Editor’s note: This commentary is by David Mears, who is executive director of Audubon Vermont. He previously was associate dean of environmental programs at Vermont Law School and the former commissioner of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
[P]rotecting the environment has too often become a partisan matter, to the detriment of both Vermont’s people and our wildlife. Birds do not belong to political parties and cannot vote, so they rely on us to ensure that our elected leaders make the right decisions. As it happens, the leadership in the Vermont General Assembly appear not to have heard the haunting call of the common loon, or the impatient rattle of the belted kingfisher. These two bird species are dependent upon clean water and healthy watersheds and would, if they could, demand stronger action to protect Vermont’s lakes and ponds, rivers and streams. They cannot, so it is up to us to do so.
Some might ask why we should care about the birds, or clean water. We might also ask why we should care about the native brook trout, a species of fish also dependent upon cool, clear water – a species that serves as an ambassador for all aquatic life. While engaged in this inquiry, we might as well inquire about all of the other wildlife that depend upon healthy watersheds, a list which includes, well, most species of mammals including the gregarious otter, the industrious beaver, and magnificent moose. Really, if we want to get to the bottom of this investigation, we should be asking what clean water means to people — to our communities, our history and our future.
I will leave that poetic, though pragmatic, line of inquisition to the reader and turn instead to a more mundane, yet important question: Why would the Vermont Legislature hesitate to act on the thoughtful and informed advice of numerous experts, business owners, municipal leaders, and government officials, including Treasurer Beth Pearce, that we need a dedicated, stable and significant source of clean water funding? Treasurer Pearce offered a road map in the form of a careful analysis of the need and opportunity to make a real difference for Vermont’s waters by adopting funding to address the polluted runoff that is slowly but steadily killing our waters.
As importantly, our governor kicked off the current session with a strong call to action, proposing to dedicate significant new clean water state funds to the effort. The amount he recommended was not enough, and his decision to use existing revenue for clean water efforts raised questions about what would not be funded as a result. Still, it was an important start. Now, having passed the midway mark of the current session, real questions have emerged about whether the Legislature will act on the imperative to establish long-term clean water funding.
For those who do not track the inner workings of Vermont’s General Assembly, the two chambers take turns passing legislation on to each other. The Senate had the first turn at passing a proposal to fund clean water investments. After weeks of debate, the Senate passed a bill (S.96) creating a new system for spending the funds – it is a fine bill, but mostly a useless gesture, since the senators chose not to propose any method for raising the funds to be distributed under the new system. On the House side, our representatives chose not to include any of the clean water funding proposed in the governor’s budget.
The puzzle of the Vermont Legislature’s failure to forward a serious proposal for clean water funding is that both chambers are controlled by a combination of two parties, Democrats and Progressives, who have publicly committed to raising new funds for clean water. With Vermont’s Republican Gov. Phil Scott, who is known for his fiscal conservatism, recognizing the need for funding to protect Vermont’s water, it seems like the three political parties of our great state of green mountains and silver waters have a rare opportunity to join hands and sing our state’s song in unison.
Could they speak, the ducks returning to Vermont after a winter in parts south might be forgiven for asking, “What gives?” When the birds were last here, before departing in the fall, senators and representatives across the state were promising that this would be the year for clean water funding. Since ducks cannot speak and, despite popular myth, do not actually nibble anyone, much less senators or representatives, it is up to those of us who can write messages and letters, or make calls, to let our legislators know that we are waiting, impatiently, for them to act.
