Lawmakers pitch study group to assess water classification and anti-degradation policy
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
Senator Bongards and state counsel Mike Green presented a redraft of S223 on Feb. 12 proposing an 11-member study to evaluate lake and waterbody classifications, barriers to reclassification, and whether an anti-degradation implementation policy required by the Clean Water Act has been fully adopted; the group would report back by Dec. 30, 2026.
Senator Bongards introduced a redraft of S223 to the Natural Resources & Energy committee on Feb. 12, describing a narrower, clearer study charge focused on water-body classification and anti-degradation policy.
Mike Green, identified as state counsel, told the committee the study group would include 11 members — two House members, two Senate members, the secretary of the natural resources agency (with technical staff support), business representatives, and nonprofit environmental advocates — and would be tasked with inventorying state waters that may qualify for higher-quality classifications, evaluating statutory and administrative barriers, and recommending whether the regulatory framework needs strengthening.
"The Clean Water Act requires an anti degradation implementation policy, which the state has in the water quality standards, water quality data rules," Green said, explaining that although the rule framework exists, an implementing policy required by the federal statute has not been fully adopted. He said the study would assess the state's obligations under the Clean Water Act and whether rulemaking or statutory changes are necessary to facilitate reclassification.
Green outlined the group's timeline and deliverables: a first meeting by Aug. 1, a report back by Dec. 30, 2026, and termination of the committee on Feb. 15, 2027. He said the group would identify candidate waters that meet higher-quality criteria and evaluate whether current procedures—such as rulemaking requirements—create barriers to reclassification.
Committee members questioned whether the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) could accomplish the work alone; Green said the committee is meant to identify legal, policy or administrative barriers and produce recommendations to the General Assembly. The committee did not vote on S223; members said they would hear additional testimony at the upcoming hearings and from agency staff.
The committee scheduled a joint hearing with Transportation at 10:15 to discuss Act 181 impacts on transportation that the committee will hear later in the morning.