Last September Governor Phil Scott issued an executive order that directed the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to establish rules allowing housing construction without a permit in unmapped wetlands. This construction would occur in certain areas of the state that already have dense development. The order would also shrink the size of the required buffers surrounding all wetlands in those areas. ANR has issued draft rules specifying how the order would be implemented.
Those rules are now being heard by the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR). LCAR’s job is to review all rulemaking by the administration to ensure that several criteria are met. Among them are that: the rules must not be arbitrary, they must meet legislative intent, and they must not conflict with current statute. LCAR is set to object to the rules on several bases, but most importantly, because they conflict with state statute. In other words, the order exceeds the Governor’s authority and is against the law.
It also goes against sound, well-established science.
It has been estimated that at least a third of Vermont’s historical wetlands have been destroyed already. When European settlers first arrived, they began draining and filling wetlands, viewing those areas as of no value, and as impediments to farming and other development.
We have since learned that wetlands are incredibly important to us. They are habitat hotspots of biological diversity upon which our natural world depends and which we, in turn depend. They filter our water, and they help protect us from flooding and drought. If Vermont had retained its original, full complement of wetlands, we would have likely sustained far less damage from recent storms.
The executive order would allow development in unmapped wetlands without a permit but would retain the requirement for a permit in mapped wetlands. One might therefore assume that the mapped wetlands are more deserving of protection than unmapped wetlands, but the vast majority of mapped wetlands have been mapped from satellite imagery by an ecologist sitting at a computer. This mapping is not definitive, and large areas of wetlands are not picked up simply because they have characteristics that make them harder to identify from the sky. The difference in mapping is a quirk of our technology. Unmapped wetlands are just as valuable as mapped wetlands; they just need to be seen up close to be identified. When they are, they may be added to the mapped inventory by a trained wetlands scientist.
Some argue that the current need for housing outweighs the value of these natural places and that since the new rules are limited in time and area the effect is minimal.
While the permitting exemptions are temporary – the allowed use would expire in 2030 – the accompanying destruction is essentially permanent. And though the area is limited, this is how environmental degradation often takes place. One relatively small bit of damage at a time, each of which is seen as worth the immediate trade-off. It’s not hard to envision the next, incremental steps. Perhaps we make the exemptions permanent, extend them to mapped wetlands in those same areas, and so on.
In addition, we don’t know what we’d be trading away or what we’d get in return. Remember, these are unmapped wetlands. Their extent is not well understood, and no one knows how much or what kind of housing would be built in those places. At the very least, if we are to consider such a significant policy change, we ought to know a great deal more about the potential costs and benefits.
Years ago, Vermonters recognized the critical importance of our wetlands and put in place many of the laws that now govern their development. The goal of current policy, informed by recent flooding across the state, is to increase the protection, restoration, and extent of wetlands in the state. The draft rules take us in the opposite direction.
We humans depend on the natural world for our spiritual, emotional, physical, and financial well-being. Wisely responding to this dependency requires that we take a long view of our situation. It hasn’t been easy, but Vermonters have been leaders in embracing this awareness as we strive for an environment that fully nourishes human flourishing. Phil Scott’s short-sighted order undermines this vision of a healthy society.
Satcowitz, a Democrat, is a state representative for Braintree, Brookfield, Granville, Randolph, Roxbury. He is ranking member of the House Environment Committee and a member of the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules.