Vermont law tightens river‑corridor rules; DEC to map, educate and write rules ahead of 2028 general permit

At a Jan. 29 meeting of the Natural Resources & Energy Committee, Lauren Oates, director of external affairs for The Nature Conservancy of Vermont, told members that Vermont’s mapped FEMA floodplain does not capture the river‑corridor, side‑to‑side movement of rivers that causes the majority of the state’s flood damage.

"A river corridor ... is the flooding that takes place when a river moves from side to side," Oates said, distinguishing that erosive, corridor flooding from the inundation ("bathtub") flooding FEMA typically maps.

Oates said erosive, corridor flooding accounts for roughly 80 percent of flood‑related damages in Vermont and that relying only on FEMA's 100‑year floodplain understates risk in many towns. She said Vermont taxpayers are paying more than $30 million for flood‑related public infrastructure repairs and that the state's patchwork of local and federal rules has allowed development in hazardous corridor areas.

Act 121 (Vermont’s Flood Safety Act), passed last year and described by Oates at the committee meeting, adds provisions that explicitly address river corridors alongside other flood‑safety topics such as floodplains, wetlands and dams. Oates summarized the implementation path she said is built into the statute: a two‑year education and outreach effort, a mapping exercise focused on identifying existing settlements and where development might remain feasible, followed by a two‑year rulemaking process. Those steps, she said, are intended to inform a general permit administered by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that Oates said is slated to begin sometime in 2028.

Oates warned that until DEC completes the mapping and rulemaking, development in many river corridors will likely continue. "So until 2028, anybody in those 90% of towns that haven't adapted to river corridor bylaws can continue to develop in those areas," she said, adding that the outreach campaign aims to discourage new development in the most hazardous reaches.

Oates also described how other existing programs interact with corridor risk. She noted that more than 90 percent of Vermont towns participate in the National Flood Insurance Program, which gives property owners access to flood insurance tied to FEMA maps. That, she said, can miss corridor hazards and limits eligibility for FEMA‑funded buyouts to properties that have experienced "substantial damage" (more than 50 percent of a structure’s value) when the property lies outside the mapped floodplain.

Committee members and attendees discussed other tools and programs that can reduce flood risk. Oates pointed to VTrans’ Transportation Resilience Planning tool and an online inventory (vtculverts.org) that identifies culverts and bridges statewide; a presenter at the meeting cited the site’s figures—112,428 culverts, 2,490 bridges and 14,355 culverts listed in urgent, critical or poor condition. Oates said addressing undersized culverts, bridges and other pinch points is part of practical mitigation and that federal public‑assistance funding can be used for repairs when work meets state codes and standards.

Participants asked about buyouts, the loss of municipal grand lists when properties are acquired, and whether towns or the state would bear enforcement responsibility. Oates said Act 121 shifts more regulatory responsibility to the state for mapped river corridors; she described a statutory list of outreach targets that includes municipalities, agricultural interests and environmental‑justice populations and said DEC will determine outreach specifics.

Oates and committee members emphasized distinctions between corridor management and emergency measures such as debris removal or dredging after an event. Oates said short‑term dredging can provide temporary benefit but often re‑fills or displaces risk downstream; she and others said long‑term resilience depends on slowing and storing water upstream and avoiding placing new development in active corridors.

The meeting included examples of towns and sites Oates said illustrate the problem (East Creek in Rutland county, Shrewsbury, Hardwick, Woodford, Starksboro and Plainfield were cited in the presentation) and a reminder that downtowns already heavily managed under Act 250 and other programs present different tradeoffs than largely undeveloped corridor reaches.

No committee votes were recorded during the presentation. Oates said DEC’s mapping, education/outreach and rulemaking timelines are statutory implementation steps attached to Act 121 and are expected to guide statewide changes to how river corridors are reviewed for new development.

The committee did not take formal action at the meeting; members closed the session after questions and thanked the speaker.