Vermont Business Magazine The House effort to override Governor Phil Scott’s veto of S103, a bill that protects children and drinking water supplies, fell short today, as expected. The House voted 94-53 to override the veto. However, under the Vermont Constitution, two-thirds of House Members are needed to override a veto, or 100 members of the full House. The governor vetoedS103 Monday, March 16. The Senate quickly overrode Scott’s veto, March 19, in a 22-8 vote.
House Speaker Mitzi Johnson said in a statement: “Just a month ago, the House approvedS.103,a bill to protect Vermonters from toxic substances, on a tri-partisan vote of 96-42. I’m disappointed that we were unable to override the Governor’s veto of the bill today.
“I’m proud of the 94 members who voted to support transparency for Vermont families seeking to protect themselves from toxic substance exposure. Giving Vermonters the ability to understand what is in their drinking water and their consumer products and providing them with the means to protect themselves from potential toxins is critically important. I will continue working with my colleagues to support legislation that protects the health and safety of Vermont families.”
“This is a bad day for Vermonters,” said Brian Shupe, Executive Director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC).Shupe added, “S.103 would have been a first step toward providing much-needed protections for Vermonters from toxic pollution.As we saw in Bennington, Vermonters are not immune from exposure to dangerous toxic chemicals. Governor Scott has chosen industry over vulnerable Vermonters in vetoing S.103, and unfortunately his veto will stand.”
Lauren Hierl, Executive Director of Vermont Conservation Voters (VCV) stated, “It is unfortunate that many of the House Republicans who voted for S.103 on its merits just a few weeks ago, switched their vote to uphold Governor Scott’s veto.These Representatives put party politics first, rather than standing by their own vote for a bill that aims to protect vulnerable Vermonters from harmful chemicals.”
S.103 would have done the following:
1. Create an interagency working group to better manage chemicals and make recommendations on how to reduce the use of toxic chemicals. The Governor established a group by Executive Order, but putting the group in statute will ensure it lives on through multiple administrations, and that recommendations are reported to the Legislature.
2. Require new drinking water wells to be tested for certain toxic contaminants.
3. Make key fixes to the Chemicals of High Concern in Children’s Products program (Act 188). These changes remove unnecessary red tape in how threats to children’s health are assessed while ensuring a high scientific standard will be maintained for any proposed rulemaking to list chemicals or to reduce the use of toxic substances in children’s products.
The governor’s objection to the bill includes concerns about economic impacts and placing too much authority in the hands of the Commissioner of Health to propose regulating the use of toxic chemicals in children’s products.
Hierl stated, “Through the years, Vermont has regulated toxic chemicals in children’s products numerous times, including restricting BPA, phthalates, and mercury, and there has been no evidence of harm to Vermont’s economy. But we do know that these laws have helped protect our children from exposure to dangerous chemicals.Further, S.103 does not regulate any particular toxic substance or children’s product. Itsimply allows the Health Commissioner to propose, through a formalrule-makingprocess, the regulation of a dangerous chemical in a children's product -- and only after determining, based on sound scientific evidence, that said regulation is necessary to protect Vermont children's health."
Shupe added, “Commissioners typically have the authority to propose regulations to protect the public that are within their Department’s authority.VNRC does not understand why Governor Scott has vetoed a bill because it allows his own appointed Commissioner of Health the ability to do his or her job to protect Vermonters’ health. ”
Source: VNRC 4.25.2018