Emergency-response bill prompts warnings about FEMA 'supplanting' and DEC opposition to riverwork provisions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
State emergency-management and conservation officials told the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee that proposed omnibus emergency-response language could undermine FEMA reimbursements, conflict with existing match-incentive programs, and duplicate or conflict with DEC river-management responsibilities in sections 5 and 6.
At a Government Operations & Military Affairs committee hearing, officials from Vermont Emergency Management (VEM) and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) testified about an omnibus emergency-response bill and raised technical and statutory concerns.
"My biggest concern here is that FEMA will see this as supplanting," Stephanie Smith, who introduced herself as deputy director at Vermont Emergency Management, told the committee, explaining that if the state pays FEMA-eligible costs in grant form before FEMA review, FEMA may deny reimbursement. Smith recommended alternatives such as low-interest loans — a mechanism used after the 2023 floods — and said the bond bank-supported loan approach allowed later FEMA reimbursement, including interest.
Smith reviewed several bill components. She said section 1 would require VEM to cover expenses while awaiting FEMA reimbursement and warned the language may conflict with the Emergency Relief and Assistance Fund (ERAP, 20 VSA 45), the existing statute that currently incentivizes municipal actions and shares local-match responsibilities rather than covering all match. Smith noted FEMA typically covers about 75 percent of eligible public assistance project costs (sometimes higher for major events) and that the bill’s apparent requirement to pay 100 percent of match could prevent buyouts when state match funding is not available.
On buyouts, Smith described VEM's voluntary buyout program established after the 2023 floods, in which the state can serve as a self-applicant to FEMA on behalf of municipalities to reduce local administrative burden; current buyout valuations are generally appraised fair-market value as of the day before the storm, she said.
Neil Kamen, deputy commissioner at the Department of Environmental Conservation, limited remarks to sections 5 and 6 and urged caution on large-scale sediment removal and channelization. He said most dams on the landscape do not provide meaningful flood attenuation and warned that removing sediment from privately owned small impoundments may confer little flood benefit while using public dollars. Kamen added that DEC already runs river-corridor, floodplain restoration and remediation programs, and he said the department did not support inclusion of section 5 as drafted and viewed section 6 as largely duplicative of ongoing programs and the requirements of Act 121 of 2023.
Committee members questioned the distinction between debris (large washed-in objects) and river sediment (gravel that can raise a channel bed). Kamen said DEC authorizes targeted work to restore flood-carrying capacity and partners with municipal road crews and the Agency of Transportation; he pointed members to regional staff (Marie Caduto) for district-level technical assistance.
No vote was taken on the omnibus vehicle during the session; committee members said the bill is early in development and that the committee will use a pending omnibus emergency-response vehicle going forward and schedule further testimony.