“Work on Lake Champlain is fine,” a community member said, “but what are you doing for the economy?” This question came to me on Town Meeting Day after I shared some of my legislative work to clean up Lake Champlain and Vermont waterways. Protecting our lakes, rivers and streams has everything to do with our economy. As the late Mollie Beattie once said, “In the long term, the economy and the environment are the same thing. If it’s unenvironmental, it’s uneconomical. That is the rule of nature.” Mollie Beattie was a former Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner and the first woman ever to head the US Fish and Wildlife service.

Most of us in Shelburne are well aware of the impact Lake Champlain has on our quality of life. But how does this translate to economic benefit? And what is the overall economic benefit of Vermont’s lakes, ponds, rivers and streams? In the late 1990’s, the Lake Champlain Region Chamber of Commerce did a study on the financial impact of Lake Champlain on Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties. They were able to account for $338 million in revenue for Chittenden County and $14 million for Grand Isle County in lake-related sales, lodging, food and beverages. In addition, a 2002 Vermont Tourism and Markets study of the Vermont visitor, identified fishing and hunting, and water recreation as the top tourism revenue generators coming in well ahead of the ski industry.

There is increasing evidence that our lakes, ponds, rivers and streams are in trouble. Extensive development using impervious paving materials, has reduced the amount of land available to soak up rainwater. As a result, storm water, rich with pollutants and nutrients, rushes off these surfaces making its way into our rivers, streams and ultimately our lake. Our practice of stripping away riverbank vegetation for development, agricultural use and views has disastrous effects on the health of aquatic ecosystems, increasing erosion and reducing the capacity to filter sediment. Over the past 150 years, Vermont’s rivers and streams have been extensively modified, moving them away from their natural form and flow. Of the nearly 1400 miles of assessed rivers in 140 communities, 74% of these rivers have become deeper, swifter, and no longer have access to their historic floodplains.

The monetary, social and environmental cost to this is exceedingly large. Over the past 20 years, over $148 million has been spent to recover from avoidable flood damage. When poorly managed, agricultural runoff contributes an abundance of nutrients into our waterways during storm events. Despite efforts to help farmers meet the costs of improving these practices, recent lake testing tells us that we still have a very long way to go. And what does this erosion and run off bring us? Phosphorus! Phosphorus that feeds toxic algae blooms in Lake Champlain’s northern segments, earning the whole lake a spot in the New York Times best selling travel book, Don’t Go There: the travel detective’s essential guide to the must-miss places of the world (2009, p 17-18).

This year, I worked extensively on two bills that addressed the health of our surface waters including Lake Champlain. These two bills were ultimately rolled into one, H.763, which was signed into law on May 13th as Act 110. What can we expect from Act 110?

• We formalized the River Corridors program at the Agency of Natural Resources. Using existing funding and pass-through grants, the program will provide technical and financial assistance, fluvial erosion hazard mapping and helpful guidance to towns that want to establish river corridor or buffer bylaws.
• We increased flexibility for use of funds to farmers implementing alternative strategies for manure management, soil erosion reduction practices, and temporary fencing to keep livestock out of streams.
• We required the Vermont Agency of Transportation to develop standards for roads and bridges to decrease erosion and pollutants which could enter our ground and surface waters. Implementing these standards will not only protect water quality, higher standards will result in higher reimbursement from FEMA following a flooding disaster.
• We expanded requirements for those wanting to alter streams which could affect water quality. Is this enough? No, but hopefully we have taken another few steps in the right direction.

I think Mollie Beattie got it right. The economy and the environment are the same thing. “If it is unenvironmental, it is uneconomical.” For things you and your family can do to help our lake, check out the “The Lake Protection Series” series at http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/lakes/htm/lp_protection.htm.

Between January, 2009 and adjournment, 2010, 1092 bills were introduced in the Vermont Legislature.  Their status is as follows:

As of this writing, approximately 58 bills still await action by the Governor.  The cordial ending to the 2010 legislative session saw the big bills pass by high margins and administrative support.  Although the remaining bills are expected to be enacted into law within the coming weeks, two still remain elusive.  These are S.88, the Health Care Reform bill and H.485, the Current Use bill.

Although there is widespread support for the “Blueprint for Health,” two sticking points remain for the Governor in S.88.  The first is the requirement that pharmaceuticals register where free prescription samples are dispersed.  The second is the funding for the health care option study.

Many folks still think the pharmaceutical reporting will mean doctors can no longer receive free samples or if they do, they will be required to break confidentiality by reporting patient names.  This is not correct.  The burden here is on the pharmaceutical companies, not doctors, includes no patient names and is merely an extension of the new federal legislation.

The second bone of contention is the health care option study.  This section of the bill authorizes Vermont’s Health Care Reform Commission to hire one or more consultants to produce at least three different system designs for delivering health care.  One must be single payer; one a public option; and a third is left to the commission to determine. The Governor has expressed concern about spending money on a study when health care has been studied before.  What distinguishes this study is the degree of design detail and it takes into account the new federal reforms.

Let’s look now at Current Use.   Since 1978, the Use Appraisal Value or “Current Use” program has allowed farm and forest lands in active production to be valued and taxed based on productive value rather than market value.  The law recognizes that if we tax 50 acres of land used for growing vegetables at the same rate we tax 50 acres of land slated for development, all farmers would likely throw in the towel.

There are currently close to 16,000 parcels totaling 2.2 million acres or one-third of Vermont lands enrolled in the program.  It has become ever more popular over the years particularly as farmers and foresters have struggled to stay in business.  Current Use accounted for approximately $44 million in savings to property owners in 2008 and $49 million in 2009.  Our tourism industry derives great economic benefit from our farms, forests and scenic vistas, which more than makes up for this difference. Each year, the state sends approximately $11 million dollars to the municipalities to help offset some of these reduced revenues.

In an effort to address a nearly $160 million dollar General Fund deficit, legislative leaders put all government taxing and spending on the table including Current Use.  Following two years of study, members found that some changes could be made that would protect the original purpose of the program while reducing some of this year’s budget pressures.  A goal to find $1.6 in savings was put into action.

Three aspects of this bill have proven problematic to the Governor.  First, the bill assesses a one-time fee of $128 on all property owners in the program.  Second, it eliminates a tax break which will now require a buyer to pay the full 1.25% Property Transfer Tax instead of the reduced 0.5%.  Third, it brings back the pre-1993 legislation to restore higher penalties for those who decide to take their land out of Current Use and sell it for development.

None of these should be a deal breaker; in fact, it is my hope that this will strengthen a program that has received increasing public criticism.  Town officials have reported that speculators have received huge tax breaks on land ultimately intended for development.  This was never the intention of the program.  Farmers will still be able to remove parts of their land for development, however this will not be as lucrative.  While open land is easily developed, I have yet to see developed land return to open land.  Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

The bill has received support from a variety of organizations including the Vermont League of Cities and Towns; the Vermont Land Trust, the Vermont Assessors and Listers Association.

As I write this on Sunday evening, we are still moving toward adjournment now expected to be Wednesday evening. The pace seems to be on both ends of the spectrum: long periods of waiting for bills to come over from the Senate followed by a rapid-fire, full-on response when they do.

There are still major bills being reviewed and the pressure on members to feel informed before casting a vote is palpable. Although we have seen and voted on all of these bills before, each has undergone some degree of modification in either the House or the Senate. Some of these have gone to special “Committees of Conference” where three members of the House and three members of the Senate hash out the differences before bringing them back to the full legislature for a vote.

The 2011 budget and the Miscellaneous Tax Bill take center stage this week and must be completed before the session can end. Accompanying these bills are the budget companion bill known as Challenges for Change and the Capital Bill. The Challenges bill was designed to find $38 million in cuts to the General Fund through government efficiencies without reducing services. The Capital Bill directs funds to a variety of infrastructure projects around the state. Expect also to see changes to the Current Use program and health care reform among others.

Here are a few other bills recently passed and headed to the governor for signature:

§ H.470 restructures judiciary. It brings all five types of courts: superior, family, district, environmental and probate under the state Supreme Court predicted to improve efficiency and accessibility while saving $1 million in costs.

§ H.759 sets executive fees. Expect to see some new fees, such as licensing of salvage yards and fee increases, many of which haven’t increased in years.

§ H.781 supports renewable energy projects. It makes the process for permitting renewable energy projects more predictable and efficient; provides incentives for solar; gives price stability for Cow Power programs and helps our larger employers such as IBM meet efficiency standards. This bill also defines Hydro-Quebec as a renewable energy source which has met with some heat from the environmental community.

§ H.614 regulates composting facilities. It helps define which facilities will be considered part of farming and regulated by agriculture, and which are businesses regulated by Act 250.

§ S.182 fixes the unemployment insurance deficit. It is designed to bring the bankrupt fund back to a sustainable level in 5 years. After delicate negotiations, both businesses and workers had to give on this, but all felt that it was better than the current situation.

§ H.488 bans the use of felt-soled waders by anglers in our waterways. Implicated in the spread of invasive species, this bill follows the Alaska ban. Rubber-soled alternatives are available and some stores are already offering trade-in incentives.

§ H.540 gives legal protection to bicyclists and other “vulnerable users” of the road. It represents an important step in recognizing that Vermont roads are a shared public resource and not just built and maintained for automobiles.

§ S.262 mandates health insurance for young children with autism. It provides for some early intervention services for children with autism between the ages of 18 months and 6 years and calls for a study to see if insurance mandates should apply to older children. Research indicates that these early services are related to reduced costs to schools.

§ S.222 sets up a program for state recognition of Native Americans. This will ultimately allow our Vermont Abenaki bands to receive the recognition they need to legally sell their crafts as authentic.

§ S.247 bans the manufacture, sale or distribution of infant formula and baby food containing bisphenol A or BPA. BPA is a synthetic estrogen used in hard plastics and has been linked to cancer, recurrent miscarriage, early onset puberty, reduced sperm count, delayed development, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.

By the time you read this, I do hope that the session will have adjourned.

This is an historic time for health care reform. While Vermont is doing better than most other states, we continue to face unprecedented increases in costs. If we make no changes, the cost of health care in Vermont is estimated to increase by $1 billion dollars, from $4.9 billion to $5.9 billion by 2012. Per capita, that would mean an increase from $7400 to $9400 per person in the state. This is simply not sustainable.

Over the past two years, the Vermont Legislature and numerous stakeholders have taken a long look at how we might improve the general health of Vermonters and reduce costs. Last week, the House passed S.88, a result of that work.

This 40-section bill begins by articulating goals for statewide reform and outlines principles that should underlie a statewide, integrated health care system. It strengthens primary and preventive care, builds community health teams, addresses chronic conditions and obesity management and takes a focused look at 3 different health care models for the future. In addition, it aligns with the new federal reform so that we can apply for grants and waivers, drawing in as much federal money as possible in support of our efforts to keep Vermonters healthy.

One section of the bill addresses expenses related to pharmaceutical marketing. Currently pharmaceuticals spend $29 billion annually on national marketing. Most people do not realize that when they fill a prescription, 30% of that cost goes to marketing and nearly 62% of that goes toward the distribution of free samples. Both the new federal legislation and S.88 look at this as an area where costs could be significantly reduced.

Free samples clearly fill a need and can be wonderful for doctors and patients, however they are not made available simply because the pharmaceuticals just developed a big heart. They are a huge marketing tool. A 2009 report from the Institute of Medicine concluded that samples affect prescribing patterns and lead to patients being put on medications which might have less costly, more medically appropriate generic alternatives.

In reference to the free samples section of the bill, we received numerous letters from patients and doctors around the state concerned that they would lose access to valuable free samples or would be required to jeopardize privacy and confidentiality in the doctor/patient relationship. This is incorrect.

First, this bill does not restrict the distribution or acceptance of free samples. Doctors and clinics will still be able to receive free samples and dispense them as they deem appropriate. Second, this bill does not require doctors to report anything. If you receive a sample, this information remains with you and your doctor. No patient names required.

What this section of the bill does do, is piggy-back on the new federal legislation which will require pharmaceuticals, not doctors, to report which free samples are going where as of January, 2011. If the federal reports are presented in a form that is not found to be useful to the state, S.88 would require the pharmaceuticals to report Vermont-based information directly to the Vermont Attorney General’s office. That is the sum total of the impact of this section of the bill.

So what will happen with this information? This data will be used to analyze what classes of medications are being given away as free samples. From this, it may be possible to set up a program to replace free samples with generic alternatives through a voucher program. This could save millions of dollars, taking one step toward reducing overall health care costs.

S.88 passed the House last week and is now in the Senate. If the Senate concurs, the bill will move on to the Governor for signature. If they do not concur, a “committee of conference” made up of 3 members of the House and 3 members of the Senate will meet to iron out differences before brining it back to both bodies again for a vote.

Leadership is like being at the top of a 30-foot diving board in a dark room and knowing you have to jump.  Just as you get ready to jump the custodian yells up. “Can’t remember whether I filled the pool or not.”

To take it further, you listen and hear water.  Is it the last of the water going down the drain or is it a full pool?  You still have to jump not knowing whether it will be a splash or a splat.

Such has been the experience responding to Challenges for Change. We are already committed to the $38 million cut. We have precious little time. We are trusting that the Administration is giving us the straight dope in the same way we are trusting that the custodian filled that pool.

Over the past two months, I have been the House liaison for the “Regulatory Challenge.” Four legislative committees developed five outcomes for the permit and licensing programs, not to make them easier, but more efficient with greater compliance. The financial target was set at $360,000.

In response to this challenge, Administration created a task force of 25 members drawn from the Agencies of Agriculture and Natural Resources; the Public Service Board; the Natural Resources Board and the Environmental Court. They reviewed the outcomes and developed strategies and measures to meet them. Some strategies could be implemented directly while others required changes in law. On March 30^th, the group asked for statutory changes they felt necessary to implement specific strategies.

Some of these requests made great sense, particularly in the use of web portals. Current law requires that changes in rules be published in area newspapers. Each rule costs the state between $1900 and $2300 or about $100,000 per year. Commissioners added that they were often reluctant to update rules due to the time and cost constraints.

Other requests proved more controversial. One would have reduced costs for the Environmental Court using the more formal “on the record” appeal process, but would have restricted the use of witnesses, evidence and cross-examination provided in “de novo” appeals. Another asked that some permits be eased from individual permits to “permit by rule” or “conditional exemption.” Others asked that license renewals be extended in time or re-licensed through an affidavit of compliance. All of these would have put greater responsibility on the applicant and reduced the time and paper work for the agencies. They argued that once freed from time-consuming ministerial duties, staff could be out in the field providing technical and educational support and monitoring for compliance.

The environmental groups expressed grave concern that these reforms were simply softening standards that would undermine years of work to protect the environment. They also felt that the legislature was abdicating far too much authority to the agencies. Their biggest and broadest concern, however, was about the Challenges process in general. Sweeping changes were being made without fully vetting the impact. The Administration had a month to develop changes while the environmental groups and stakeholders had only days, a huge change from the usual process.

Ultimately, we agreed to many of the requests and worked out the others. Administration withdrew the request for changes to environmental court appeals. We compromised on the permit changes, allowing “permit by rule” in two specific areas. We came to agreement to lengthen recertification requirements for low impact facilities such as recycling centers, but keep the 11 more hazardous facilities on the current recertification schedule. The web-portal changes were moved to the Government Operations Committee. By the 10^th major revision, the bill passed out of our committee with unanimous bi-partisan consent.

My own perception leaves me somewhat doubtful that we will achieve the full $38 million in 2011. As of this week, we are about three-quarters of the way through the process and Administration has accounted for about $20 million so far.

I realize that this process has been far more traumatic in the other challenge areas, particularly Human Services, Corrections and Education. The compressed time frame has been excruciating, opening great possibilities for unintended consequences. The process, however, has allowed people from within the agencies to step back, take a broad view and say, “I know a better way” with the legislature poised to listen.

We’re off the diving board and in the air. I am taking the Administration at their word that there is water in that pool. We will have quarterly meetings to address those unintended consequences.

As Yogi Berra would say, “it’s déjà vu all over again.”  Last spring, the House passed H.147, an extensive highway safety bill which 1) created a ban on handheld electronic devices; 2) created a primary seatbelt law and 3) place additional restrictions on young drivers for night time driving, cell phone use, and carrying passengers.  This was sent to the Senate where it remains unattended.

This winter, the Senate passed a brand new bill, S.280 with the narrow purpose of banning texting while driving. The “texting bill” went to House Judiciary which added back the broader language from H.147.  This passed the House last week. I voted in support of the expanded House bill and here is why:

In 2006, the Strategic Highway Safety Plan was created following a near record-breaking year for highway deaths and incapacitating injuries.  A report to the governor indicated that traffic crashes cost Vermont about $221 million each year in medical expenses, lost productivity, property damage and related costs.  The report also indicated that each highway fatality cost the state close to $1 million. This was seen as a terrible toll in terms of human suffering and financial loss resulting from motor vehicle crashes.  Something needed to be done.

In July, 2006, the Vermont Department of Health held a symposium on preventing crashes among young drivers bringing together key leaders in highway safety, transportation, public health and youth development.  From a public health perspective, motor vehicle accidents were found to be the most serious and the leading cause of death among teenagers.  According to the Vermont Safety Education Center, about two-thirds of crash deaths involving young drivers occurred when carrying teenage passengers. In fact, crash risks were found to increase incrementally with one, two, three or more passengers and the risk was three times higher when driving three or more passengers. A second finding from VSEC indicated that four out of every ten teen accidents occur between 9 pm and 6 am with midnight to 2 am being the most deadly.  A third finding revealed that cell phone use and teen drivers, new to driving and vulnerable to distraction, was a very bad mix.

As for seatbelt use, crashes involving unrestrained persons cost 55% more than restrained persons and these accidents are not born by the victims alone. About 74% of these costs are born by society thereby blunting the “personal freedom” argument.  Vermont currently has a secondary seatbelt law meaning a person must first be stopped for a primary office, such as speeding, and can then be given a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.  In addition, states with primary seat belt laws tend to see 10% more use. Law enforcement officials backed this change, noting the secondary law was confusing.

There are certainly arguments that talking on a cell phone is just one of many distractions such as adjusting CD’s, and attending to children.  Questions also remain as to whether hands-free usage while driving is really any safer than handheld; however a total ban is unlikely.  Like cup holders, cell phone usage while driving is here to stay.  That handheld usage is more easily enforced and hands-free allows drivers to keep two hands on the wheel were compelling arguments in support of this bill.

It is unlikely the Senate will accept this broader version and the bill will end up in a smaller committee of conference to reconcile the differences.  I would expect the hugely popular texting ban to remain, however the future of the primary seatbelt law, use of handheld electronic devices and young driver restrictions remains unclear.

Our committee continues to receive weekly updates from the radiologic health chief.  We will be scheduling a trip to Vernon in order to see the activities and speak with those on site in 2 weeks.

Dr. Irwin reported that a significant leakage source has been found in a flawed concrete joint in the AOG pipe tunnel.  VY and NRC concur that this is one clear source of groundwater contamination which probably occurred in the last 18-24 months.  While this is one leak, it may not be the only leak.  It could be that about 300,000 gallons of ground water are contaminated and could have been happening at a rate of about 100 gallons per day.

Dr. Irwin’s review of the documents indicated that the AOG system was modified in 1972, creating a very long pipe tunnel that was otherwise inaccessible to inspection.  Later modifications in 1978 were described as “a set of construction practices that are, frankly, totally alien to nuclear facility construction practices.”  He described one piece of form wood originally used to create a form around the impaired concrete duct that had been left there “by neglect.” Over the course of years, when the wood rotted, this created an open space or pathway for this water to leak out (especially when wet) of this otherwise sealed pipe tunnel.

When asked if he thought this could happen again, he state that these exact circumstances might not happen, however the evidence that the workmanship here was “so shoddy it would not likely pass the local town building inspector, let alone the nuclear facility inspector…This defies all basic engineering principles, in my opinion, to have so much important piping where it is physically uninspectable, let alone where you have to literally break thru 24 inch concrete flooring to get to it to affect any repairs.” It is possible that this kind of work may have occurred elsewhere.

In his discussion with the VY engineer, they acknowledged that “when this kind of work was done in 60-70’s for these nuclear power plants, people really thought that it was unlikely that these plants would have to run so long that corrosion problems such as this would occur…It was in an era when it was too cheap to meter and where multiple hundreds of nuclear power plants would exist and this one would simply be shut down after a certain period of time and a new one put up next to it to replace it.”

Dr. Irwin was also asked about the missing awareness of underground pipes, he said to his knowledge the documentation of these pipes has always been there.  He saw dates from the drawings from 60’s and 70’s.  He saw documents that list dates like 2007, so he didn’t know the basis for those opinions. “It seems pretty clear that people have known about all of these.”

When tritium first made itself known, they suspected this AOG pipe tunnel and drain line and had pulled drawings out to review at that time.  There are system engineers that were aware of and very well described all of these systems.  “Why you would think there weren’t any of these is hard to imagine.”

Ah, train travel. You arrive at the station 5 minutes before departure; there is no security screening and you end up right in the center of town. You can sleep, read and even text safely while traveling. Once the form of travel that inspired songs, Vermont went the way of many states, preferring the speed of air and the flexibility of the personal automobile. Over time, we have let our tracks deteriorate or even disappear, decreasing the viability of passenger rail to an even greater extent.

As air and road travel have become increasingly more unpleasant, we have seen resurging interest in train travel. First year legislators in the House Transportation Committee could not contain their excitement when the subject of reinvesting in Vermont’s rail system began to seem like a real possibility.

Act 50, passed last year, directed the Agency of Transportation to estimate the cost of upgrading the track and creating passenger rail service along the western corridor from Burlington to Rutland to Bennington to Albany. They also directed the Agency to look at connecting Rutland to Whitehall, New York.

As part of the ARRA stimulus funding, Vermont applied for over $100 million in three separate stimulus rail grants through the Federal Rail Administration. These awards were announced by President Obama the day after his State of the Union address. Vermont won two out of three of the awards. Sadly for Shelburne, the Western Corridor was not one of them.

The “Track-One” grant was awarded to the privately owned New England Central Rail (NECR) line which serves the “Vermonter.” The Vermonter originates in St Albans with service to Essex Junction, Waterbury, Montpelier, White River, Ascutney, Bellows Falls, and Brattleboro. From there, it heads south through Massachusetts and Connecticut then on to New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the District of Columbia. Improvements to the track, roadbed and bridges were expected to increase speeds, thus decreasing travel time in Vermont by 27 minutes and 80 minutes overall to NYC.

The “Track-Two” grant for the Western Rail Corridor did not go through. The $73 million request would have brought upgrades to the rail line connecting Burlington to Rutland and beyond for both passengers and freight. The Western Corridor is state-owned and run by Vermont Railway systems. For the past decade, $28 million in Jeffords earmarks have gone unspent for this line. This may well have jeopardized this project.

The Track-Three grant award does offer some hope for the future of the Western Corridor. The $500,000 bi-state grant to New York and Vermont will fund a study of the future of passenger rail service between New York City, Albany, Bennington and Rutland. The plan looks at options for equipment, frequency and schedules to assure the most practical and cost effective service for both states. Results of this study may help secure additional funding should federal rail grants become available again.

Vermont’s primary election date, the second Tuesday in September, is one of the latest in the country. While this has worked for Vermont for many years, it does not fit with the new federal election rules. The new Military Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, or MOVE, require states to send out overseas ballots at least 45 days prior to the general election. This year, the second Tuesday falls on September 14^th, leaving only 49 days between the primary and the general election. Prior to the general election, the votes need to be verified and new ballots formatted and printed to include the winners of the primary as well as any independent or minor party candidates. The current dates would leave only 4 days to complete what is typically an 18-day process.

Last April, the Vermont Senate addressed this problem by passing a bill that would move the primary date from September 14^th to August 24^th. The House Government Operations committee took up the bill this year, hearing testimony from a variety of sources before passing it out of committee.

The debate on the floor was quite lively, very partisan and revolved around a few central issues. Those against changing the date to August 24^th, expressed concern that our already low 11-12% turn out for primaries would be further reduced by moving the date before Labor Day. They also felt we had other options. One suggestion was to have the state apply for a hardship waiver. The second was to have ballots sent to our soldiers electronically and it would take less than $10,000 to get the state up and running by the fall. A third option was to move primaries to a caucus vote rather than a ballot vote, saving the state about $200,000 and the fourth was to make no changes and risk paying a penalty. In addition, Adjutant General Michael Dubie had testified that he was interested in electronic voting. The cons reminded us that this is about “supporting our troops.”

Those in support of the bill indicated it was very unlikely we would meet the stringent criteria for the 2010 waiver. In addition, there will be no waivers permitted by 2012. Allowing our troops to vote electronically was as compelling as it was problematic. First, 24 town clerks in this state are without Internet access or email so would not be able to participate. Secondly, security and privacy issues have yet to be resolved and estimates to establish electronic voting were closer to $500,000. Caucus voting remained interesting but unresolved. In addition, 59% of the town clerks who responded to a poll supported the move to August 24^th. The pros reminded us that this is about “supporting our troops.”

At the end of the day, I voted against the amendment to provide for electronic voting because I believed the evidence that we were simply not ready - yet. I voted for the change of date in order to comply with the new federal law. I also figured those of us on vacation were more easily accommodated than our soldiers overseas. And, of course, I wanted to “support our troops.”

The politics? To me, it’s just a noisy grade B movie in a very small state. The bill heads back to the Senate for approval of a few technical changes and if accepted, will then go to the Governor.

I have had many calls and messages asking me to please vote to close Vermont Yankee both before and after the recently found tritium leaks.

By statute, the legislature only has the right to decide on the “Continued Operation” of the plant beyond 2012. If the legislature voted “no” today, this would not close the plant tomorrow. The closing date would still be March 21, 2012.

Neither do we have authority to vote on whether the plant is safe or a risk to public health. That lies in the hands of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Depart of Health respectively. In fact, if the legislature should vote not to continue operations based on safety, we would be entirely outside of our jurisdiction and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could pre-empt our right to vote. For that reason, I share everyone’s concerns about safety, but if called to vote, I must base my vote on issues related to economics and reliability and leave the safety decisions with the experts.

If and when the current crisis is over and the NRC and Vermont Health Department are satisfied, the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem will order committees to start hearings on the economic value and reliability of the plant. Testimony will revolve around 1) a thorough review of the power-price offer, 2) the request to spin off to Enexus, 3) the decommissioning fund and 4) misrepresentations made by Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee. All of these can be considered by the legislature. Speaker Shap Smith is holding firm that this process be disciplined, thoughtful and very complete. When these questions are answered, we will be ready to vote.

As it currently stands, Yankee is not looking so good in any of these areas: 1) The power-price offer of 6.1 cents is unacceptable to the utilities; 2) the spin-off to Enexus appears to offer little security to Vermont; 3) the decommissioning fund is grossly under funded and 4) there is a serious breach of trust stemming from critical misinformation provide by Vermont Yankee.

In the meantime, various legislative committees are looking at different aspects of Vermont Yankee. As I serve on the water resources committee, I have been following tritium testing in drinking water, ground water, and the surface waters of our rivers and streams. Health Commissioner Dr. Wendy Davis and Radiologic Health Chief Dr. William Irwin are speaking to our committee on a weekly basis. Staff from the Departments of Health, Environmental Conservation and Agriculture are on site forming teams and undergoing safety and security training. One of their tasks will be witnessing the taking of water, fish and sediment samples in order to insure no break in the “chain of custody” occurs from the taking of samples to the reporting of results. It is likely that ground water contamination will head east toward the Connecticut river, however the shear volume of water makes it unlikely that it could ever be detected.

News from Vernon is changing on a daily basis. I will continue to stay informed and post updates on my website: www.katewebbvt.com.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Open Arms on Tuesday mornings in February from 7:30-8:30. I will also be at Village Wine and Coffee most Monday afternoons from 4:30-5:30. Call or email to make sure. 985-2789; 233-7798; KLWebb22@mac.com