Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Clean Water Rule Deeming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates proposal to deem clean-water rule requirements met for projects serving new housing
Summary
Members questioned capital-bill language that would treat certain rule-based demonstrations for Clean Water SRF grant prioritization as already satisfied for projects serving new housing, raising procedural and intercommittee concerns; committee asked DEC and counsel to meet with other chairs before pursuing statutory preemption.
Committee members spent substantial time on March 19 examining section 9 of the proposed capital bill, which DEC presented as a way to streamline Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) grant awards for municipal wastewater projects that will serve new housing. DEC said the change would deem certain rule-based demonstration requirements—such as showing no reasonable alternatives and municipal controls to prevent scattered development—met when a municipality certifies the project will provide sewer capacity for new housing.
Patrick Monks of Vermont DEC told the committee that the change would make projects that expand sewer service to enable housing eligible under the grant-priority framework without going through the current stepwise demonstrations embedded in the department’s chapter 2 administrative rule. "If that sewer extension is to provide housing or to reserve capacity for housing, then these requirements of the rule are satisfied," Monks said.
Multiple members, however, warned that wording that effectively exempts an administrative rule by statute is a substantive policy change that cuts across the jurisdictions of the Environment and General committees and may bypass the rulemaking process that implements statute. "We're exempting the rule by statute...that's beyond the bailiwick of this committee to weigh in on," one member said, and committee counsel urged consultation with other committee chairs and legal counsel.
Counsel (John Grayops) outlined two approaches: a quicker statutory 'deeming' that omits or overrides the rule section to make the projects immediately eligible, or the longer route of directing the department to update administrative rules via the standard rulemaking process. Members expressed concern about the effect on the existing priority list—newly eligible projects might enter and change rankings—and about whether statutory preemption is appropriate for a grant-priority mechanism tied to environmental and housing policy.
The committee agreed on next steps: DEC staff will refine the language, and the chairs of Corrections & Institutions, Environment, and General (and housing if needed) will meet with legal counsel to determine whether to pursue statutory language or to seek the same outcome through rulemaking. No vote was taken on the proposal during the session.
The committee recessed for a short break and scheduled follow-up consultations before further consideration.
