|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Paul Bean
A new Senate bill tackles chloride contamination to regulate road-salt usage. Road salt has been a growing concern in Vermont because contamination affects local waterways, wildlife, and infrastructure.
S.29, was introduced January 29 by the entire Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and will “establish a Chloride Contamination Reduction Program for the education, training, and certification of commercial salt applicators and municipal salt applicators in the State, including requirements for certification of a master commercial salt applicator.”
The bill also classifies a difference between “commercial” applyers and municipal suppliers. Both will be required to adhere to the program.
The goal is to reduce the environmental impact of road salt while also aiming to save money for municipalities and contractors by optimizing salt usage. Over the last 30 years, chloride levels in Vermont’s waterways have more than doubled.
“Rising chloride levels pose a threat to the long-term health of our waterways,” said Dept of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Jason Batchelder in a press release last February. “Our department is committed to supporting efforts that reduce excess salt use in a way that protects both public safety and our environment,” Batchelder said.
“Across Vermont, chloride has been found to persist in water bodies – raising concerns about the long-term impacts of chloride pollution,” the press release continued. “Studies have shown that excess chloride can harm aquatic life and disrupt ecosystems. The Department of Environmental Conservation will continue to monitor the problem, take necessary regulatory action, and support a multi-faceted approach to address chloride pollution in coordination with stakeholders.”
This bill also includes a provision that seeks to estimate how much salt was applied between the years 2015- 2025 in the months between October and April, and to develop a publicly accessible record keeping database system for salt purchases and applications within Vermont.
The education program would include instruction on the best management practices that will set standards on increasing the use and efficiency of salt alternatives and establish how and when salt can and should be applied. However, a significant portion of chloride pollution comes from unregulated private salting at people’s homes and businesses.
See all bills assigned to this committee here. Constituents may contact committee members (click link on name for bio, party affiliation, etc.) with comments, questions and information at the following email addresses:
Anne Watson, Washington County, Chair, awatson@leg.state.vt.us
Terry Williams, Rutland, Vice Chair, Twilliams@leg.state.vt.us
Ruth Hardy, Addison, rhardy@leg.state.vt.us
Seth Bongartz, Bennington, sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us
Scott Beck, Caledonia, sbeck@leg.state.vt.us
All committee transcripts are available at www.goldendomevt.com. Committee meeting video available at the committee’s YouTube channel. The committee meets in the morning in Room 8.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Environment, Legislation, State Government, Transportation
Next you’ll want heated roads!!!
Salt, terrible for the car. Also terrible on the environment too. BUT here we are in the northeast where snow and ice on the roads kill drivers. Without the salt, what would the percentage of deaths and serious car accidents escalate too ? Once again a bill that nobody looked at all the reprocussions before writing it
All they care about is “feel good” legislation. The question they overlook is does it make you feel good to save the lake or to prevent someone’s child from dying in a car wreck…perhaps even a “child of Color” or a refugee child. The left is very reactionary and doesn’t think things through. Has anyone considered that we also use “chloride” to disinfect municipal drinking water and that also ends up in the lake.
Then the question becomes: do we save the lake or do we prevent cholera?
Didn’t look? These lunatics don’t care about lives!!!! They DO care about the “environment”. Or so they claim. It’s a socialist ploy. No matter what, this will save the state $$$$ that they can then use on yet additional social giveaways to the losers they attract to VT.
“set standards on increasing the use and efficiency of salt alternatives and establish how and when salt can and should be applied.”
Yea, this is the classic scam where they spread toxic waste on our roadways in small amounts (sort of like the dust reduction dioxin water), that can be used to fill the pockets of special interests in government colluding with China.
What they will do is spread some “alternative” on the roads which will make someone rich, but also take toxic waste that they were paid to safely dispose of, and cut it with the “alternative” spray so it slowly spreads toxic waste all over the roads. Alternatively if there is an area where they want a land grab, they will “discover”, this “accidental contamination”, and have to clear out a huge land mass where people will no longer be able to live.
They could also use these new spreaders to spread “things” for “testing” if you know what I mean. It’s almost never “just” genetically modified sugar beet nitrate juices.
You read it here first. This is all old hat.
Sand worked for years……………………………………..
Yes-before there the roads were so heavily traveled.
Ahh. Bureaucratize and taxing the snow and ice removal business. These “licenses” ain’t going to be free, there’s a quarter million dollar appropriation, just to start this foolishness- and while no direct tax is stated in the bill, history tells us that it won’t be long…
Reducing the amount of salt used isn’t a bad idea, giving the state control certainly is!
Haven’t some Western states already have done a “study”? And some don’t use salt? What do they do? Do we need a “study” to re-invent the wheel?
1. “Rising chloride levels pose a threat to the long-term health of our waterways,”
2. “Our department is committed to supporting efforts that reduce excess salt use in a way that protects both public safety and our environment,”
3. “Across Vermont, chloride has been found to persist in water bodies”
4. “Studies have shown that excess chloride can harm aquatic life and disrupt ecosystems.”
Reply to 1: *Are* chloride levels rising? I’m sure you can provide me with at least three independent scientific studies proving your statement, right? What exactly *is* the long term threat? Is this a factual or theoretical threat? Again, please provide me with at least three independent scientific studies proving your statement.
Reply to 2: Who has determined that we use *excess salt*? Who determines what *excess salt* is? The same folks who determine what *excess carbon* is? *Excess* is a very relative term, no?
Reply to 3: *All* water bodies? Just ponds? Just ditches? The entire state? Just Chittenden County? As with my reply to 1, show me the three independent scientific studies that pin down the actual scope of the alleged problem.
Reply to 4: Sounds logical, but what aquatic like, exactly? Whales? Not many of them here. Alligators? Not too many of them either. Trout? Okay, maybe I’m listening. Show me the three independent studies. Define *ecosystem*. Define *disrupt*. To what extent? Does it kill a few pumpkinseeds? I think I’d rather have salt on the roads. And my favorite… *can*. *Can* does not mean *has*. *Can* does not mean *will*. *Can* means *in theory*. And I’m not an in *theory* guy, especially where my tax dollars are concerned.
Now, maybe you can provide me with everything I’ve asked for.. and any legislative body worth its salt (pun intended) would ask for things like this as standard operating procedure. And if you can provide me with these things and I’m satisfied they’re real and compel me to support new legislation, what are three proposed solutions? What’s the cost of those vs salt? Have the solutions been proven (again, via independent studies) to actually work at all? Do they require a state-wide retrofit of all state vehicles?
Or is plain old sand the best solution? Or in a lot of places in the state, what about just plowing and leaving the rest on the road to pack down and become solid?
I will never, NEVER, trust anything the state legislature or any government body tells me or take it at face value. Remember, the jab will keep you from killing Grandma.
Beautifully articulated Robin. All such excellent questions, and which need to be the litmus test for every single bill that is proposed in the VT legislature. Thank you.
Once again, common sense.
Some idiot demoprogs in the Vermont legislature also proposed a ban on studded tires a few years back. Yea, they really care about “working people” and our ability to get to work.
I would recommend that whoever is involved with this do some research on how Sweden deals with this issue. I do know that they require appropriate winter tires and that there is salting of the roads, particularly the main roads.
Below is from the Travel Support Europe website.
Winter tyres are essential for safety and often legally required during specific months.
General requirements
Snowflake symbol (3PMSF): Ensure your tyres are marked with the 3PMSF symbol, which indicates compliance with EU winter performance standards.
Tread depth: The legal minimum varies, but a tread depth of at least 3 mm is common, with 5 mm recommended for challenging conditions.
Studded tyres: Permitted in all Nordic countries during the winter months but must be fitted on all wheels if chosen.
Country-specific rules
Finland:
Winter tyres required from 1 November to 31 March in winter conditions.
Studded tyres permitted from 1 November to the first Monday after Easter.
Norway:
Winter tyres mandatory from 1 November to the first Monday after Easter (South) and 16 October to 30 April (North).
Studded tyres permitted within the same periods, with environmental fees in some cities.
Sweden:
Winter tyres or all-season tyres with the 3PMSF symbol required from 1 December to 31 March in winter conditions.
Studded tyres allowed from 1 October to 15 April or when road conditions demand.
Iceland:
No strict mandate for winter tyres, but they must be suitable for road conditions, effectively making them mandatory in practice.
Studded tyres permitted from 1 November to 15 April, with discussions on limiting their use in urban areas.
Note: Rental cars in Nordic countries are always equipped with tyres suitable for winter driving.
TW… you’re correct of course, but missing the point. EVRYONE in the legislature knows replacing salt on Vermont roads, especially main roads, is complete folly. They aren’t ignorant. In fact, they’re geniuses and master psychological manipulators.
This is totally about expanding their control over the population. It’s about problem-reaction-solution. And it’s about transferring your hard-earned money from your wallet to theirs.
But just look at all the people on Reddit saying it’s a waste of money to buy winter tires when all seasons will do the same job. You cannot fix these people. I’m all for sand instead of salt.
Good riddance to road salt. Vermont has vast sand and gravel deposits courtesy Ice Age glaciers. But will the same environmentalists wishing to ban salt let us quarry the glacial deposits or block the mining?
I gotta say for all those opposed to this idea, how old are you? Growing up here in the 60s and starting driving in the late 70s salt was used when icing was occurring NOT every time a snowflake was swirling about. It was NOT unusual for the roads to be covered with packed snow for days at a time. This was in Burlington and surrounding Chittenden County towns. I remember some roads being covered with hard packed snow all winter and during thaws the road became potholed as the snow broke up. This at a time when there were very few 4wd/AWD vehicles on the roads, many were rear wheel drive and snow tires were not as good as they are now. In my mind the advent of our defacto bare roads policy kind of coincided with the arrival of many from “away” where they didn’t have to deal with our harsh winters. Cars today are better than ever in performance and reliability-tires too, they run forever but are disintegrating WAY before their time. How about we plow, sand a little and salt ONLY when icing is imminent, get good tires and learn to drive appropriately for the conditions. I for one do not want to replace my cars every ten years.
And salt is poisonous to our water and soil. Way back when after scorched earth warfare the ultimate final blow was to salt the land so that it wouldn’t grow food.
If just one person dies on Vermont roads for the sake of preserving aquatic wildlife, it ain’t worth it.
Just as with the LA fires, the inordinate affection for the excuse of protecting the environment at the expense of human lives.
And in VT we have to look no further that what the ANR did to force the hand of Morrisville Water and Light to decommission the Green River Reservoir because using some of the water for electric power might theoretically hurt some fish.
No, I’m not anti-environment or anti-animal. I’m just pro-human life.