Share Email 0 Shares

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bram Towbin, the chair of the Plainfield Selectboard.

What are the costs to small towns of the Lake Champlain cleanup legislation? As municipalities are being burdened with never-ending unfunded mandates, I became aware of this new legislation and decided to ask our village water plant manager this question. He said the present cost of treating wastewater would rise from roughly a penny a gallon to 10 cents. He also said the plant re-fit must be completed by 2017. He then asked me, “Who’s going to pay this?” Before I propose an answer, it is important to understand the background of this issue.

Get all of VTDigger's daily news. You'll never miss a story with our daily headlines in your inbox.

Lake Champlain is choking with dangerous algae. This blue-green slime threatens people’s health, kills fish and destroys property values. The problem has festered for years. Now the federal government is forcing the state’s hand by mandating draconian reductions in phosphorus, the pollutant that’s causing the problems. The state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agreed on a remediation plan. The state instituted an enhanced property transfer tax, regulatory oversight changes and new rules for water plants and road maintenance. This all appears reasonable but a closer examination reveals the dirty politics of clean water. We want a clean lake. Unfortunately, under the proposed plan, municipalities will bear a hugely disproportionate share of cost.

The problem is complex and the suggested fix is even more intricate. There are many sources of phosphorus. Cropland runoff contributes up to 41 percent of the pollutant. Runoff from back roads and wastewater treatment plants are about the same, adding 4 percent each. The parsing of who is responsible for the amount of pollution is summed up in an EPA document entitled, “Phosphorus TMDLs for Vermont Segments of Lake Champlain.” TMDL stands for “Total Maximum Daily Load.” On page 36 is a small paragraph that exposes a glaring inequity. Section 6.1.2.1 says the plan is guided by the idea that commercial properties would require a 10 percent retrofit. Unpaved municipal roads, however, are mandated to make 100 percent improvements. So if you are the owner of a big box store in Winooski the phosphorus from your roof or parking lot is accorded special dispensation. You only have to pay 10 percent of the cost of your runoff whereas a small Vermont town is assessed 100 percent of the expense of refitting back roads. Municipal paved roads are also being asked to pay two and half times the cleanup costs of large building owners.

In addition there is a disturbing unspoken truth in the report. Section 6.1.1 focuses on water treatment plants. There is no mention of indirect discharge, a practice whereby an entity is granted the ability to operate without a proper sewer treatment plant. These commercial organizations have fleets of trucks that dispense water over various fields in surrounding communities. Upstream from my small town there is a commercial plant that produces 36 times the amount of wastewater than our village system. Whereas the 300 Plainfield water users will be facing a six-figure water plant retrofit, in addition to increased annual expense, that commercial operation is facing ZERO increased cost. Towns that have water plants are PENALIZED under the rules that simultaneously give exemptions to organizations with indirect discharge permits for enormous amounts of wastewater. In the case of Plainfield, that state sanction allows that commercial plant to dump within our town borders. This is especially galling. Plainfield’s new wastewater mandates will be coupled with expensive road upgrades. All of Plainfield’s back roads, the ones the discharge trucks use, will require retrofits.

Volunteer boards, whose annual stipends are less than the cost of a lobbyist’s suit, should not be in the position of borrowing huge sums in order to enable an unfair approach to cleaning the lake.

In addition to my other town duties, I am the road commissioner. In this capacity I attended an Agency of Natural Resources briefing on the new rules. Starting in 2017 all Vermont towns will have to apply to the state for a general road permit based on stormwater runoff. There was a great deal of talk of required hydraulic studies, for which towns will foot the bill, and new approaches to road management. However, there was no solid answer about the full tax impact on municipalities other than vague reassurances. The mandates will be phased in allowing a reasonable amount of time for compliance. There was also mention of “some grants and low interest loans being available.” There was no specific detail on timing or funding.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

I pointed out that Plainfield, with two significant river/brooks and many roads in the floodplain, is geographically disadvantaged in a regime focusing on road fixes near water. Furthermore, a large section of our town encompasses a state park with no taxable housing. In addition to having more exposure to expense, we have a very small tax base. Is there any special dispensation for small towns in this position? The answer was “no.” Once again the possibility of long-term loans was floated. I pointed out that loans, by definition, need to be repaid. I left the meeting feeling a great deal of additional cost and paperwork will fall on our taxpayers and municipal workers.

We all need clean water. We also need to come clean on the current proposed “fix.” If towns cannot financially carry the load, they will follow the path of schools and merge their way out of trouble. Municipalities must join together and guard our way of life. My proposal is to set a TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY TAX LOAD in conjunction with the TMDL pollution standard. Commercial interests have the ability to pressure Montpelier and avoid expense. Volunteer boards, whose annual stipends are less than the cost of a lobbyist’s suit, should not be in the position of borrowing huge sums in order to enable an unfair approach to cleaning the lake. We will gladly pull our weight in this important endeavor. It ’s not fair, however, to force us to carry other people’s water. All municipal officials and taxpayers should send the following statement to both the EPA’s Stephen Perkins (TMDL project manager), Vermont’s federal delegation and their individual state delegation. Candidates for the governor’s office must also weigh in as to whether they support protecting town budget’s from overreach by this unfair state /federal mandate.

The Lake Champlain cleanup cost needs to be proportional to the available municipal tax base, not arbitrary calculations of pollution sources. No town should be expected to incur insupportable increases in any line item in their budgets.

Municipalities must not be singled out and left to drown in a tsunami of expensive regulation. We are in this together in that we all drink from the same well. Unfortunately the current plan suggests that we are not in this together and that the principal polluters should pay a tiny fraction of what the rest of us pay. The answer I gave Plainfield’s water plant manager as to who will absorb the cost: “I have no idea, Greg. But if it isn’t fair, I will make sure every water user and taxpayer knows.”