Vermont lawmakers who oversee natural resource issues in the state got a college-level crash course on rivers — and a few big takeaways — at a Statehouse hearing Tuesday on the impacts of tropical storm Irene and its cleanup.
Among them:
— You can have your cake and eat it too, at least when it comes to river and road repairs.
– Culverts matter. A lot.
– Try to “fix” a river, and you can find yourself in a far worse fix.
— Accept that we’re facing a “new normal” of epic weather events, thanks to global climate change.
And perhaps most importantly, address any issues now, otherwise they’ll be back again — likely at higher cost.
Rep. David Deen, D-Putney, told an audience of about 45 people that lawmakers wanted to take “an early step to educate ourselves” before the upcoming session on how they should respond to the damages Irene caused throughout the state. The House and Senate Natural Resources committees and House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee held the joint hearing to gather information on the problems Irene caused, the state’s response and how to prevent issues in the future.
And information they got, including a half-hour PowerPoint presentation on the subject of “fluvial geomorphology,” which likely is the first time that subject got prime billing under the Golden Dome.
As Dr. Mary Watzin, an expert at the UVM Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, explained, that fancy phrase simply refers to the complex process of how rivers work in the environment, dependent on factors such as steepness and drainage area, river bottoms and floodplains.
Disasters such as Irene are “powerful learning opportunities,” Watzin said. She urged lawmakers to prepare for a future with more damaging storms.
“What the new normal really is, is an increased incidence of heavy storms,” she said. “We know climate change is real. We can see it,” she said, citing a raft of statistics on dates of ice over on Lake Champlain to rain, snowfall amounts and longer growing seasons. She also showed a chart that predicted that New England faced the highest predicted increase in “extreme events” in the country, 61 percent.
Watzin’s observations were echoed by Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) Secretary Deb Markowitz, who testified that “we have to get this right in the future.” Citing Irene’s “breathtaking” impact and damages, Markowitz said over 2,000 stream segments were damaged in Irene, along with the massive damage to roads and bridges.
“This is going to be the biggest investment in infrastructure any of us will see in our lifetimes,” she told lawmakers.
Markowitz cautioned lawmakers not to heed calls to loosen ANR stream alteration permitting requirements enacted in 2010, which have gained some currency after the agency eased rules for emergency work in the immediate aftermath of Irene.
“I also ask you not to step back from it. There will be pressure,” she said.
Agency of Transportation Deputy Secretary Sue Minter threw out a staggering number for lawmakers to consider: Over 1,000 stream or river culverts in the state were damaged or destroyed by Irene.
Several people testified that the state needs to rethink its culvert sizing, adopting standards used by ANR that call for larger sizes than the transportation agency uses.
Such small steps can have major impacts, said Mary Russ, executive director of the White River Partnership, a nonprofit based in Royalton. She told lawmakers that the failure of one 24-inch culvert cost the town $250,000 when it plugged and led to an extensive road washout. That one culvert caused a significant portion of Royalton’s $6.5 million in damages from Irene.
According to Russ, the Green Mountain National Forest resized upwards all its culverts — and didn’t lose a single one in Irene.
There was widespread recognition that Irene had altered the way the state should approach management of its rivers and streams at the community and riverside level. Still, the discussion of many of the techniques used to alter streams post-Irene — gravel extraction, use of rip-rap and stream channeling stirred strong emotions.
Sen. Dick McCormack, D-Windsor, noted in his 22 years he had not heard such “an outpouring of public will” as the complaints he heard about state restrictions on removing gravel from streams to ease flooding.
Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner David Mears strongly defended the science on such restrictions.
“Spending money to do work without consideration of how river dynamics work is money down the hole,” he said.
Some environmental organizations criticized the Agency of Natural Resources for allowing emergency stream work, and Mears admitted there were some cases were people took advantage of the rule loosening for “speculative advantage.”
Louis Porter of the Conservation Law Foundation said the state ignored its own goals when it agreed to verbal approvals of gravel extraction for road and river repairs, a move he warned would “ultimately backfire.” Calling rivers a “zero sum game,” he said gravel extraction, channeling and rip-rap have unintended effects that could exacerbate future flooding.
Mears told lawmakers that planning for emergency situations such as Irene, and making sure agency officials work with towns and highway crews, “is an area where we can do better for the future.”
Ron Rhodes of the Connecticut River Watershed Council, who told lawmakers he jokingly represents “the gravel guild,” said it is possible to protect communities and infrastructure and rivers at the same time. “This isn’t roads versus rivers,” he said.
Rhodes urged ANR and VTrans to work more closely together and also urged lawmakers and agency officials to discourage any new developments in floodplains and avoid unregulated attempts to change rivers.
Patrick Berry, commissioner of Fish and Wildlife, argued there is ample scientific evidence that removing gravel, channelization and “armoring” river simply shifts problems and can have “tremendous effects downstream.”
Rivers are “incredibly complex systems,” he said, and any gravel removed will simply be added back by the river, making such extraction a “short-term fix for a year or two or three.”
It’s lethal for fish habitat, he said, because it creates “thermal pollution” that affects species such as trout.
The fishing industry brings $64 million annually to Vermont’s economy, Berry said. “This is not about fish versus people.”
There is plenty of expertise and cooperation between the Vermont Agency of Transportation, ANR, and local towns to repair rivers the right way that helps prevent future flooding, road washouts and preserves aquatic life, according to Berry.
“I think there’s the political will and communities are looking for help on how to do this right,” he said.
Mears agreed that “these are not easy conversations” to have with impacted towns, constituents and road crews. But he said the science about how to “fix” rivers is compelling and doing it right will save public dollars.
“This is one of those cases where we can have our cake and eat it too,” he said.
