermont Climate Action Plan update

CHITTENDEN COUNTY — Chris Camp, executive director of the Windham Regional Commission, told the Vermont House Committee on Energy and Digital Infrastructure on March 26 that the ongoing update to the Vermont Climate Action Plan must move beyond high‑level strategy and fund the technical help towns need to act.

Camp, who represents municipal interests on the Vermont Climate Council, said rural towns face unique barriers to implementing resilience and adaptation measures and that regional planning commissions (RPCs) are already doing heavy “hand‑holding” to move projects from idea to construction. “It could take a town 10 years to decide to have a conversation,” Camp said, describing how routine local deliberations can stretch into months of meetings before any action begins.

The committee heard that the Global Warming Solutions Act directs the Climate Council to set quantifiable greenhouse‑gas reductions but only asks it to provide advisory strategies for adaptation. Camp said that creates a gap in accountability and funding for physical resilience work — the engineering, design, and project management needed to protect homes, roads and wastewater infrastructure.

Camp summarized tools and programs now in development or use: a municipal vulnerability indicators tool that brings mapping and hazard data into a single place; a planned online climate toolkit that would list funding sources and guidance; and a resilience implementation strategy led jointly by the treasurer and governor’s office. He said those tools are useful but insufficient without more on‑the‑ground technical assistance: “It’s not just talking about it. How do we actually move forward toward action?”

Why it matters

Camp told lawmakers that Vermont’s recent disaster record underlines the urgency. He cited 13 federally declared disasters in the state since 2019, roughly 233 buyout requests submitted to FEMA under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and dozens of additional properties seeking assistance. He warned that federal policy conversations — including proposals to raise the threshold for public assistance and to change cost‑share formulas — could reduce federal aid to states and shift greater financial responsibility to municipalities.

That shift, Camp said, increases the need for towns to plan for self‑reliance: establishing lines of credit, saving for capital improvements, and having long‑range physical master plans that identify where housing, wastewater, and roads should be sited to reduce future flood exposure.

Key points from testimony

- Technical assistance and project shepherding: Camp described how RPCs and programs such as the Municipal Technical Assistance Program and Municipal Energy Resilience Program help towns prepare engineering, scoping, and grant applications, and how dedicated staff or contracted engineers accelerate applications for hazard mitigation funding.

- Planning at the scale that enables action: Camp advocated for more detailed master planning (beyond high‑level maps) that identifies specific sites suitable for housing and infrastructure, overlays wastewater service lines, flood risk, and zoning, and then links those maps to financing strategies.

- Housing as central to resilience: Camp said housing losses from flooding demonstrate that adaptation and housing policy are linked: communities need safe places to re‑house displaced residents and room to develop housing away from flood‑prone corridors.

- Disaster recovery and buyouts: Camp noted the state’s mitigation funding picture is constrained because a large share of formula mitigation funds has been consumed by buyout projects — he said recent buyout totals approach tens of millions of dollars — leaving less money for village‑scale hazard mitigation.

- Household and municipal self‑reliance: He urged towns and households to plan for disaster impacts, including temporary displacement, and for towns to consider lines of credit and capital improvement plans so they can act quickly if federal funding is reduced or delayed.

Quotes

- “We need increased technical assistance for decision and action,” Camp said, adding that money alone is not enough: towns need people to guide them through engineering, design and grant management.

- On federal policy shifts that could reduce assistance, Camp warned: “We need to really look at these exposures we have.”

Committee discussion and context

Committee members pressed Camp on prioritization and whether the Climate Action Plan update will narrow and sequence the many strategies in the 2021 plan. Camp said the update aims to make chapters shorter and to call out priorities in each chapter, but he emphasized the plan alone cannot compel local implementation because adaptation strategies are primarily advisory under the Global Warming Solutions Act.

Camp described active regional projects that illustrate the recommended approach: four‑town housing charrettes to imagine safe infill; partnerships with UMass Amherst and the American Institute of Architects to create flood adaptation designs; and a Leahy‑UVM mapping project to show statewide wastewater lines overlaid with zoning and flood risk to identify where housing at scale is feasible.

Clarifying details and figures (sourced to testimony)

- Windham Regional Commission serves 27 towns in southeast Vermont (source: Chris Camp; organizational description). Approximate: true to testimony.

- RPC director tenure: Camp said he has been executive director for about 15 years (source: Camp).

- Disaster and mitigation figures: Camp said there are roughly 233 buyout submissions to FEMA under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, about 50 additional expressions of interest, and 31 properties awarded under a flood‑resilient community fund (source: Camp; approximate because counts were given in testimony).

- Mitigation funding scale: Camp said Vermont receives roughly $90 million in mitigation formula funding but that buyouts have consumed “over $70 million” of prospective buyout needs in recent cycles (source: Camp; approximate representation of testimony).

- 2024 displacement support: Camp cited roughly $7 million provided to about 1,398 households for displacement support through FEMA in 2024 (source: Camp quoting state figures).

Community relevance and impacts

Geographies affected: Southeast Vermont (Windham County and adjacent towns cited), and other flood‑affected communities including Londonderry, Jamaica, Weston, Readsboro, Dover, Wilmington, Whitingham and Derry (examples from testimony). Funding sources discussed: FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, ARPA, Stratton Mountain Foundation (philanthropic), and state resilience initiatives.

Who will be affected: municipal governments, households in flood‑prone areas, small towns with limited staff capacity, and RPCs that provide project support.

Meeting context

- Engagement level: High; the committee allocated the session to take testimony and asked for focused discussion on rural resilience and municipal implementation. Camp’s presentation ran roughly the first portion of the hearing and prompted multiple follow‑up questions from committee members.

- Implementation risk: High — Camp tied implementation difficulty to limited municipal capacity, the voluntary nature of many resilience measures under current statute, and potential federal funding formula changes.

Discussion‑to‑decision separation

- Discussion only: Camp’s briefing was advisory testimony describing tools, weaknesses, and recommended priorities; no formal committee action or directive was recorded in the transcript.

- Direction/assignments: The committee scheduled continued testimony and follow‑up sessions on the resilience implementation strategy but provided no binding direction in the transcript.

- Formal actions: None recorded in the transcript.

Sources cited in testimony

- Global Warming Solutions Act (referenced repeatedly by Camp as the statutory frame for emissions targets and advisory adaptation strategies).

- Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and FEMA (sources of federal mitigation and buyout funding discussed throughout testimony).

Next steps noted

Camp said outreach for the Climate Action Plan update is beginning in April, that draft chapters remain in development, and that a resilience implementation strategy briefing was scheduled for the committee to receive in a subsequent meeting.

Ending

Camp closed by urging lawmakers to connect planning and financing with on‑the‑ground technical assistance so towns can move from strategy to implementation: “This is where the rubber meets the road,” he said, noting that without sustained staff and engineering support, towns will struggle to use competitive federal funding and to protect vulnerable households.

Speakers