Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Mears, who is vice dean for faculty at Vermont Law School and former commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation from 2011 to 2015.
[I] was pleased to read the recent Clean Water Report released on Jan. 15 by Vermont Treasurer Beth Pearce. In the Vermont tradition of straight talk and with a can-do attitude, Treasurer Pearce has both laid out the cost of cleaning up state waters and offered a way to pay for it. The Vermont Legislature asked the treasurer for her suggestions and she has delivered, with supporting facts and careful analysis. The next step is for our governor and the General Assembly to take the time to read the report and either accept the treasurer’s recommendations, or find some other way to get the job done. Inaction is not an acceptable choice.
Most of us do not need to be persuaded of the importance of clean water. Vermont’s rivers, streams, lakes and ponds are a central part of our communities – we swim, fish, boat, drink from, and live beside these waters. Our economy benefits from clean water in the form of tourism and property values. The support of Vermonters for clean water led to large, bipartisan support for Act 64, the Vermont Clean Water Act of 2015. This law, in concert with the United States Clean Water Act, requires our state to take a set of strong measures to reduce water pollution.
State agencies, coordinated by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, have put together a comprehensive program to meet both state and federal requirements. This program is particularly focused on one of the most challenging water pollution problems we face: reducing polluted runoff containing sediment and nutrients. This polluted runoff from developed lands, roads and farms and erosion from stream banks results from the way we currently live on the land and will require a significant effort over the next two decades to address. Because past efforts failed to show sufficient progress, the state’s current clean water program includes milestones to measure progress and pollution reduction targets along with monitoring and reporting. The adoption of this program was no small feat, and required engaging in significant dialogue with town and city leaders, farmers, developers and landowners, clean water advocates and the public.
It would, however, be foolish to think that the federal government will solve this problem for us. It would also be irresponsible to require developers, farmers and municipalities to shoulder all of the burden for addressing the widespread problems of polluted runoff. The state can and should play a role.
The result of this dialogue was a set of commonsense and achievable, if expensive, solutions: solutions like designing roads and parking lots so that rainwater percolates into the ground instead of running off into streams; and solutions like incorporating cow manure into the ground so it fertilizes the soil instead of our ponds and lakes. We have tested these solutions and many more that are now required in order to meet our clean water goals. Solutions like these require funding. Much of the funding will come from developers, farmers, and our cities and towns who have to install new pollution control systems, purchase new equipment, or just build and develop using different methods. Some if this funding will come from the federal government agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation. It would, however, be foolish to think that the federal government will solve this problem for us. It would also be irresponsible to require developers, farmers and municipalities to shoulder all of the burden for addressing the widespread problems of polluted runoff. The state can and should play a role.
That is where the Treasurer’s Clean Water Report comes into the picture. After extensive debate and hand-wringing by state officials over the past several years, we finally have a set of clear-eyed recommendations informed by thoughtful financial analysis. Treasurer Pearce recommends implementation of a fee on property owners proportional to the amount of developed land and, consequently, directly related to the amount of water pollution generated on each parcel. This proposal will run into significant political headwinds and some will call it a property tax. I urge you to take a careful look at the report and hope that you will join me in encouraging your Vermont representatives and senators to see it instead as an investment in clean water, our health, and our economic future.
