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

House Fish Wildlife and Water Resources Committee continues to follow the impact on water at the Vermont Yankee plant.  Health Commissioner Wendy Davis stated that the most striking development was the identification of tritium at much much higher levels.  She felt this really underscores their concern with the need to find the leak and take action.  Again, she reported no contaminated drinking water at this time.

Dr. William Irwin, radiological health chief, presented us with a map identifying various wells on the VY site.  The map identifies 4 contaminated GZ well sites with the G-7 site recently measuring at 775,000 picocuries (the limit for drinking water is 20,000).  Of the 7 sites tested for tritium leaks around the country, this is the second highest ever reported, with the highest being 800,000 (71,000  200,000  300,000  and 600,000 being other high levels for comparison purposes).  As this site is very close to the river, to active farms and a school, reports at this level of concentration raises this to a very serious public health issue.  The half-life of tritium is 12+ years.  It is not inconceivable that this could have happened long ago at much higher levels.

The G-7 site is in a courtyard of sorts between the reactor, turbine and the condensation storage tank.  The condensation storage tank is the largest container of radioactive water and is used by multiple systems.  It is the most densely piped and plumbed part of the site and is in the middle of all key structures for generating electrical energy, nuclear power radioactive waste and other processes.  Although there is some progress in narrowing down the geographic site, ruling out the condensation tank as a source means that now they need to look at the many individual pipes one by one.  This becomes even more challenging given that it is an active facility with electrical cables, ventilating systems, and dense piping of which some are radioactive and some not. This will require very deliberate planning in order to avoid a mistake to individuals that do the work as well as safe operation of plant.

Dr. Irwin reported that a radiological sampling team has been formed, made up of members of the Agency of Natural Resources, Agency of Agriculture and Department of Health.   Training and security screening are in process and they should be ready to go next week.  (Note: the screening is a bit beyond the visitors’ screening many of us underwent last year.  Visitor screening looks at what you’ve been up to recently, while this level reviews your life!)

Dr. Davis was asked what her authority was should the plant escalate to levels that put public health at risk. She stated that her authority lies in the allowable limits stated in radiologic health rules.  Depending on where she is in the investigation, depending on what other data are required, she has the authority to ask that the suite of steps be taken in order to take what is “prudent caution.”  She stays in constant contact with the town health officers of the 6 surrounding towns as well as her NH and MA partners.

We also heard from Dr. William Irwin, Radiological Health Chief at the Department of Health, who was on site at Vermont Yankee.  He reported that Normandeau Associates has been hired as an independent contractor to take water, sediment and fish samples.  Samples will be split, with one set going to the Department of Health and the other going to Vermont Yankee.  This week, DOH staff has been undergoing safety and security training.  Next week, they will be on site to witness the taking of samples.  This is not routinely done but is being implemented to insure the “chain of custody” throughout the process. The speed of this process will be determined by the pace and proximity of wells being drilled.

There are currently 30-32 existing wells (David - not sure what these wells are, but I think most of them don’t have anything to do with the current drilling) with an additional 15 scheduled for drilling.  A short conversation in the cafeteria with Commissioner Johnson, revealed that the Department of Environmental Conservation will be reviewing drilling plans for new wells to make sure aquifers do not cross-contaminate other aquifers.  The terrain of the land, soils and bedrock would not likely move any flow of groundwater west (toward the elementary school) but east toward the Connecticut River.  Hydrological science would suggest that contamination must be getting to the river but there is no evidence of this yet.  Given the shear volume of water in the river, the Commissioner indicated this may be very difficult to detect.

Our committee has requested detailed mapping information and will be tracking what happens in Vernon as it relates to water.

“A crisis is too important a thing to waste,” Rahm Emanual once said, suggesting that such times allow us to consider options that might otherwise have gone unseen.  Given the huge discrepancy between our financial demands and present resources, we definitely face a crisis and a more radical, more bold approach may well be required.

Typically, governments respond to a large budget deficit with a variation on three possible responses: raise revenues, cut expenses, sell assets, float bonds.   In tough times, these solutions alone may seem too painful, unfair, or simply not enough.  Is it possible then, that we could challenge some of these old solution assumptions?  By bringing the legislature and the agencies together, could we redesign the way services are delivered and produce better outcomes with less cost?

Such was the mission of the bi-partisan “Challenges for Change” group which met this summer.   Challenges for Change is a broad brushstroke agreement between the legislature and administration to address a $38 million dollar portion of the $150 million dollar deficit in the General Fund.  Representative Joan Lenes reviewed the structure of this in her Shelburne News article last week.

There has been much push-back and grumbling about this in Montpelier.  Legislators, non-profits, lobbyists and agency members don’t see how a thoughtful response can be made in such a short time.  Others complain about the lack of specifics.

Using the Challenge design, the legislature is removed from providing specific detail and must refrain from micromanaging.  All detail is left to the agencies who have the required experience and expertise.  “Too often,” as Tom Evslin, our chief technical officer has said, “programs are passed by legislatures in Washington or Montpelier which specify minutely how to spend money but don’t define measurable outcomes all this spending is supposed to produce.”

With this in mind, the focus before my joint committee was regulatory reform.   Rather than describing what or how reform will be accomplished, our task is to describe what the end product will look like by defining broad but measurable outcomes such as 1) the permitting process is clear, timely, coordinated and predictable  2) citizens and visitors understand and comply with the laws of the state which protect our natural resources.”

Outcomes with measurable indicators of success are due to Senate Appropriations January 27. The Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture will then have four weeks to develop a detailed plan to achieve the desired outcomes.  The Speaker has requested that we have a bill on the governor’s desk by the end of February.

My own response to “Challenges” has been to quit the grumbling and encourage my colleagues to roll up our sleeves and give this an honest effort as requested by legislative and administrative leaders.  The administration and legislature are working together, for goodness sake, so let’s not waste this opportunity too!   I also believe that a focus on compliance rather than enforcement will allow the agencies to use more creative means to engender compliance.  Making compliance easier, more understandable, providing feedback and rewards for those who comply may well reduce the cost of enforcement after the damage is done.

It is possible that the Challenges process might work well in certain areas, such as regulatory reform, but be less effective in addressing the challenges of education or human services.  As this is all new, it might be that we struggle through with changes for 2011 and are more proficient in 2012.  I do not believe we have harnessed what technology can provide in cutting costs and believe the agencies are hungry for the opportunity to update in this area.

Please join Joan Lenes and me at Open Arms Café Tuesday mornings in February from 7:30-8:30 and most Monday afternoons at Village Wine and Coffee at 4:30.   Or contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com

HOUSE COMMITTEE PRIORITIES

It is Sunday evening and the close of the first week of the 2010 legislative session. The tone of the State House this year is somber as our fiscal constraints loom so large. While most of the news this week has been about the budget, here is some of what to expect from the 14 House committees this year:

1. WAYS AND MEANS: is concentrating on our revenue streams. Expect to hear about steps to provide for greater accountability, jobs creation initiatives, and another look at “current use.”

2. APPROPRIATIONS will focus on expenditures. They will work to create a balanced budget that reflects the values of Vermonters, knowing that many who depend on state government will receive less in the coming year due to the size of the deficit.

3. COMMERCE will address Vermont’s troubled unemployment insurance fund as well as strengthening long-term planning for Vermont’s economic future.

4. HUMAN SERVICES’ primary focus will be responding to budget challenges. As the economy struggles, Vermonters are seeking assistance who have never needed it before. We will hear about chronic mental health issues, changes in child abuse and neglect, and juvenile justice laws.

5. TRANSPORTATION will present a bill that will provide a 1-year pilot project to allow heavy trucks currently restricted to town roads to use our Interstate highways. Expect to hear more about our 433 structurally deficient bridges. Nineteen of these were identified as most urgent as their closure would require a 30-60 mile detour.

6. GENERAL, HOUSING AND MILITARY AFFAIRS put support for families of deployed guard members and returning soldiers as a top priority. They will also be looking at affordable housing delivery systems, labor issues involving mandatory overtime among a myriad of other topics.

7. GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS faces a very big year. They will respond to the recent report on government accountability and government restructuring. Another hot topic will be the date of primary elections.

8. NATURAL RESOURCES/ENERGY will focus on several environmental initiatives.  First up is a bill to control the disposal and recycling of electronic waste, or e-waste–TV’s, computers, monitors, printers, etc.  The bill places responsibility for collection of e-waste with the manufacturer including convenient collection.  The committee will continue to gather information on Vermont Yankee to inform the continued operation debate. Whether there will be a vote from the Legislature or not remains to be seen.

9. EDUCATION committee is currently looking at 18 separate reports regarding the restructuring of education, education finance, and a host of other things. Priorities will be likely be set at the end of the week. One committee member told me the magnitude of pressure facing our schools and our taxpayers cannot be overstated.

10. AGRICULTURE will seek continued funding of the Farm to Plate program to invigorate Vermont’s food production systems. They will also address revisions to the Vermont Use Value Appraisal, known as “Current Use” in order to improve its performance while making it less costly.

11. JUDICIARY will spend significant time on the structural reorganization of our court system. Expect also to see legislation regarding texting while driving which was passed in the House last year, but died in the Senate.

12. FISH, WILDLIFE AND WATER RESOURCES will focus first on the riparian buffer bill which establishes a 50 foot buffer along our navigable waterways. This died on the House floor 2 years ago however has more momentum and clarification this year. Testimony from area scientists indicates that this is the cheapest and most effective way to protect our water.

13. INSTITUTIONS AND CORRECTIONS will focus on the direction of the state hospital and the capitol bill including a new health lab. They will continue to work on suggestions generated by Council of State Government report regarding ways to save on the corrections budget while keeping the community safe.

14. HEALTH CARE committee will be spend the first few weeks reviewing the federal health care options and determining what steps need to be taken to maximize reform efforts in Vermont.

Please continue to contact me with your questions and concerns at 233-7798 or KLWEBB22@mac.com.

REFORMING HEALTH CARE:  H.444 was signed into law on June 2nd as Act 61.  This is a 124 page omnibus bill which positions Vermont to receive ARRA (federal stimulus) money for health information technology.  A partial list of features of this bill is as follows: 1) allows farmers and self-employed people to use depreciation as an allowable business expense for reporting income; 2) people who have lost their insurance no longer have to wait twelve months for state-sponsored insurance; 3) asks providers to develop recommendations to coordinate treatment of stroke patients in Vermont;  4)  sets up a pilot program to provide vaccines at no cost;  5) bans the use of the flame retardant known as “Deca” which has been found, ironically, to be highly toxic when it burns.

PRESCRIPTION DRUG MARKETING:  S.48 was signed into law on June 8th as Act 59.  One of the great contributors to rising health care expenses is the cost of prescription drugs.  Alarmingly, one-third of every dollar spent on prescription drugs goes into marketing. In 2002, Vermonters spent $377 million on prescription, over-the-counter and nondurable medical supplies.  In 2007, this number grew to $572 million or an average increase of 8.7% per year.

According to the April 2009 report of the Vermont Attorney General’s office, pharmaceutical manufacturers reported spending almost $3 million in Vermont on fees, travel expenses and other direct payments to Vermont physicians, hospitals, and universities for the purpose of marketing their products.  Testimony cited considerable research that shows that marketing does affect prescription practices.

This act attempts to reduce the real or perceived conflict of interest between manufacturers and providers by increasing transparency and placing limits on gifts.  Free samples of prescription drugs resulted in considerable debate in the House.  Free samples have been found to affect physician’s prescribing patterns, however, contrary to popular belief, these samples do not go primarily to low-income patients.  The House bill required manufacturers to report free samples given to providers however a last-minute compromise with the Senate resulted in exempting free samples from disclosure.  It is hoped that these measures will help control costs and improve care.  This bill received support from the Vermont Medical Society, the AARP and the mental health community.

PALLIATIVE CARE:   H.425 was signed into law on May 18th as Act 25.  The purpose of this Act is to improve the quality of life and management of pain for patients facing serious medical conditions.  Palliative care addresses relief from symptoms such as pain, nausea, anxiety, shortness of breath, which may be caused by the underlying disease or by side effects of more aggressive interventions.  It also addresses physical, cognitive, emotional, psychological and spiritual needs, while facilitating patient autonomy, access to information and choice.

This act works toward expanding access to palliative care for children and adults across the state and ensures that Vermonters are aware of their rights and care options through a patient’s “bill of rights.”  In addition, it sets a plan to improve the knowledge and practice of health care professionals with respect to palliative care and pain management.

Feel free to contact me at KLWebb22@mac.com or 985-2789.  I have posted my previous Shelburne News articles on my website.  www.KateWebbVt.com.

Most of us held out until the last minutes, hoping for an agreement between the administrative and legislative leadership.  The last day, we heard the closest they had come was to postpone some decision-making.  It was time to move forward with the 2010 budget, warts and all, make some corrections with the “Companion Bill” and encourage both leadership teams to begin in earnest to address the challenges in FY2011 and FY2012.

Make no mistake about it.  Both the Governor’s proposal and the Legislature’s budget, cut programs, cut spending, used ARRA (Federal Stimulus) funds, raised some revenues, cut some taxes and looked for savings.  Both budgets were balanced for FY2010 but faced difficulties in FY2011 and more so in FY2012.   The major difference between the budgets had to do with how FY2010 was balanced.  The Legislature left future burden on the General Fund while the Governor left the burden on the Education Fund, i.e. property taxes.

I voted to override the veto.  When I ran for election, I promised many people that I would work for quality education while also containing our distressingly high property taxes.  A vote to sustain the veto would have re-opened the discussion to shift the teachers’ retirement fund to the Education Fund, creating a huge, unfunded, and ongoing cost to property tax payers.  In addition, 216 Shelburne homeowners with incomes between $75,000 and $90,000 would have seen an average property tax increase of $944 with some adding more than $7,000 to their yearly property tax bill. Another spreadsheet comparing the effect of the two different budgets on the 265 towns in Vermont showed Shelburne to be one of the towns to suffer the most under the Governor’s budget.  Testimony from school board members and superintendents across the state expressed strong opposition to this shift. These issue, along with my concern with Administration’s near elimination of the Vermont Housing Conservation Board led me to vote for the override.

After reading the Governor’s budget, however, some valid concerns came to light. First, the Legislature’s attempt to close some capital gains loopholes would be tough on farmers and loggers.  Many of us objected to this so it was corrected in the Companion Bill.  Second, Administration wanted to see tax credits for research and development so this was added for FY 2011.  Third, the Administration raised concern about the lack of accessibility to college scholarships.   The Companion Bill thus transferred $1.5 million out of the Higher Education Trust Fund to the Next Generation Fund, making money available to be split among the Vermont State Colleges, UVM and Vermont Student Assistance Corporation.  Fourth, Administration’s concerns about the nearly bankrupt Unemployment Insurance fund resulted in limitations for the near term and creation of a 12-person study committee to work toward a permanent solution for the future.  These and others measures were built into the Companion Bill which currently awaits the Governor’s signature.

Although an official compromise was not reached, the outcome last week included remedies for those oversights identified by the Governor while keeping the Education Fund transfer and Vermont Housing Conservation Board off the table. I believe it is not good practice for either a governor or a legislature to go it alone.  It is the hope of many of us more moderate Democrats, that sections of the Companion Bill will provide an opening for more collaborative efforts for FY 2011.

I will be around most of the summer and value your input.  I am keeping data on calls and emails I receive.  Do share your concerns with me.  When possible, include your reasons why it is important to you or your suggestions for solution.  KLWebb22@mac.com

Here is where everyone agrees: The importance of clean drinking water for our health and well-being cannot be underestimated.  It is our country’s commitment to clean water that eradicated such water-born epidemics as cholera and typhoid.

The Champlain Water District or CWD, serves a variety of towns in Chittenden County including Shelburne and has been a leader in the field of clean and safe water.  It was the first to receive the “Excellence in Water Treatment Award” for safe water and after ten years, is still only one of six in the country to retain this title.

The drinking water used by the CWD is drawn from Lake Champlain, 2500 feet out and 75 feet down. The treatment facility, located in Queen City Park serves 68,000 people.  To keep the drinking water clean and safe, the CWD treats the water in ways that meet the health and safety guidelines set by the EPA.  Not only is the district required to disinfect the water at the treatment plant, it must also insure that the water remains disinfected all the way down the miles and miles of piping.

The CWD used chlorine as a primary and secondary disinfectant for many years.  But chlorine alone has its problems.  First, when combined with organic matter in water, disinfection byproducts or DBPs are produced.  Two of these DBPs are regulated by the EPA as they have been linked to an increase in cancer, reproductive and developmental health risks.  Second, free chlorine is not stable enough to last down the line, leaving houses at the end of the line less protected from harmful bacteria it could pick up along the way.

Because of these problems, the EPA developed more stringent regulations to reduce disinfection byproducts in drinking water. These regulations would be implemented in stages.  In anticipation of Stage II regulations scheduled to go into effect in 2012, the CWD became the first public water system in the state to use EPA approved chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  Chemically, chloramine is simply chlorine plus ammonia and is fourteen times less volatile than free chlorine.

Chloramine (specifically, monochloramine)  met the needs of the CWD in several ways.  First, it reduced the health hazards related to the two regulated DPBs.  Second, it was stable enough to remain in the water line all the way to the last house on the block.  Third, it was cost-effective.  Fourth, it carried the EPA stamp of approval.

So what was the problem?

Almost immediately, people began calling, saying they were experiencing health changes since the switch to chloramine.  Over the last 3 years, more than 80 people have reported their concerns to the water district.  Problems reported were of three varieties from mild to severe:  skin rashes, gastrointestinal problems and respiratory difficulties.  These problems all seemed to go away when the individuals stopped using the water.  Symptoms returned with water use.

Sufferers contacting the Department of Health were sent to their physicians for intervention.  Physicians were unable to make a differential diagnosis linking their problems to chloramine due to the dearth of research on chloramine and human health effects.

In previous years, similar problems had been reported by people in San Francisco after a switch to chloramine.  San Franciscans formed a group called Citizens Concerned About Chloramine and began gathering information. In addition to skin, intestinal and respiratory issues, they also raised concerns about pipe line degradation, impact on the environment and unstudied effects of DBP’s produced by chloramine.  In 2006, citizens from around the country started communicating, comparing symptoms, sharing information and finding much in common.  Sufferers in Vermont organized and approached the CWD and the Department of Health seeking relief.  Finding none, they approached the legislature.

For the last two years, sufferers have sought legislation to place a moratorium on the use of chloramine.   They hoped that this break would give them a relief from symptoms while allowing time for the water district to find alternatives to chloramine.  In 2007, the issue was studied at length by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.  In 2008, H.80 was introduced and assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee on which I serve.

To determine whether a moratorium on chloramine was appropriate, we took testimony from several different sources.

We heard very compelling stories from individuals with People Concerned About Chloramine (PCAC) the group organized by Vermont citizens.  They described painful skin, intestinal or respiratory problems and complete relief from symptoms many experienced when on vacation or using water other than CWD.  Several provided very good data with controlled variables.

PCAC reported that over 300 people had contacted them describing skin, digestive or respiratory problems they believed were related to the water.  While filtering worked for some, others felt the faucet filters were not always effective and the whole house systems much too expensive.  In addition, a sufferer might be able to handle the problem at home, but what about in schools?  Restaurants?

Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) raised concern that water system operators and state regulators were “putting compliance with well-intentioned but misguided regulation ahead of public health and environmental protection and even ahead of science itself?” They also provided testimony indicating that the research on human health effects and chloramine was scarce.  No epidemiological studies, no data on inhalation exposure exist.

The Department of Health, while acknowledging the suffering of the individuals, did not feel they could directly tie the symptoms suffered with the use of chloramines.  They remained skeptical about the correlation.  They reminded us that we must consider “degree of harm” not just for those describing symptoms, but for the rest of the 68,000 people who would be at risk for known effects such as cancer and reproductive problems from chlorine’s DBPs.  When asked about a health study, they stated that the complexity and rigorous standards for human studies and costs precluded this.

The Vermont State Department of Environmental Conservation, which issued the permit to use chloramine opposed a moratorium citing EPA guidelines and federal regulation. In addition, we heard from water managers who feared they would be out of compliance if the moratorium was imposed.

The Champlain Water District informed us that they spent tremendous hours and study to find the best solution to meet the 2012 EPA guidelines before the switch to chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  We learned that 68 million people across the country use water from systems treated with chloramine.  Denver has been successfully using chloramine since 1917 as have 47 towns around Boston since 1932.   Although more than 80 people had contacted the CWD regarding symptoms, a number of those calls came from those on a different municipal water system not using chloramine. They reminded us that there was no “silver bullet” to clean water.  Clean water requires diligence in protecting the source of water; filtration and treatment; disinfection and maintaining distribution down the line.  They stated chloramine can be neutralized or removed using vitamin C or granular activated carbon filters.

After listening to testimony, neither the House nor the Senate committees could come to agreement on the moratorium.  After considerable discussion with stakeholders, it became apparent that we were not going to be getting an answer as to the true relationship between the symptoms of the sufferers and chloramine in the near future.   Instead, both bodies agreed that what we could do is determine whether other disinfection options exist, determine technical feasibility and identify costs of these options.

The EPA has committed to pay for and provide an independent consultant to conduct an engineering study to attempt to answer these questions.  All stakeholder groups were willing to accept this solution.  The Agency of Natural Resources will be reporting back results to the legislature in January, 2010.

THE FLOOR:  The floor of the house is where all the theatrics take place. Opportunities for great sound bites abound and the presence of VPR streaming is irresistible for some.  The rules of the House keep us in order for the most part, allowing all voices to be heard and keeping the speeches relevant.  For me, the first time I spoke on the floor, I had my 2-sentence introduction written out and was worried about making a mistake.  Friday night, I presented the Senate amendment to the compost bill, survived a difficult interrogation, added an amendment and got the bill through on a unanimous vote.  It felt like growth.

THE COMMITTEE ROOM:  The serious work of the House happens in the committee room.  For most committees, we drop our partisan politics at the door, roll up our sleeves and get to the work at hand.  Some committees are focused on finances while others spend more time on policy. Each bill begins with a problem and makes a stab at a solution.  Through testimony from stakeholders, experts and state agencies, we either refine the bill, seek more testimony, decide to drop it, or set it aside for another time.  “This is just a simple bill,” we laugh, knowing there is no such thing.  Of the thirty bills coming into our committee, twenty were discussed and twelve were voted out.  Eleven of these bills received unanimous bipartisan support.  The twelfth had only one dissenting vote.  I find the committee process fascinating and have developed a deep respect for the committee process.

THE PARTIES:  The camaraderie between parties is far greater than reported in the press.  When I survived that difficult interrogation, I got notes of congratulations from four Republicans signing it, “your buddies in Agriculture.”  I found if I wanted a real perspective on what was happening in committees, it helped to have reliable contacts across parties.  Although my vote usually aligned with the recommendation of the committee, I appreciated hearing about the process to get there. Most of the questions I asked had indeed been addressed in committee.

At the closing on Saturday night, the minority leader, reminded us of the need for more than one party.  “It is the majority’s job to guide the ship,” she said, “and the minority’s job to point out the rocks.”   On this, I do agree.

As a final note, I want to thank Joan Lenes for her considerable help this first year.  From logistics, to introductions, to explaining background, she has been a great resource and mentor.  I plan to be around most of the summer and will continue to do my best to get back to anyone who contacts me.