The Health Care bill has been signed into law, believe it or not (and it’s garnering a lot of attention from outside the state). Now comes the fun part: implementation.
Governor Shumlin has also vetoed S.77, which would have required new drinking water wells to be tested for arsenic and several other contaminants starting in 2013, costing (likely) in the range of roughly $140 per well, based on the testing regime that survived the committee process.
The Governor’s comments: “We have a responsibility with every bill that we pass to ensure that we are not imposing costs on hardworking Vermonters in rural areas. Every mandate from Montpelier must be balanced with this reality. Vermonters, on average, are earning what they made ten years ago. The vast majority of Vermont’s well water is clean and safe. The General Assembly’s desire to promote safe drinking water is one we all share, but I don’t believe the government should mandate the testing of every single new well, with the cost and burden on individual private property owners that this bill would impose.”
Strikes me as an odd bill to veto. How do we know if “the vast majority” are safe if we’re not testing the vast majority? As expenses go, this seems like a modest one considering the total costs involved. This was likely more of a “statement” veto, but it doesn’t strike me as a statement that will resonate with many, if anyone.
Vetoing at the end of the day, with a perfunctory press release, and on the same day as he signed Health Care is a clear sign that he hopes the news of the veto will pass under radar, but first vetoes are inherently noteworthy, so that won’t happen.
And it sure won’t happen among legislators. Word is that the Governor gave no indication he was going to have a problem with this bill, and in fact it seems to have passed by voice vote (as there’s no roll call listed on the leg web site), which underscores how non-controversial it was. The only opponents seemed to be the realtors, but they seemed to be placated when some of the testing requirements were removed in committee, bringing the total test costs down considerably.
Very odd. More on this soon. I’m gonna do some digging.
Leadership did have some plans to return in the event of vetoes. Are they going to call ’em back?
As you explain quite well, this is a peculiar place to spend his first veto.
I think this may represent a wink and a nod to his “streamlining” audience.
Governor Shumlin vetoed a health related insurance bill.
$140 is a small price to pay for peace of mind that the water one is drinking will not cause you adverse health problems from arsenic, etc.
It was disingenuous to say that new landowners cannot afford $140. Anyone who can but land in VT at today’s price per acre can afford $140.
It was also an anti-jobs veto…. water quality testers and labs could have hired more people to do this work.
Groundwater pollution is a growing issue that will eventually drive policy… but not until big business speaks. Notice I did not say the people speaks. Such are the times we live in.
Perhaps the problem was there was not a sufficiently powerful lobby group that contributed to the democratic campaign ?
Or perhaps the fact that blue dog democrats are really Rockefeller republicans… well I’d say even further right than that now with this anti-regulatory veto…. sigh.
It was vague and poorly written.
The bill required the seller of the land to provide the buyer with “informational materials developed by the department of health regarding: a) potential health effects of the consumption of untreated groundwater; and b) the buyer’s opportunity under the agreement to test the potable water supply.
Why should the seller need to do this? This is the buyer’s responsibility. When I purchased my property (with an existing 250+ foot deep well) in 2004, I was required by the mortgage bank to test the water quality, as the bank wanted to protect its investment. It was also a wise test for me, as I’d had been a fool to purchase land that had a contaminated water supply.
Anyone in their right mind should test water quality prior to taking on the expense of drilling a well. A test well can be dug or you can ask nearby neighbors about their water quality. Seems odd to mandate this activity through law.