Sec. 1. FINDINGS
The general assembly finds and declares that:
(1) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Vermont
department of health estimate that 40 percent of Vermont residents obtain
drinking water from private wells.
(2) Property owners are not required to test private wells used for
potable water, and the state does not regulate the water quality of private
drinking water wells.
(3) In adults and especially in children, contaminated well water can
cause serious health effects, such as digestive problems, kidney problems, blue
baby syndrome, and brain damage.
(4) Because the state does not regulate water quality in private wells,
the state lacks a comprehensive database or map identifying where
groundwater contamination is prevalent in the state.
(5) To help mitigate the potential health effects of contaminated well
water, the state should require well tests for all newly constructed or drilled
wells and should conduct education and outreach regarding the need for
property owners to test the water quality of private wells used as potable water
supplies.
(6) The state should utilize private well tests to construct a database and
map of groundwater contamination in the state so that the department of
health can recommend treatment options to property owners in certain parts of
the state.
Sec. 2. 10 V.S.A. § 1981 is added to read:
§ 1981. TESTING OF PRIVATE WELLS; NEW WELLS
(a) After construction of a newly drilled well intended for use as a potable
water supply, the owner of the property on which the well is located shall test
the well for the parameters set forth in subsection (b) of this section.
BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY THE SENATE S.77
2011 Page 6 of 7
VT LEG 262102.1
(b) A water test conducted under this section shall include, at a minimum, a
test for arsenic; lead; uranium; gross alpha radiation; coliform bacteria,
nitrate, nitrite, fluoride, manganese, and any other parameters required by the
agency by rule.
c) The secretary, after consultation with the department of health, the
wastewater and potable water supply technical advisory committee, the
Vermont association of realtors, the Vermont home inspectors’ association,
private laboratories, and other interested parties, shall adopt by rule
requirements regarding:
(1) when, after construction or drilling of a well, the well test required
under subsection (a) of this section shall be conducted;
(2) who shall be authorized to conduct the well test required under
subsection (a) of this section, provided that the rule shall include licensed well
drillers among those authorized to conduct the test;
(3) how well samples will be delivered for testing, including the form
and information to be submitted with the well sample;
(4) a current, nationally-recognized accreditation or approval that an
in-state or out-of-state laboratory shall possess in order to conduct a well test
required under subsection (a) of this section; and
(5) any other requirements necessary to implement the requirements of
this section.
(d) Any laboratory that analyzes a water sample of a private well in
Vermont shall report the results of the well analysis to the entity submitting the
sample and shall report, in an electronic format, to the department of health
all information that is required by the department pursuant to the rule adopted
under subsection (c) of this section.
Sec. 3. 27 V.S.A. § 616 is added to read:
§ 616. PRIVATE WELL TESTING; DISCLOSURE OF EDUCATIONAL
MATERIAL
(a) Prior to the execution of a purchase and sale agreement for a property
not served by a public community water system, the seller shall provide the
buyer with informational materials developed by the department of health
regarding:
(1) the potential health effects of untreated well water; and
(2) the buyer’s opportunity under the agreement to test the potable
water supply.
(b) Noncompliance with this section shall not affect marketability of title.
BILL AS INTRODUCED AND PASSED BY THE SENATE S.77
2011 Page 7 of 7
VT LEG 262102.1
Sec. 4. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; EDUCATION AND OUTREACH ON
SAFE DRINKING WATER
The department of health, after consultation with the agency of natural
resources, shall revise and update its education and outreach materials
regarding the potential health effects of contaminants in private sources of
drinking water in order to improve citizen access to such materials and to
increase awareness of the need to conduct testing of private water sources. In
revising and updating its education and outreach materials, the department
shall update the online safe water resource guide by incorporating the most
current information on the health effects of contaminants, treatment of
contaminants, and causes of contamination and by directly linking users to the
department of health contaminant fact sheets.
Sec. 5. EFFECTIVE DATES
(a) This section and Secs. 1 (findings), 3 (disclosure of educational
material), and 4 (department of health; education and outreach) of this act
shall take effect upon passage.
(b) Sec. 2 (testing of private wells) of this act shall take effect upon
passage, except that 10 V.S.A. § 1981(a) (well test requirement) and 10 V.S.A.
§ 1981(d) (well test reports) shall take effect on July 1, 2012.

BILL AS INTRODUCED H.272
2011 Page 1 of 5
VT LEG 264863.2
1 H.272
2 Introduced by Representatives Botzow of Pownal and Marcotte of Coventry
3 Referred to Committee on
4 Date:
5 Subject: Highways; private roads; road maintenance; cost allocation; banking;
6 mortgages
7 Statement of purpose: This bill proposes to:
8 (1) require that in the absence of a written agreement regarding the
9 allocation of maintenance costs for a private road, the costs shall be divided
10 ratably among the owners of property that utilize a private road for access and
11 the holders of recorded easements with a right to use the private road for
12 access; and
13 (2) authorize recovery of damages and injunctive relief by owners or
14 easement holders damaged by another’s failure to contribute ratably to
15 maintenance costs.
16 An act relating to maintenance of private roads
17 It is hereby enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Vermont:
18 Sec. 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
19 The general assembly finds that:

(1) Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage 1 Association) is both a
2 major purchaser of residential mortgage loans on the secondary market and an
3 organization that sets the standards for the underwriting and legal requirements
4 for loans sold on the secondary market.
5 (2) The current Fannie Mae appraisal form contains a section for the
6 appraiser to comment on off-site improvements—including private streets—
7 and to indicate whether the improvements are publicly or privately maintained.
8 If a property is located on a community-owned or privately owned and
9 maintained street, Fannie Mae requires a legally enforceable agreement or
10 covenant for maintenance of the street.
11 (3) On January 31, 2008, Fannie Mae issued Announcement 08-01,
12 which specifies that Fannie Mae will permit the delivery of mortgage loans for
13 properties for which there is no such maintenance agreement or covenant,
14 provided that the property is located in a state that has statutory provisions
15 defining the responsibilities of property owners for the maintenance and repair
16 of private streets. Prior to this act, Vermont had no such statutory provisions.
17 (4) Since the mortgage crisis, Fannie Mae has become stricter in its
18 underwriting standards and in enforcing the private street maintenance
19 agreement requirement. Because the ability to sell mortgages to Fannie Mae
20 on the secondary market is critical to most mortgage lenders, this has delayed
mortgage closings and created uncertainty 1 for Vermont homeowners
2 throughout the state.
3 (5) When a conflict arises among persons who share a private road but
4 lack an express agreement concerning the maintenance of that road, the
5 Vermont Supreme Court has applied common law equitable principles to
6 apportion the cost of maintaining the private road. In the reported decision
7 Hubbard v. Bolieau, 144 Vt. 373 (1984), the Supreme Court held that “when
8 several persons enjoy a common benefit, all must contribute rateably to the
9 discharge of the burdens incident to the existence of the benefit.”
10 (6) Vermonters have a long history of working together to share the
11 costs of maintaining private roads. Nothing in this act disturbs existing
12 cooperative arrangements between neighbors, whether written or unwritten.
13 Instead, this act establishes a default standard that will facilitate sales of
14 mortgages and reduce uncertainty for Vermont homeowners, apply only in the
15 absence of a written agreement, and rely on established principles of Vermont
16 law to resolve conflicts.
17 Sec. 2. 19 V.S.A. chapter 27 is added to read:
18 CHAPTER 27. PRIVATE ROADS
19 § 2701. DEFINITIONS
20 As used in this chapter:

(1) “Maintenance” shall include activities 1 related to the upkeep of a
2 private road in its existing condition and as necessary to allow safe passage on
3 the private road within its existing scope of use. “Maintenance” shall not be
4 construed to include any expansion of or capital improvements to a private
5 road.
6 (2) “Owner” and “holder” mean a person other than the state of
7 Vermont, its instrumentalities, or a municipality.
8 (3) “Private road” means a road owned by one or more persons and used
9 by more than one owner or holder of a recorded easement as a means of access
10 to one or more parcels of land.
11 (4) “Ratably” means payment of the expenses for maintenance of a
12 private road based on a pro rata share among the owners and easement holders.
13 § 2702. PRIVATE ROAD MAINTENANCE
14 In the absence of any written agreement—including obligations established
15 by covenants and requirements contained in deeds, state and local permits, and
16 land development and subdivision bylaws—regarding the allocation of costs
17 for the maintenance of a private road, the owners of property that utilize a
18 private road for access and the holders of recorded easements with a right to
19 use a private road for access shall contribute ratably to the payment of the
20 expenses for maintenance of the private road on account of the common
21 benefit enjoyed by each owner and easement holder.

1 § 2703. ENFORCEMENT
2 If an owner or easement holder fails to pay after demand his or her ratable
3 share of maintenance costs as required under section 2702 of this chapter, an
4 owner or easement holder who suffers damage as a result may bring an action
5 in the civil division of a superior court where the private road is located for
6 damages or injunctive relief or both.
7 Sec. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE
8 This act shall take effect on July 1, 2011.

Permit Reform

Permit reform remains part of the discussion in Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee. The committee is working on a broad set of economic stimulus ideas, including permit reform. They are especially concerned with making sure federal stimulus dollars are utilized quickly and efficiently. The Committee has been working overtime in an attempt to move this legislation, Once Senate Economic Development does pass the bill out it will likely move to Senate Natural Resources and Energy next.

Clean Energy Assessment Districts (S54) and (H.161)

These are two companion bills one originating in the senate and one in the house both with the same intent. The bills propose to allow towns, cities, and incorporated villages to incur indebtedness or otherwise finance projects relating to renewable energy or energy efficiency undertaken by owners of real property within the boundaries of the municipality.

Both of these bills were discussed in there respective bodies this week. Senate Natural Resources and Energy took testimony of the Senate version, while House Government Operations took up the house version.

The proposal would allow homeowners to receive, in essence, small loans to perform energy efficiency upgrades on there homes, however many issues have arisen surrounding this proposal, and lawmakers are grappling to find alternatives and solutions to try and make this a viable program.

Stormwater fees (H.259)

This legislation will create a new stormwater discharge fee. For a new discharge or an expansion of an existing discharge of stormwater into an impaired watershed this fee would apply. The fee would be $30,000 per acre of impervious surface. The monies garnered from the fee would be used to fund stormwater treatment and control projects.

Town Meeting Week

Next week is Town meeting week. VAR would like to encourage all our members to participate in your town meetings and events, and be sure to vote. The legislature is off for the next two weeks and will not be meeting in Montpelier. This provides for the perfect opportunity to reach out to them and let them know how you feel about the issues. Be a participant, and remember the government that affects us most is local government.

State Surplus
Lands

The Department of Housing and Community Development is
beginning work on two pilot projects where unused state land will be developed
into housing projects.  The department has identified two good locations one in
Berlin and one in Brandon and is working
closely with the towns to meet mutually beneficial goals.  This has the
potential to be a good program where many different goals and interests can be
met, towns get projects they would like, in places that make sense, utilizing
surplus state lands, and adding to the tax base.

Permit
Reform

The House Natural Resources Committee took up discussion
on Governor Douglas’s permit reform package.  They began what looks to be
lengthy review of the proposal, it is too early to tell what changes the
committee is likely to consider.    

H.57

House Natural Resources also took up bill H.57 this
week.  This bill would amend Act 250 to provide that rule amendments shall apply
only to permits that have application dates after the effective date of the rule
amendments.  This a bipartisan bill with a dozen co sponsors.  It is likely this
bill will be folded into the Governor’s permit reform
package.

S.17

Senator Mullen of Rutland introduced a bill to provide a local
option to exempt traditional industrial districts from Act 250 review for
certain projects.  This bill proposes to allow municipalities that have a zoning
administrator and have adopted permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws to
determine by ordinance to exempt from Act 250 the construction of improvements
on one or more tracts of land lying entirely within a traditional industrial
district that was in existence on June 1, 1970 and still exists, whether or not
currently subject to an act 250 project.

 As part of Governor Douglas’s economic stimulus proposal
there is a section devoted to permit reform.  The goals of this proposal include
providing greater predictability, expediency and fairness for applicants; as
well as reduce agency costs and staff time.  The following is a synopsis of what
is being discussed thus far.  Any feed back on these proposals would be
welcomed.

 Expanding General Permit
Uses

The Agency of Natural Resources will undertake a review
of all current permit processes and determine which ones an expanded use of
general permits is applicable.  General permits incorporate standard conditions
that all applicants that must follow (like storm water).

They are also looking into expanding the use of permits
by rule.  These are more often used to regulate a certain class of operation, where
an industry will adopt a rule set in which all applicants must adhere. 
Compliance with the rules is expected, and the agency works on outreach and
training.  Fines and other penalties may be levied for noncompliance.  This
allows for more agency staff to focus on finding the few non
conformers.

Another aspect to general permits under review is self
certification.  The self certification process gives licensed professionals the
ability to submit an application for a project with the implied certification
all statutory requirements have been met.  Compliance is again expected and the
agency will use inspections to monitor projects.  This again frees up agency
staff time to focus on enforcement actions on those in not in
compliance.

 Changing the Relationship between ANR
permits and Act 250 Review.

 Currently ANR permits are frequently challenged during
the Act 250 review process.  ANR routinely defends permits they have granted
during the Act 250 process.  This takes a lot of staff time and energy.  The
proposal would give ANR permits the rebuttable presumption all environmental
criteria has been considered, and the project is in compliance.  This would give
more weight to ANR permits and help applicants avoid redundant hearings on the
same environmental issues.  ANR permits would still be open to appeals in the
Environmental
Court where interested parties can settle
disputes.

 On the Record
Review

Currently an applicant has a hearing with an Act 250
district commission.  The hearing consists of testimony, models of the projects,
scientists’ reports, economic studies; an entire body of evidence is presented. 
If a commission ruling is appealed, the environmental court begins the process
all over, as if the prior hearing did not take place.  Where all the evidence is
again presented, heard, and ruled on.  This places applicants in the position of
completely retrying their case, often at great
expense.

Governor Douglas’s proposal would allow an applicant the
option of requesting an on record review.  This would allow for a very formal
proceeding involving all parties presenting all the evidence once on the
record.  Then any appeals would review the evidence and determine whether the
commissions ruling was lawful and followed state statute, and eliminate the need
to completely retry the case.

Adding Consideration to Public
Benefits during Act 250 Review

The Governor’s proposal would allow for equal weight be
given to additional aspects a development would have on a community.  These
include economic benefits, recreational benefits, social and cultural benefits,
or any other benefit a development might bring to a community. This will allow
for a broader scope to be used when balancing between environmental impacts, and
benefits a development might bring to a given
community.

Presidential
inauguration

Tuesday Barrack Obama was sworn in as the
44^th President of these United States of America.  Most of
Vermont and
the country tuned in to watch the event.  Many hopes have been pinned on the new
President, including providing a stimulus package to help boost individual state
economies.  We are anxiously awaiting the details of this proposal and to see
what strings will be attached to the infrastructure portion of the stimulus
funds.

 Governor’s Budget
address

Governor Douglas gave his Budget Address on Thursday. 
The budget outline and forecast paint a grim picture for the states current
fiscal outlook.  2010 looks to be even tighter as many of 2008 tax revenues were
actually healthy for about half the year where as 2009 revenues will likely be
down the majority of the year.  The Governor called for cuts and spending
reductions virtually across the board and perhaps the most startling revelation
was the cutting of 600 state jobs. 

 The Governor for the first time has also promoted the
use of bonding to support infrastructure improvements and help create jobs. 
Speaker Shap Smith also proposed the use of bonding as part of his economic
stimulus plan.  Perhaps the two see eye to eye on this one?  The Governor’s
proposal included a funding mechanism for repayment of the bonds. The Repayment
plan includes using administrative cost savings from changing the annual vehicle
inspections from a one year a two year inspection process, coupled with an
infrastructure investment fee (more on that later).

Shovel Ready
Projects

 Senate Natural Resources looked at “shovel ready
projects” during this past week.  Vermont currently has an extensive backlog of
projects that lack the funding necessary to go foreword.  The Vermont League of
Cities and Towns has begun compiling a list of these projects and has already
found more then 650 million in projects that could essentially break ground
tomorrow if a funding source became available.  Many of the projects are large
in nature, projects that have historically used significant amounts of federal
dollars to fund, things like waste water treatment plants, and bridges.  This is
the beginning of the process to queue up projects, for if and when the state
does some bonding or a federal stimulus package
materializes.

Notice of Mortgage
(H.8)

This bill proposes to permit the mortgage recording
requirement to be satisfied with respect to mortgages that exceed six pages in
total length by recording a notice of mortgage instead of recording the entire
mortgage document.  If passed this bill will save town clerks both time and
storage space (assets all town clerks could use more of) and save people money
on the recording fees

Newly elected Speaker Shap Smith unveiled a stimulus plan of his own during his inaugural speech on Wednesday. The plan includes over a hundred million in bonding for infrastructure and roads, with the goal of putting people to work in the immediate, and building a strong infrastructure to better ensure long term stability for Vermont’s economy. Vermont currently enjoys the lowest bond rating of New England states. The only question there is going to be is where we find the revenue source for repayment of the bonds.

Governor Jim Douglas was inaugurated to his 4th term as Vermont’s Governor on Thursday. In his speech Governor Douglas addressed the current economical challenges as well. Amongst many things the Governor proposed was to freeze per pupil spending by schools. Per pupil spending for 2009 is expected to increase by 6%. It is projected that from 2006-2010 education fund spending will have increased by 23% or 283 million dollars, at the same time student enrolment has dropped by 4.4%.

Governor Douglas also proposed undertaking permit reform. The Governor’s aim is streamline the process, create more certainty in it, and expand the use of general permits where applicable. The Governor stated “To me a permit application really says something positive. It says, “I’m hiring”. It says, “I’m prepared to make an investment in Vermont.” It says, “I’m ready to put down roots in this community and create jobs.”