Editor’s note: This commentary is by Julie Moore, of Middlesex, the secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and a registered professional engineer.
[V]ermont may be known as the Green Mountain State but Vermont’s landscape has been shaped by water – from the mile-high glaciers that receded 13,000 years ago to the thousands of miles of rivers and streams that wind their way through our fields, forests and communities.
Just as water has shaped our landscape, it has also shaped who we are as Vermonters. Some of our finest memories are from the summers we spent at our favorite swimming holes and shorelines. Our waterways have been the backdrop for many of our best adventures. Yet in recent months and years, our water has given us much to be concerned about. As a state, we must invest in the places we derive such joy from and double-down on the “all in” approach — working together to implement solutions that restore our waterways.
Part of the solution starts with understanding just how much investment is needed to tackle waterway cleanup. In January of this year, the state treasurer published a report outlining, for the first time, the total investment required to clean up Vermont’s water over the next 20 years. Echoing the “all in” approach, the treasurer’s report made clear that the state should not assume responsibility for the entirety of the revenue needed to achieve our clean water goals. Rather, as we move forward, funding should include a mix of federal, local and private resources in addition to those provided by the state.
The current administration supports water cleanup efforts in both the short and long term. Gov. Phil Scott has committed $25 million per year in additional funding for FY 2018 and 2019, bringing the state’s annual clean water investment to more than $50 million a year.
We are also focused on building a long-term strategy for water quality improvements. After Act 73 passed in March, a working group formed to develop recommendations for an equitable and effective clean water funding strategy. In the recently published Water Quality Funding draft report, the working group recognized the need to refine the broad 20-year plan into stages, with the draft report focusing on initial investment needed over the next 3-5 years.
This investment strategy recognizes that projects will ramp up at a different pace in each of the four sectors (municipal infrastructure, agriculture, developed lands and natural resources) that contribute to water pollution. The capital bill is an important mechanism for funding early investments, but is not the long-term funding solution desired by the administration and sought by the Legislature. The water quality draft report puts forth a series of recommendations for building this equitable, effective long-term investment strategy. Recommendations include:
Deep dive into potential service delivery models to collect and distribute funds. The working group reviewed the costs and benefits of using existing mechanisms (e.g., state and local tax collection) to collect dedicated revenue for clean water and found the administrative costs to be disproportionate to the revenue that would be raised. Evaluating other potential models involves looking at fee types, collection types and appeal processes, as well as identifying how revenues would be used and possible service delivery organizations.
Pursuing technological and regulatory innovations to reduce future costs, accelerate clean water improvements, and share costs across sectors. Examples include engineered ecosystems (such as constructed wetlands), integrated planning and permitting systems that consider all sectors within a municipality rather than permitting runoff from roads, paved surfaces and wastewater treatment independently, and public-private funding mechanisms.
Revisiting costs and data every two years to ensure clean water goals are achieved in the most cost-effective way possible, are guided by the latest scientific data and technological innovations, and allow for continuous improvement.
Building greater funding flexibility that empowers private entities to prioritize clean water activities. One example would be allowing more flexible use of capital funds by expanding loan eligibility to private entity projects on private lands.
Clean water is certain to be front and center in the Legislature this winter. I invite and encourage you to join the conversation; the working group’s final report will be available by Nov. 15. Together, we can shape an “all in” approach that cleans up our waters, guaranteeing that generations to come continue to enjoy Vermont’s renowned lakes, streams and swimming holes.
For more information, visit http://anr.vermont.gov/about/special-topics/act-73-clean-water-funding
