Committee hears testimony on S.224 after unnotified fishing derby; witness urges sponsor notification, questions commissioner reimbursement language

The Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee heard testimony on S.224 on Feb. 13, focusing on municipal notification and financial responsibilities when organized fishing tournaments occur on water bodies that supply drinking water. Chris Bradley, president and executive director of the Vermont Federation of Sportsman's Clubs, testified that a recent fishing derby obtained a permit through the Department of Fish and Wildlife but "there was never any notice given to the city" that operates the affected drinking-water supply. He said the lack of notice is the proximate problem prompting the bill.

Bradley told the committee his organization does not deny all risk from tournaments to reservoirs but described observed risk from properly managed derbies as minimal. "We do not take the stance that there is 0 risk… however, it would be our observational history to show that the risk is minimal," he said. He framed the federation’s primary concerns as twofold: improving communication to municipalities and avoiding statutory language that delegates broad financial enforcement duties to the Fish and Wildlife commissioner.

On the latter point Bradley identified text in the current draft (referred to in testimony as "d 2") that would place responsibility on the commissioner to ensure a sponsor reimburses a municipality for costs incurred to ensure a drinking-water source is not contaminated. Bradley said the statute as drafted is unclear about what costs count and suggested reimbursement arrangements should be between the sponsor and the municipality rather than enforced through the commissioner. "Please also consider changing d 2 to remove any responsibility of the commissioner of the Department of Fish and Wildlife to handle cost reimbursement to your municipality from a sponsor," he said.

As a practical fix, Bradley proposed a two-step approach: first require tournament sponsors to notify the municipality as part of the permitting process (without creating a municipal stop-work or denial authority); second, if notification proves insufficient, consider additional enforcement measures. "Such notification will alert the municipality of the planned event, thereby allowing them to be more proactive and observant," he told the committee.

Committee members pressed Bradley on typical municipal costs tied to events—parking, policing, litter cleanup and similar—and on whether sponsors carry liability insurance. Bradley acknowledged many sponsors are fundraisers who pay minimal permit fees but typically carry insurance; he urged clearer expectations about cleanup and public-safety responsibilities in the permitting process.

The committee thanked Bradley for his testimony and signaled it will hold a separate committee discussion on aquatic invasive species, access-point management and the bill's direction before any new draft is considered. No final action or vote on S.224 was recorded during the hearing.