[T]he Scott administration’s proposal to fund clean water with existing revenue received a tentative thumbs up from the EPA last week. But lawmakers — less than keen on that idea — are rolling out their own plans, ranging from a tax on manicures to a parcel fee.
Vermont must come up with $2.3 billion over the next 20 years to comply with federal pollution reduction orders for Lake Champlain, Lake Memphremagog and other water bodies in the state. The EPA has ordered that the surrounding watersheds lower phosphorus pollution coming into the lakes.
Since the 2015 passage of Act 64, Vermont’s Clean Water Act, the state has used short-term sources — like appropriations from the capital bill — for the majority of its share of the cost. Last year, the EPA gave Vermont a “provisional pass” on its Lake Champlain report card for not identifying a long-term clean water funding source.
The governor has proposed [using revenues from the estate tax — $8 million next year and as much as $13 million in years to come. In addition, Scott would direct an increasing portion of the property transfer tax to clean water.
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy will discuss a bill Friday that would impose a base $40 per parcel fee, which would be adjusted depending on factors like size, amount of paved surface and number of buildings on the parcel.
Sen. Chris Bray, D-Addison, chair of the committee and a co-sponsor of the bill, said the committee is aiming for a fair fee structure.
“We’re saying what kind of parties are having an adverse impact on water quality?” he said. “And in an ideal world, you could measure who’s actually causing the most pollution and they would pay more based on that environmental law premise of the polluter pays.”
He added that there was a balance between having too simplistic a fee and creating a pollution assessment system that would be too complex.
Rep. George Till, D-Jericho, who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, has put forward a bill, H.171, that would raise funds through a combination of taxes and fees on hotel rooms, asphalt sales, milk handlers and paved surfaces — a strategy he referred to as “a little bit of the ‘all in.’”
“I really went to the side of what’s contributing (to pollution) … and what of those things can we actually do something about,” said Till in an interview Wednesday.
A rooms tax for clean water that surfaced last session received pushback from some members of the state’s hospitality industry.
“I refuse to believe that a dollar a night is going to keep anybody from coming to Vermont and getting a hotel room — I just don’t buy it,” said Till.
The House Committee on Natural Resources discussed the proposal Wednesday.
Rep. Cynthia Browning, D-Arlington, has introduced a bill, H.64, also based on the idea that contributors to water quality pollution should fund cleanup efforts. But she proposes that the Joint Fiscal Office prepare a report on sources of pollution and ways to generate revenue from those activities. Her bill, which is in the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish and Wildlife, would require the Agency of Natural Resources to report on the possibility of establishing stormwater utilities, which Burlington, South Burlington and Williston already have, in densely populated parts of the state.
Meanwhile, Rep. Kari Dolan, D-Waitsfield, former head of the state’s clean water initiative, is working on a bill that would tax bottled water at 10 cents per bottle and sugary drinks at 15 cents per bottle. The legislation would also levy a 6 percent tax on barbering and cosmetology services and increase the income tax by .05 percent.
Bray said the differing proposals would likely end up getting hashed out in a conference committee later in the session.
“The good news to me is that both sides are thinking about how to fund it,” he said.
He stressed that his committee is “not a money committee,” so they would focus on making sure the state was spending clean water dollars wisely.
