Editor’s note: This commentary is by Lou Magnani of Wells, who has lived in Vermont since 1972 and is now retired.
[A]ct 250 was created in 1970 to “insure that these lands and environment are devoted to uses which are not detrimental to the public welfare and interests.”
We all have seen enough pictures of various strip mining to understand that most extractive industries are inherently likely to be detrimental to the environment and public welfare. The authors of Act 250 understood that simple concept and did not exempt strip mining of any material from its purview.
In the early 1990s some legislators and lobbyists from southwest Rutland County managed to convince the Vermont Legislature to exempt the slate industry from Act 250. Act 30, originally proposed to exempt working quarries, was expanded to include the grandfathering of any quarries that were ever active before 1970. Ultimately, the legislation that got passed allowed anyone to register a pit from which slate had been extracted at any time before 1970 as “a quarry held in reserve.” Once registered, a pit 15 feet in diameter could be opened and expanded to the borders of its property owner. About 400 pits were registered on about 10,000 acres of land between West Pawlet and Fair Haven.
Over the last 20 years the consequences of the exemption has been devastating for some homeowners and residents, and continues to be so. Suddenly, the woods behind their houses could be clear cut, excavated, and an old pit not used in 50 years could be opened and worked, all the way up to their borders.
Neighboring homeowners have no real recourse but to hire an attorney and try to sue, but the law supports the industry. People I know that tried to talk sense to operators about working hours, property lines, rubble piles in their backyard, and blasting got no satisfaction from operators. In fact they got intimidation. If they go to their town selectboard they are likely to get sympathy and nothing more. Any politician they call will refer them to the Legislature. Any agency they call will likely not have jurisdiction over the matter of their complaint.
Now that Act 250 is being revised for the next 50 years, the slate industry is working hard to maintain its exempt status. A House committee chaired by Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, is now holding hearings and drafting legislation to revise our land use law.
The industry has many powerful supporters including the Rutland County delegation of legislators. The town of Pawlet has weighed in on the side of the industry. All are in favor of maintaining the status quo. And the status quo leaves out the interests of the residents and homeowners.
None of this is consistent with the vision of Act 250 nor with our state Constitution.
I am one of those few voicing opposition to the exemption and there are many others who don’t come forward. People are staying quiet because they feel intimidated or powerless and are hesitant to complain about neighbors or relatives.
Bill Burke has testified before the committee against the exemption. He urged the committee to repeal the exemption saying it is “bad for the environment, bad for impacted citizens and therefore bad public policy.” His testimony goes on to say that “The fundamental problem with the status quo is that it dooms the slate belt and the citizens who reside in or near it to a nearly lawless environment.”
He has been dealing with the blowback from this legislative blunder for more than 20 years. He believes there should be a balance between the industry’s rights and the residents’.
The industry puts forward numerous reasons in its testimony to retain this exemption. Much of it is probably the same as that given back in the ’90s that won enough support to pass this law.
Their narrative begins with a down home story of the pioneers of the slate industry. Yes, some families have been in this business for generations. And, indeed, the products they create are so beautiful I admire them greatly. Their story is wonderful and I hope it continues. But it is almost meaningless in the context of the next 50 years.
Fifty years or so ago, marble companies were locally owned. Now most belongs to Omya. And 50 years from now a multinational may own the slate industry.
While the “down home” stuff may seem relevant
in the present, it is very likely to be irrelevant in 20 or 50 years. Yes, these families have been here a long time and developed this industry. And they currently exert a lot of influence in their communities, on selectboards, in schools, fire houses and so on. But there is a negative aspect to their involvement because the towns have become inclined to support the industry over the interests of those who oppose their operational indiscretions.
The demographics of Vermont will be dramatically different 50 years from now. Both the governor and his opponent in our last election spoke about the opportunities and pitfalls that telecommuting will bring. And as that happens, new people will be wondering why the old people allowed what is being allowed at present.
The other part of the narrative that looks tremendous on paper but is meaningless in practice is the list of regulatory agencies that allegedly already place a heavy burden on the industry. An industry representative presented an impressive list of governmental agencies and regulations, but they don’t begin to address the needs of a resident living near a quarry.
They mention the ATF, which licenses people who use explosives, but the ATF does not set the charges nor tell them when and how to use their charges. Consequently, blasting is one of the major problems neighbors complain about and they include everything from windows rattling to changes in well functions.
They list numerous agencies charged with protecting wetlands including the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and the Army Corps of Engineers. The ANR gives a kind of “blanket” permit to allow operators to discharge stormwater. I asked the agency if they issued a permit to fill wetlands to any slate companies and they said no. Neither the ANR nor the Army Corps issued any permits for wetland fillings like this.
They even bring up VOSHA and MSHA, agencies concerned with the safety of workers that have nothing to do with protecting the environment or the impact this industry has on its neighbors.
The Rutland delegation of legislators are wrong to support the perpetuation of this exemption.
They should have another look at Article 7 of our Constitution: “That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community, and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single person, family, or set of persons …”
The slate quarry exemption is specifically for the “emolument and advantage” of a subset of the people in Slate Valley. Our delegates need to be focusing on how to bring the industry into the Act 250 regulatory process in a way that allows it to operate in a way that doesn’t degrade the environment or the quality of life for their neighbors.
