On the 100^th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, civil engineer and Duke professor, Henry Petroski spoke of the intersection of design, failure and learning.   Success does not teach us nearly as much as failure, Petroski notes.  When something is working correctly, it doesn’t teach us much.  Not until something happens to overwhelm it, are the weaknesses revealed.  Such was the case with the Titanic and Tropical Storm Irene.

Thomas Andrews preferred design of the unsinkable Titanic called for bigger bulkheads to handle more challenging situations and more lifeboats. Owner White Star declined.  They wanted more passenger space, and lifeboat numbers were within regulation and besides, more lifeboats would have ruined the view.  Loss of this argument cost Thomas Andrews and 1500 passengers and crew their lives.  It also provided a necessary wake up call changing a trend in steamship design, overhauling maritime and safety regulation and the establishment of the International Ice Petrol. Safety was improved by tragedy.

On August 28, 2011,Tropical Storm Irene touched down in Vermont.  Major floodwaters and debris poured through our riverways and communities affecting 225 cities and towns.   Six lives would be lost. Transportation infrastructure would suffer damage to over 2500 road segments, 530 bridges, 900 culverts and 200 miles of rail.  The Waterbury complex would displace 1500 state employees and require emergency evacuation and relocation of patients at the Vermont State Hospital.  73,000 customers would be without power and 20,000 community water users would be given boil notices.  Hazardous spills from floating fuel tanks would contaminate soils and sediments.   Farmers would lose $10 million in crops and see 20,000 acres flooded, washed away or forever changed.  Over 7200 families would ask for assistance from FEMA.  In the first month, landfills were overwhelmed with nearly 40,000 tons of flood-related waste.

Recovery costs for Irene are likely around $1 billion.  Petroski tells us that conflict between those who design technological systems and those who pay for them are resolved by negotiation – a process that doesn’t guarantee safety.   The scientists at the River Corridors Program (a program I helped to put in statute in 2010) have known all along that we were at risk.  Our 200 years of channel, floodplain and watershed modifications, our historic developmental patterns encroaching on our riverbanks, our tendency to see rivers as static segments vs. dynamic wholes, and our repeated and costly efforts to control these with structural measures have proven to be unsustainable public policy.

Irene helped bring a modicum of political will to the State House this year allowing us to finally update some of this entrenched policy.  Did it go far enough?  No.  But clarifying authority, activity and training as to what you may and may not do in rivers will help.  So will using science to define the size and placement of our bridges and culverts.  It is unlikely that the rivers flowing through downtown Montpelier and Middlebury will ever have access to their floodplains, but identifying critical areas and protection zones upstream will certainly help.  Habitat restoration will promote equilibrium, save infrastructure and support fish and wildlife.  Finally, preventing further development in the floodplain by encouraging buyouts will reduce impact if, no, when this happens again.

As the Titanic disaster spurred development of safer ships, so should Irene spur smarter interaction with Vermont’s waterways.   Finding the political will to develop science-based policy, requiring us to change our behavior and sense of ownership at river’s edge are necessary conditions.  Listen to our scientists.  Rivers and Lake Champlain are quiet this year.  Amnesia has already begun to set in.

As we head toward the closure of this session a flurry of bills are passing back and forth between the House and the Senate with many now in Committees of Conference.  Here is an update on a few of interest:

BUDGET:  By statute, the budget begins with a recommendation from the governor and is first reviewed and developed by the House and then sent to the Senate.  The Senate version made 125 changes and returned it to the House.  To reconcile these differences, the Speaker and Senate Pro Tem appointed a committee of conference.  While many of these changes are technical, others are significantly different.  Among the casualties: a stripped down funding the Working Landscapes bill, rendering it as nothing more than policy with little ability to implement.  The bill also contained a variety of amendments unrelated to the budget such as the right for childcare workers to unionize, and a direction to the Public Service Board to refund money to ratepayers should the CVPS-GMP merger proceed.

GMO LABELING:  In February, I introduced the “Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act.”  If passed, this bill would require food producers to label foods produced through genetic engineering and genetically engineered foods labeled as “natural” would be misbranded.  We have received an outpouring of support from around the state and the country. The biotech industry testified that as soon as such a bill became law, they would proceed with a lawsuit stating that the state violated the federal pre-emption food labeling law.  Although many are still smarting from the rBST lawsuit several years ago, and recent memory of the Vermont Yankee suit, we also have compelling testimony that we could prevail.   We are moving forward to build a case that the state had a “legitimate interest” in such labeling – a direction that is more likely to hold up to this inevitable suit.  Expect to see this brought forward again next year.

CVPS/GMP MERGER: The CVPS “payback to ratepayers” votes last week revolved around two points: (1) the widely held opinion that the $21 million “windfall sharing mechanism” should be in the form of a direct payback to CVPS ratepayers, and (2) the principle that the Legislature should not interfere in the equivalent of a court proceeding by directing the Public Service Board what to do.  I voted not to interfere and do not see these two positions as mutually exclusive. The PSB may very well decide that the funds should be directly paid back as they continue through their deliberation process.  My vote to leave the decision with the PSB reflected a serious concern that the Legislature should not interfere in a formal process that has already involved months of technical hearings, formal briefs, and oral arguments. Last-minute interference on the part of the Legislature would set a destabilizing precedent in a regulatory process that has been in place since 1962.  The PSB is due to make a decision in June.

HEALTH CARE:  Committees of conference are currently working to reconcile difference between the House and Senate-passed versions of the vaccinations bill and the health care exchange bill.   The House conferees have been firm in supporting increasing immunization rates through education and outreach, but will not consider an outright repeal of the philosophical exemption.  Proposals bouncing around are mechanisms to allow the commissioner of health to eliminate this exemption when rates fall below 90% for certain immunizations.  The exchange bill conference is looking to reconcile a variety of difference related to mental health oversight, malpractice, insurance brokers among others.

I will continue to work on issues while the legislature is out of session.   The best way to get in touch:  klwebb22@mac.com or 802 233 7798.