A plow truck clears away snow from a road. Photo courtesy Town of Colchester
Neither version of the bill will get voted out of the Legislature this year, but lawmakers are making moves to develop the proposals ahead of the second half of the biennium.
by Sam Hartnett, Community News Service A Senate bill designed to curb chloride contamination from road salt has stalled, but an identical bill in the House is making advances.
H.86, the House version of the proposed program, passed the chamber’s Committee on Ways and Means 7–4 last Friday with votes split along party lines. The bill’s Senate counterpart, S.29, remains in a committee.
Both bills aim to reduce stress on aquatic ecosystems from salt exposure as well as to save contractors and municipalities money on salt expenses. The program it creates, housed in the state Agency of Natural Resources, would provide education, training and certification for road salt crews across the state — with a focus on reducing salt use.
Neither version of the bill passed before the key crossover date, meaning Vermonters won’t see a road salt reduction program this winter. Regardless, Democratic and Progressive lawmakers are looking to get the bill through the lower chamber this spring.
Sen. Anne Watson, D/P-Washington, lead sponsor of the Senate version, believes the initiative will receive more attention next year, including the push it needs to get across the finish line.
“If we wait until next year, we may have a better shot at getting the whole financial ask in the budget rather than trying to shoehorn it in at this point,” Watson said.
Republican legislators cited administrative bloat and costs as reasons for voting against the bill.
Rep. Rob North, R-Ferrisburgh, is concerned with creating another position at the Agency of Natural Resources and the cost that comes with it.
“It asks for a new program to be developed within ANR, adding another layer of bureaucracy … it adds a whole bunch of bodies, and we haven’t reduced any salt yet,” North said in a phone call.
A report on the House bill from the Legislative Joint Fiscal Office put the cost of the program at $400,000. Three-eighths of that would go toward a permanent position at the agency, and the remaining $250,000 would be to contract outside organizations for training programs.
While the report said it is difficult to quantify savings, the legislation “may generate long-term cost savings by reducing and preventing chloride pollution in Vermont’s water bodies.”
Private entities and municipalities would incur much of the savings through having to purchase less salt, the fiscal note said, while state savings would come from preventing pollution that would cost money to clean up.
Previously included in the bill was a provision to construct salt sheds to prevent runoff from salt piles at storage facilities, but lawmakers agreed to reduce the requirement to simply an inventory of the state’s salt piles and whether they are uncovered.
Rep. Mark Higley, R-Lowell, said constructing salt sheds would cost too much for his district, where most salt piles are uncovered, and he’s wary the program would lead to rules about covering salt piles down the line.
Higley sees the program as an “unfunded mandate” that would increase the size and cost of government, which he opposes. “It makes no sense to try to save ourselves when we destroy ourselves in the process,” Higley said.
The House bill’s lead sponsor, Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, is confused why Republican legislators continued to vote against the bill after supporters accommodated their concerns by reducing the salt shed requirement to an inventory.
“None of us want dead waters,” she said in a phone call.
Sheldon points to the fact that, under the Vermont Clean Water Act and federal law, the agency would have to act to reduce chloride contamination regardless of what lawmakers do. Sheldon believes if the Legislature can act to reduce salt contamination now, it will prevent the state Department of Conservation from having to deal with the problem alone later down the line.
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of salt,” Sheldon said.
Legislators in the Senate Committee on Judiciary met Wednesday morning to discuss differences between the two versions of the program and find a path forward.
Via Community News Service, a University of Vermont journalism internship.
To support vital journalism, access our archives and get unique features like our award-winning profiles, Book of Lists & Business-to-Business Directory, subscribe HERE!
