Planning and Development committee advances riparian-area bill after rejecting five amendment attempts

The Planning and Development Committee on Friday, April 25, advanced substitute HB 7174, “an act concerning riparian areas,” to the floor for further action while rejecting five committee amendments and leaving final votes open until 3 p.m.

The bill would add “riparian areas” — defined in the bill as 100 feet from the edge of every wetland and watercourse — to areas regulated under the state’s wetland framework. Committee members sparred over drafting errors, exemptions for farming and residential uses, and the breadth of the proposed buffer.

Representative Dubitsky, who brought multiple amendments, said the bill contains a drafting error that would leave the newly defined riparian areas outside longstanding statutory exemptions. “There appears to be a drafting error in this bill that I have noticed, and I'd like to make an amendment to fix it,” he said, urging that riparian areas be added to the statutory exceptions that currently apply to wetlands and watercourses.

Dubitsky described how, as written, the bill would extend regulatory reach 100 feet around every wetland and watercourse and thereby require permits — with public hearings and fees — for activities long treated as exempt, such as farming, grazing and certain residential construction. “If you're going to do anything, even if you're just going to let your cows graze on your fields ... you now have to apply for a permit with wetlands,” he said, warning that the language could force routine farm practices into a formal permitting process.

The committee considered five proffered amendments (labeled A–E in committee materials). Amendment A would have added riparian areas to the statutory exemptions in section 4; the amendment was moved by Representative Dubitsky and seconded; the roll-call tally was 13 voting, 3 yays and 10 nays, and the amendment failed. Amendment B, offered by Dubitsky to clarify that revegetation and removal of both non‑native and invasive species be allowed, likewise failed on a 12 voting, 3 yays and 9 nays tally. An oral amendment from Dubitsky to change the 100‑foot measure to 10 feet (amendment C) was offered and defeated (14 voting, 3 yeas, 11 nays). Amendments D and E, each intended to clarify or narrow the bill’s language (including a proposal to make a Commissioner of Agriculture determination shield certain farm activities from wetland commission application), each failed on recorded tallies of 14 voting, 3 yeas and 11 nays.

Supporters of the bill and the committee chair repeatedly characterized the measure as a work in progress that proponents planned to refine before or on the House floor. “The proponent of the bill has reached out and acknowledges that there is a challenge here and that we are planning on fixing that on the floor,” the chair said during debate. Senator Rahman, identified as the bill’s proponent from the Environment committee, urged attention to the bill’s stated goal of protecting water quality.

Representative Chaffee, who defended the bill’s intent, said buffers around streams are intended to reduce erosion and improve water quality: “These buffer areas around the streams help to alleviate some of the major flooding by controlling erosion ... The main purpose of this is to improve our water quality.” Several Republican members said the bill as drafted would have substantial unintended consequences for rural landowners and farmers, including limiting routine farming practices and potential impacts on development and housing supply.

No final, certified committee tally on the motion to report the bill to the floor was recorded in the transcript; the clerk announced that votes would be held open until 3 p.m. in Room 2100 and on Zoom. Committee members urged that outstanding drafting issues be addressed during the remaining six weeks of the session and on the floor before final passage.

What happens next: The committee reported the substitute bill toward the floor (motion to “JF to the floor” taken during the session), but the transcript ends with votes held open; any amendments or textual fixes proffered by proponents were described as likely to be pursued before a floor vote.