A three-year effort to update the state's 50-year-old land use law ended Monday night with a veto by Gov. Phil Scott. The governor said he rejected the Act 250 bill because it created more regulatory uncertainty.
Scott had supported a compromise at the beginning of the legislative session that would have lifted Act 250 review for projects in designated downtowns and village centers in exchange for more protections in upper elevation areas.
But the bill was pared down and the downtown provisions were removed as lawmakers struggled with the details while working remotely during the pandemic.
"Nothing in this bill modernizes or improves the Act 250 process, something that is widely agreed to be necessary after 50 years of existence." — Gov. Phil Scott
The governor in his veto message said the bill fell far short of what he wanted.
“In fact, [the bill] actually adds new regulation and new burdens to our recreational trail networks and recreation economy,” he said.
Scott added that the bill created more complex regulation for projects that would cause forest fragmentation.
“Nothing in this bill modernizes or improves the Act 250 process – something that is widely agreed to be necessary after 50 years of existence," he said.
More from VPR: Act 250's 'Next 50 Years': Commission Looks At Future Of Vt. Development Review Law
Act 250 is almost part of Vermont lore. It was pushed by Gov. Deane Davis, a Republican businessman, in response to what Davis and others saw as uncontrolled development, particularly at southern Vermont ski areas. Under the law, large projects are reviewed by local environmental commissions for compliance with 10 environmental and social criteria, such as water quality, traffic, air quality, and municipal services.
The law has been updated over the years. Then in 2017, a commission spent months looking at the law and how to improve and modernize it. That was the groundwork for the compromise that the governor had agreed to.
But the compromise also revealed a revealed sharp divide in the Vermont environmental community. The agreement was backed by the Vermont Natural Resources Council, which met with the administration privately to work out the deal. But others like water advocate James Ehlers and Vermonters for a Clean Environment objected.
"The whole notion that we should be reducing state oversight over communities that are already struggling to keep human waste ... out of our drinking water supplies was just astounding to me." — James Ehlers, environmental advocate
Ehlers, a policy advisor to Lake Champlain International, has frequently called attention to sewage overflows that foul Lake Champlain. He didn’t think downtown developments should be exempted from Act 250 review.
“The whole notion that we should be reducing state oversight over communities that are already struggling to keep human waste either partially treated or totally untreated out of our drinking water supplies was just astounding to me, that supposed environmentalists would even consider that sort of concession,” he said.
Ehlers said he was pleased with the governor’s veto.
“I know that myself and many others stand ready to work with the governor on legislation that is protective of the ecology and the economy,” he said. “You can’t have one without the other. So this veto gives an opportunity to go back and do it right.”
The bill "would really address some of the governor's priorities of maintaining the rural economy for recreation and the forest product industry." — Brian Shupe, Vermont Natural Resources Council
But Brian Shupe, executive director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, said he was greatly disappointed.
The bill “would really address some of the governor’s priorities of maintaining the rural economy for recreation and the forest product industry,” he said. “It would have helped protect the land base for recreation [and] forest management, and would have provided a better way to manage our trail development that’s happening around the state.”
Shupe noted that the governor on Monday also issued an executive order that suspends decisions on Act 250 jurisdiction on trails while the state figures out what to do. Shupe questioned that decision.
“The troubling component of that is that the governor has directed his administration not to enforce certain environmental laws,” he said. “And I don’t believe that’s legal. The governor can’t pick and choose what laws get enforced by his administration, and that’s what he’s doing with this executive order.”
"With this veto, the governor has thrown away significant and substantial work done by the Legislature, and members of his administration, to protect our forests and wildlife habitats." — David Zuckerman, Democratic gubernatorial candidate
Democrat gubernatorial candidate David Zuckerman also said he’d work with the Legislature on a bill if elected.
“With this veto, the governor has thrown away significant and substantial work done by the Legislature, and members of his administration, to protect our forests and wildlife habitats,” Zuckerman said in a statement.
Senate President Pro Tem Tim Ashe said the bill, while pared down, did give the governor what he wanted with recreational trails, because it kept them out of Act 250. Ashe also said the governor had previously supported both the trail language and the forest fragmentation language he now objects to.
Ashe added that legislators will meet with their lawyers soon to look at whether the executive order violates the separation of powers between the executive and the legislative branches, since the executive order does what the bill would have done on trails and Act 250.
Read Gov. Phil Scott's full executive order here.
"It is the Legislative branch, not the Executive branch, that writes legislation," he said. "This may sound technical, but we have seen the hazards of breaching these separations of power in Washington, D.C., and must preserve this principle whenever it is threatened."
The Legislature adjourned without scheduling a veto session, so it’s likely lawmakers will start again next year on an Act 250 rewrite. The governor said at his news briefing Tuesday that it’s better to wait.
“In the end, I thought it was better to just start again in January and bring some of those other areas of common interest back into the fold, and get back to work,” he said.
Have questions, comments or tips? Send us a message or get in touch with reporter John Dillon @VPRDillon.
We've closed our comments. Read about ways to get in touch here.
