The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources has refused environmental groups’ request for a key document related to the state’s ongoing water quality efforts, even after officials shared the same document with Seven Days.
ANR’s top attorney launched a review of the denial after a reporter pointed out the agency’s uneven application of state law.
The document in question — a 108-page draft of Vermont’s stormwater management rules, developed last fall — is full of dry, technical jargon. But to environmental advocates, it promises answers. The finalized rules were due by the end of 2017, but the agency missed its deadline.
Instead, ANR Secretary Julie Moore came to lawmakers at the beginning of the year with a different proposal for managing runoff from large parking lots and other properties containing three or more acres of developed land.
That announcement surprised environmentalists, who expected the state to adhere mostly to an advisory document on runoff rules that was released last July, according to Rebekah Weber, the Lake Champlain lakekeeper for the Conservation Law Foundation.
“A whole new standard being put forth was not something that we thought the agency was going to do,” said Weber.
Now the CLF, the Lake Champlain Committee and the Vermont Natural Resources Council are trying to find out what ANR had in the works and why officials haven’t released the new rules.
“It was our understanding that in the fall, the draft rule was pretty much complete,” said Jared Carpenter, the water protection advocate for the Lake Champlain Committee. He acknowledged that minor edits are part of the process, but his concern is that “wholesale changes are going to be made to the draft rule.”
When CLF asked for records related to the new rules on December 15, the state refused to release the draft or even a redacted version. Weber said officials told CLF that the document was not a public record because it was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Another request, filed jointly by the Lake Champlain Committee and the VNRC, got the same response. Officials said the document was only shared internally, among top officials and state attorneys, so it was protected by attorney-client privilege.
Carpenter said the state’s refusal to share the document leaves unanswered questions about how the state is — or isn’t — working toward its commitments on water quality.
“If the Agency is considering going back and reexamining the science behind this, that’s one thing,” he said. “If they’re considering going back and revising a rule for purely political reasons, that’s something completely different.”
Being able to see the draft rule, according to Weber and Carpenter, will allow advocates to examine what changed and then vet the science behind that change.
“I think the main point is that the science hasn’t changed since October 2017, and so if there’s been major changes from this draft rule to the one we are expecting now to see sometime this year, it begs the question: Why?” Weber said.
In an effort to better understand the decision by ANR officials, Seven Days filed a records request January 22 for all correspondence related to the development of the new rule. In response, the state released more than 500 documents. Among them was an email with the 108-page draft rule attached.
Officials haven’t fully explained why ANR refused to give the draft to the environmental groups. In response to an inquiry, general counsel Jennifer Duggan said the agency would investigate its decision to withhold the document.
“There are several drafts of the stormwater rule, some of which are exempt under the attorney-client privilege,” she said. “I will be reviewing the Agency’s response to the records request submitted by [CLF, LCC and VNRC] and following up with them directly to ensure the Agency has released all non-exempt responsive records.”
Carpenter said the request he filed with VNRC was broadly phrased to ensure that the state released any drafts that could be made public, and Weber asked for the document by title after learning that Seven Days received a copy. Both of those requests were denied.
But after Seven Days inquired about the discrepancy, an agency official emailed Carpenter to notify him that the denial was under review. Carpenter said he had not appealed the denial or otherwise requested that the agency reconsider.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Phil Scott is Vermont’s “Trump lite”. He and his appointees are following the national GOP strategy. Time for him and his cronies to go.
Gov Scott is becoming a Trump clone right before our eyes. I wonder if he will want to privatize the entire lake.
What goes around comes around? During the Shumlin administration when VNRC’s current water person was general counsel for ANR, all kinds of public records were withheld related to stormwater systems, and he refused to produce a redaction log identifying what was withheld, which is a legal requirement. Seven Days filed a public records request and was told it would cost over $1000 just to produce the log showing what was being withheld.
For the background data, as well as analysis of Vermont’s water issues to understand the Agricultural side of the rules.
http://agriculture.vermont.gov/water-quali…
Specifically the links under Regulations and Research & Reports
Here is the link to Department of Environmental Conservation’s page
http://dec.vermont.gov/watershed
specifically the Vermont Clean Water Initiative
Additionally, you may want to read, the State of the Lake published by the Lake Champlain Basin Program. http://sol.lcbp.org/
Would be great of more individuals would offer suggestions for improving water quality over time and for less cost to the public.
Julie Moore demonstrates her competence to lead the agency yet again.
I expect Jen Duggan will release the document, she is highly ethical. That said, ANR has a long and sordid track record of making it difficult, if not impossible for the public to gain a full insight on its internal decision-making through requests for access to their records that like this draft rules set, clearly are non-exempt public records. CLF was denied access to a set of ANR’s public records by a vindictive Tom Torti when he served as ANR Secretary under Governor Douglas. When CLF pressed further, Torti offered up the public records with $1000+ purchase price. Eventually the records were provided without the fee attached after it hit the press. Fast forward to the Shumlin Administration, then ANR General Counsel Jon Groveman,who now works at VNRC, played the same vindictive game, assessing high fees for access to ANR records associated with the Lowell Wind project. Groveman also attempted to hide and/or destroyed records I was seeking under a discovery request back in 2013. This abuse of power has to be stopped! The checks and balances in the current law are ineffective in stopping those who would politicize and abuse their roles as state officials.
Any time you have government officials using such conniving & blatant tactics to hide information from the public and deny the public that the official works for, oversight of the work they are doing on behalf of and with the permission of, the public, you have a very serious and systemic trust problem in that government.
Using such a sorry excuse as attorney-client privilege first, reeks of the dire need to weed out The BAR Association from OUR government. Second, is a truly flaccid argument as, if the attorneys client is a PUBLIC official acting as representative of the people, that client is the people themselves. Or are these attorneys being paid from the private bank accounts of the servants in the ANR & statehouse?
This absolutely destroys the credibility of the ANR for even attempting to use such a BS excuse to betray the public trust.
August, 2011
https://sevendaysvt-test.newspackstaging.com/vermont/the-tr…
“ANR is refusing to release more than 500 emails, and countless other documents, that the agency exchanged with Green Mountain Power between January and July.”
“Asked for a complete list of the confidential records, Groveman said ANR would charge as much as $1200 for the goods.”
I note that the teflon governor’s supporters come out to dislike comments that place the blame of ANR’s intransigence on the governor where it clearly belongs. Phil Scott leads a government for the corporations and agribusiness, not the rest of us who just want to live in a healthy, beautiful state. Preserve us from the wasting that is destroying the planet, at least for a little while!
This past election of Trump was a miracle for America, trying to resist the corrupt DNC. Phil Scott is part of that effort to drain the swamp which we are so keenly becoming aware is in our state as well. Who knew that the swamp extended a far as the eye can see.