SEN. READY: Welcome to the committee. (Copies being passed around – draft 4.1, H.130)
Senator Cheryl Rivers
Chair, Senate Finance Committee

Thank you for having me and let me be as brief and clear as I can be to say that I applaud the work of this committee in working on the Champion Land deal, and I want to make clear that I strongly support the notion of it. Having said that, I have had occasion to go up to the public hearing in Island Pond and listened to some of the public comment and spend some time up in the area with former representative Gordon Stafford, and we visited his camp, and it left a strong impression on me that this position of these camps and what happens to them in the future is very, very important for a lot of the residents of the area. And I personally believe that we ought to do everything that we can without disrupting the deal to look out for the folks that have leased these camps and try to find a way to keep them. I’m not interested in promoting people’s ability to sell them, sell the leases for a longer period of time that’s in the bill, but particularly on the state-owned land, it seems to me that 50 years is a short period of time. I know someone that isn’t 50 years old yet, some people might think that 50 years is a long time, but I think it’s gone quite fast. And so I understand that there’s concern on the part of some of the supporters, the people that have to go out and resell the land, that if we’re too onerous in terms of what we require about the camps, that it could jeopardize a private sale, but certainly let’s start with the state-owned land. We’re going to be buying – it’s going to be state land, and that means that if it’s state land, we have the control over what our policy will be on the state-owned land. And so what I would like to see is some provision that allows these leases to be renewed indefinitely as long as they’re transferred between family members.

SEN. READY: How would you say that?

SEN. RIVERS: Well, I think that somebody else besides me can figure out how to draft it because it’s not my specialty, but I’m just telling you. Shall I repeat it?

MR. BORIGHT: Yes, please do.

SEN. RIVERS: On the state-owned land I would like to see a provision that says that the leases should be renewed indefinitely as long as they’re transferred between family members, and I would like to (interrupted)

SEN. READY: But not if sold.

SEN. RIVERS: Well, the 50 years you could – I think you could leave in the 50 years provision which I think covers sales and all that other stuff, but for transfers between families, that’s what I’m most interested in preserving longer. And I’ll tell you, in listening to Gordie Stafford up there – I don’t even know that his camp is going to be on the state-owned land, but it’s very, very – to me, for some of these folks, these camps are an important family tradition. They’ve been handed down already from generation to generation, and I think that on the state-owned land that it would be nice to be able to allow that to continue. I wish that we could do it on both the federal and the private land, but I recognize that we’re dealing with private entities here that need to resell the land, and so my suggestion would be to – I would be content if you directed the Housing and Conservation Trust Fund to negotiate the best deal possible for the other camps, to try to negotiate the same – where possible to negotiate the same thing on the federal and the other land.

SEN. CANNS: Senator, we’ve worked pretty hard to try to come up with this, but my question on what you’re suggesting – you’re asking for perpetuity actually, and we have problems because others might want to purchase camps and they would be precluded from doing that. We’re talking about the existing leases?

SEN. RIVERS: Yes.

SEN. CANNS: Only?

SEN. RIVERS: Yes.

SEN. CANNS: And this will make sort of a shoot-out between somebody else who says, well, I haven’t got a chance to buy it and my tax money is going into it, and I want you to consider that portion of it. That’s why we selected those type of years and limits on it with that in mind.

SEN. RIVERS: I see. Well, I guess my feeling is that you have the flexibility in terms of allowing people to buy and sell if you kept your 50 year language and that the extension would be where there’s a camp that is transferred among family members. I don’t understand why anybody would – I mean, they might want the same thing, and if you wanted to give them the same thing, I probably wouldn’t object to that, but I think that my particular concern relates to people that want to pass the camp along to the next generation. So that’s why I’m suggesting that.

SEN. CANNS: Okay. I’m just telling you the problems that will (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: Well, I don’t understand quite what you say the problem is with that. Other Vermonters will resent the fact that some people have these camps?

SEN. CANNS: Not that they have them. That they cannot share in that. In other words, I want a camp up there (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: Oh, they want more camps there?

SEN. CANNS: Let’s say I would like a camp because my tax dollars are helping to support this camp for this party who is going to keep it forever and I’ll never be able to get in. So you have to open it to the public if you’re going to sell that (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: Well, they’ve got 50 years to buy one.
SEN. MacDONALD: That’s the very nature of (inaudible) is that you say the rules are going to change, but those people who have already from this date forward will be treated as if – will be grandfathered, and that’s certainly customary in the legislative process which doesn’t (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: Right. I think Senator Sears mentioned that in certain types of federal land even in the state down in Woodford that that sort of provision is allowed on federal land.

SEN. CANNS: Let me just add to that, I might support you, but I can see where a great deal of problems could come from it.

SEN. RIVERS: Well, I think that certainly there are potential problems that can arise with a deal of this size and when you have a lot of different people’s interest at stake. I can’t argue with you on that. As I said, I have a lot of reverence for that tradition that currently exists up there, and I would like to explore any creative ways to try to honor that, and I think it would do a lot in terms of the level of trust that folks have about when the state comes in and purchases land what happens. Personally, I just finished negotiating – well, I can’t say. I had an instance in my own county where somebody had a camp on state land. There was a misunderstanding, and Fish and Wildlife – let’s see if I got the agency right – was going to basically tell them that they couldn’t have the camp there anymore, and when Alice Nitka and I intervened, they rethought that and the person is going to be able to keep the camp. I personally having briefly visited the area would believe that the broader public’s peace and enjoyment of the property is still going to be substantial even if people are allowed to stay in the camps on state-owned land, federal-owned land and the other. But I understand – so we can’t legislate for the federal government, and we have a limited ability to influence what happens when this land is – we’re trying to attract a private buyer, but I have a fair amount of confidence that the folks at the Housing and Conservation Trust Fund if instructed to do everything they can to carry forward the policy that we design on state lands will negotiate the best deal they can for the federal leases and for the private sale portion of the land. I think that’s the best that I can think of at this point to get at the – yes?

MR. BORIGHT: A follow-up question on family members.

SEN. RIVERS: Third cousin twice removed?

MR. BORIGHT: That’s sort of a question. There probably would be some level of relationship (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: Right. It would need to be defined.

MR. BORIGHT: …..(inaudible) how far do you want to extend – quite far or moderately far.

SEN. RIVERS: Moderately far – ha, ha, ha – being a moderate person.

MR. BORIGHT: Like second cousins and – anyway.

SEN. RIEHLE: Can we use this same definition for fuel assistance, this family-owned….?

MR. BORIGHT: There’s a fourth degree of constant(?) annuity or something which I can’t ever pronounce, but clicks in someplace the last time – fourth degree of – and I have to find the word that (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: Oh, I think you should use that word if we go in that direction.

SEN. RIVERS: I have to admit that still waters run deep, but my thinking hadn’t run that far.

SEN. CHARD: It would be a question.

SEN. RIVERS: Right. And I would say that whatever the committee thinks on that would be fine with me. If you are willing to work with the concept, I would be encouraged, and I would be happy to assist in any way if you decide you want to work with the concept.

SEN. READY: So we could say under the state part: renew camp leases located on state lands indefinitely as long as they continue to be handed down among family members (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: Define family members?

SEN. READY: …..if Al wants to fool with that, and then on the other we could say we’re asking Housing and Conservation Board renewal for at least the life of the leaseholder (inaudible) years but not less than 20. When possible leases shall be extended – you know (inaudible).

SEN. RIEHLE: What do these leases cost? How much was it?

-----(?): 700.

SEN. RIVERS: 600.

SEN. RIEHLE: Now, is it the expectation that that will remain consistent in perpetuity as well, or are these lease numbers kind of what the market will bear? I suspect if you’re starting to limit this to the 250 camps, if that’s the right number, and you can pass it down forever, the value is considerably increased, or were you just going to support it at 700 bucks?

SEN. RIVERS: I saw some language that said that it could be increased – I don’t think that I would object to a cost of living increase, but I don’t know if anything the market will bear is behind it.

SEN. RIEHLE: Well, it’s just a question. I’m not interested in putting any kind of cost of living index into this whole mesh for negotiating leases. I think we’re really treading on some pretty thin ice with doing that.

-----(?): One of the language versions does cite a CPI, an increase not to exceed an annual CPI, and on some federal lands over in the Magog area, they actually do a market study every five years to establish what the going rate for campers are. Many of these camps are sublet to folks during hunting season.

SEN. RIEHLE: So are we going to allow that, too, so the family could pass it down and it’s a little goldmine?

(Various comments all at once making all comments inaudible).

SEN. CANNS: I once had a (inaudible) camp up in (inaudible). I can tell you that some of it goes to the appraised value and what they’re being taxes. This is going to change the whole picture because it’s going to reappraised by not only the Housing and Conservation (inaudible), and the prices of what the land is valued at is going to change considerably and how much they charge for it.

SEN. RIVERS: Well, we actually have some language in the Finance Committee to address that issue.

SEN. CANNS: You have to address that issue.

SEN. RIVERS: Have you seen that? You probably haven’t seen that.

SEN. READY: No.

SEN. RIVERS: But Deb Brighton talked about that when she came in.

SEN. READY: I wasn’t here when she came in.

SEN. RIEHLE: But I guess just my only concern is that I hope that if we go along with this sort of perpetuity language, that the expectation isn’t that it’s perpetually affordable at a given rate necessarily.

SEN. RIVERS: I’m working on perpetual affordability for hunting camps, oh, my.

SEN. RIEHLE: I hope that the people up there who then believe that they’re going to be able to renegotiate their lease forever and pass it on aren’t going to come back in 50 years and say, hey, we can’t afford this now so that’s not fair.

SEN. CANNS: I would like very much to hear the commissioner’s comment on it and the Housing and Conservation on that particular issue. I think that we may be solid, but it’s going to be very complicated.

SEN. READY: Any others questions or comments for Cheryl? So how are you going to present on the taxes and stuff?

SEN. RIVERS: My intention was to have that be offered as a floor amendment from the Finance Committee to the Budget Adjustment, but I’m open to any suggestions that people have.

SEN. READY: No, I don’t know, maybe we’ll talk with Jeb and see how he wants to deal with it.

SEN. SPAULDING: Yes, actually because I was curious. I was trying to find out this morning. I asked Steve whether we were going to be waiting to find out whether Finance is ready to move forward, and he said, no, he thought that was going to be some separate bill in 2000 or something like that, and I said really.

SEN. RIVERS: I don’t know where he got that idea.

SEN. SPAULDING: I don’t know so I’m glad (interrupted)

SEN. RIVERS: There’s a different bill. There’s a different pilot bill, a broader pilot bill that we’re taking some testimony on, but this one I think that several members of the committee expressed their desire to make sure that we are very clear about what happens with the tax implications in the same place that the money is going forward. So my intention had been to have a committee amendment to offer on that. If you would prefer to have it – I don’t know what the other options would be, but that had been my preliminary thinking as to the cleanest way to do it, but some of those other ideas, I would be happy to listen to them.

SEN. READY: Well, we can talk on that.

SEN. RIVERS: I personally didn’t want to actually take the bill into the committee, so I thought a floor amendment would be the easiest way to do it, but we could come in and present to the Appropriations Committee so you know what’s going on and all.

SEN. READY: Okay, great. Thank you.

SEN. RIVERS: Okay. Appreciate the time.

SEN. READY: Julius, if it’s okay with you, we’ll hear from Bill Bartlett and then we’ll (inaudible) bat clean-up so he can comment on all of it.

SEN. CANNS: Okay, sure.

SEN. RIVERS: Unfortunately, we’re working on the budget adjustment in Transportation, and I’d love to stay and listen, but it’s not a reflection of lack of interest on the subject.

SEN. READY: Thanks for coming. Bill?


Bill Bartlett
Executive Officer, Water Resources Board

For the record my name is Bill Bartlett, and I’m the executive officer of the Vermont Water Resources Board.

SEN. READY: We’re going to have to go fast, I think. I forget that it’s such a short day.

MR. BARTLETT: All right. I guess I’m not entirely clear on what specific language or issue I’m testifying on. I realize obviously it has to do with the Champion Land.

SEN. READY: I kind of wish that Helm was here.

MR. BARTLETT: Yes.

SEN. CHARD: It would be useful to me if we could clarify between the draft I saw Wednesday and the draft now what the intent in that particular change is.

SEN. READY: Well, this is the one we worked on and what the committee kind of agreed tentatively voting.

SEN. CHARD: No, no, give me kind of the one-sentence rationale for the change.

SEN. READY: Just to kind of clarify it.

SEN. CHARD: It was meant to clarify it?

MR. BARTLETT: You mean from the House version?
SEN. CHARD: No, from the version on Wednesday.

SEN. READY: We can certainly get you the tapes.

SEN. CHARD: Okay, I will.

SEN. READY: Is that accurate, do you think? It’s just to make it clearer, and we heard from the attorney, from the Agency and just, you know.

SEN. CANNS: Can I add…..?

SEN. READY: Yes, go ahead.

SEN. CANNS: The reason I asked for your definition, to tell us what it means when water is classified from B to A. That was the specific because we were told a lot of things concerning from B to A, the prohibitions and what happens, and that’s what we wanted to know. What would it do.

MR. BARTLETT: First of all, the classification process is a way of establishing consistent with state and related law management goals for a specific body of water – and don’t use this analogy too literally – but it’s the conceptual equivalent of in a town plan when you designate one area as residential and another area as commercial, you’re establishing different goals for the management of, in that case, land uses. In the case of classifications you’re establishing different goal uses in terms of what are we managing the waters to protect, what designated or goal uses are we managing the waters to protect.

For Class A waters the goal – and this is established by statute – is to manage waters in essentially a pristine condition and to have them be highly suitable for use as a public water supply. I’m paraphrasing here. The Class B designation which is the more universal designation is to manage waters to be suitable for water contact recreation, swimming, various other recreational uses and public water supply but with additional treatment. So if we reclassify waters from B to A or A to B, we’re changing the management goals. Now, in the water quality standards the standards establish a variety of criteria that relate to the goal uses. In order to make the water suitable for swimming, it has to have certain chemical, physical characteristics. In order to make it suitable for public water supply, we’re going to do treatment or keep it in an essentially pristine condition, it has to have a different level of characteristics. So that’s what the difference is. The only prohibitions that I’m aware of that go with the Class A designation, again, are statutory in nature. There is a prohibition against on-site sewage disposal facilities with a design capacity of greater than a thousand gallons per day in Class A waters, again, by statute. I would emphasize that that’s not the size of the septic tank. Rather that’s the design capacity of the sewage treatment system. And somebody from the Agency of Natural Resources could tell you specifically what that means in terms of numbers of residences or numbers of seats in a restaurant or numbers of motel units, but it certainly covers single family residences, duplexes, maybe a small restaurant, convenience stores, things like that would have a design capacity of less than a thousand gallons per day. That’s the only prohibition that I can think of that’s associated with a Class A designation.

SEN. CANNS: Let me just take it a step further to - first of all, this wouldn’t affect, let’s say, an outhouse that somebody dug in back of their camp.

MR. BARTLETT: No.

SEN. CANNS: Okay. Because that’s traditional up there. The other thing is this. Does it change any traditional uses that are presently up in that area. We’re talking about a specific area, these lands that we are going to be questioned about. How would that stop or add to – logging, for instance, what would happen?

MR. BARTLETT: Let me divide the question, if you will. In terms of recreational uses, traditional – I’ve seen various language listing a long laundry list of – first of all, none of the uses that I’ve seen on the list would be affected by a reclassification, and, in fact, the reclassification process has more of an emphasis on protecting recreational uses than it does on prohibiting. With respect to logging specifically the water quality standards say that if logging is being conducted in accordance with accepted management practices which are adopted by the Commissioner of the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, that activity is presumed to be in compliance with the water quality standards. That presumption doesn’t change if the waters are Class A. The same presumption is in place. As I’ve testified in the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee, what does change is that if that presumption is successfully challenged, something that I’m not aware has ever been done, but if it were successfully challenged, then the standard against which you would measure whether the activity was in compliance for A waters would be somewhat higher than it would be for Class B waters. Now, a further caveat to that is – and this is probably particularly applicable in a watershed like the Nulhegan which is lightly developed or undeveloped – regardless of the classification of any body of water, there is a policy under both state and federal law called anti-degradation, and what the anti-degradation policy says is that if the water quality of a body of water is better than it needs to be to meet the minimums associated with its classification – which I would think would almost certainly be the case in a watershed like the Nulhegan – then that higher water quality has to be protected and maintained with certain caveats. There are limited exceptions where that higher than necessary quality can be degraded, but there’s a discouragement of that. So I would guess – I don’t know because I don’t know the facts of what the – you know, I haven’t seen a report on the condition of the Nulhegan versus the standards. But my guess is that the actual condition of the river for many water quality parameters probably exceeds even the Class A criteria, and, therefore, it wouldn’t be the classification designation but it would dictate the level of water quality that would have to be maintained but rather it would be the anti-degradation policy. I just don’t know (interrupted)

SEN. READY: Bill (inaudible) two sets of language, the one in the House bill and the latest one we worked on?

MR. BARTLETT: I haven’t seen your latest one, or at least I’m not sure if I’ve seen the latest – okay, all right. The House version – I guess I would just back up and say briefly that I think the Board has considerable guidance from the Legislature in both how the classification and the outstanding resource water process is to be conducted and what standards are to be applied, and in the case of classifications there’s a 30-year track record, and in the case of outstanding resource water designations there’s a 13-year track record. We’re not aware of any situation where that guidance hasn’t been adequate to produce a reasonable and appropriate result, and there is some concern about having a situation where substantive policies being changed – not in the context of the specific statutory guidance that the Board has given to make these sometimes difficult, sometimes controversial decisions. So there’s a process issue there, obviously. That’s up to the Legislature to decide. In looking at the language that was passed by the House, I think that language is somewhat unclear. The intentions may be clear to some, but reading this language and trying it in a proceeding where there are many participants and people are insisting on the law literally being applied as they would interpret it, I could see some potential confusion here. First of all, it would seem to only apply to the reclassification proceeding, not the outstanding resource water proceeding, which is not a reclassification. At least, that’s not the term used in the statute. I’ve never heard of it. I can understand how a lay person might think of the two as being synonymous, but in terms of a term of art, reclassify is not – at least arguably doesn’t include an outstanding resource water.

SEN. READY: In our draft it was supposed to say water reclassification or designation.

MR. BARTLETT: The other thing that I struggled with in reading this language is it’s not clear who this language is directed to, whether it’s directed to the Secretary – I’m reading the House language – that the reclassification shall not restrict accepted management practices for logging or traditional – um, as I already testified, I don’t think it would because those practices are – but nevertheless the question that isn’t clear to me is whether this language is saying to the Secretary once the Board reclassifies, as the manager of the waters, as the person who can enforce a classification proceeding, you should not enforce it or interpret it in a way that produces this result, or whether this is directed at the Board saying before you make this decision be sure these things don’t happen. I’m sure lots of different people could read it lots of different ways, and that’s a concern I would have because if we then get into a proceeding where there are contending points of view, there is a lot of room for – so that’s my take on the House side.

SEN. READY: Can you comment on this version we worked on last week?

MR. BARTLETT: I think this language which I’m looking at draft 4?

SEN. READY: Yes.

MR. BARTLETT: …..is clearer. I think removing the judicial and regulatory is a good idea because, for example, reclassifications are rulemaking proceedings, and I’m sure somebody could make an argument that they are also regulatory, but it’s unclear. I would say that it could be clarified further if you wanted to cite specifically to the statutory authority under which the Board reclassifies and makes outstanding resource water designation, then there can’t be any ambiguity. I would also suggest in that regard that the word “streams” might be changed to “waters.” I assume that you intend this to apply - if there’s a lake or pond in the Nulhegan Basin, I assume you intend this (interrupted)

SEN. READY: Where does it say streams?

MR. BARTLETT: The third line. Waters is the defined term that’s used. I think the Board would interpret it to mean waters, but again the less arguments we have from lawyers who want to worksmith this to death – and then the other thought I would offer is if you’re going to talk about traditional and recreational uses, at least I believe somewhere in this bill there’s a list of what those uses are, and maybe if there was a tieback to that.

SEN. READY: Well, it’s in the same section.

MR. BARTLETT: Yeah, maybe that’s over clarification.

SEN. RIEHLE: Right above it in Section 3 we sort of define that.

MR. BARTLETT: Well, but again, I would say I can’t fathom any way that recreational uses are impacted. I’ve been frankly flabbergasted at the questions that I’ve gotten from legislators and others. I mean, all the waters in the state above 2500 feet are Class A waters. That’s where all our ski areas are. That’s where the Long Trail is. That’s where a good part of the Catamount Trail is. I’m sure some VAST trails must go through. People hunt there. People hike.

SEN. READY: Well, there’s (inaudible) logging (inaudible).

MR. BARTLETT: The logging part, as I said, is potentially slightly different, but again, there is a presumption, and that presumption has never been challenged. In fact, I went so far – and I’d be happy to distribute it; I don’t know if I have enough for everyone in the room. I didn’t realize there was going to be quite such an audience. I could certainly get more copies of this.

SEN. READY: We need one for our staff.

MR. BARTLETT: Oh, I’m sorry. This information comes from the Environmental Board’s database, and I asked Mike Zahner if he could tell me what right now logging activities above 2500 feet are subject to regulation under Act 250. Since 1986 which is when this report begins, waters above 2500 feet have also been Class A waters by act of the Legislature. As part of the Act 250 review process under Criteria I the Environmental Board or the District Commissions look at whether the activity complies with the water quality standards. So this is a record of logging under the most highly regulated circumstance in the state. This is more regulation than would occur if some part of the Nulhegan or any other watershed was reclassified to A because that wouldn’t trigger Act 250 jurisdiction. That only occurs if it’s above 2500 feet. So I would submit this is the worst case scenario for logging. It’s Class A. The water quality standards apply. The presumption theoretically could be challenged, and it also has to go through Act 250 and meet all the other criteria of Act 250. In that 13 years there have been a total of 26 logging projects. All have been approved. None were denied. Nineteen were treated as minor projects. Seven were treated as major projects. And you can tell by the permit number, the first number in the permit number tells you what Act 250 district the activity occurred in. Number 7 would be essentially the Northeast Kingdom.

SEN. READY: When are we going through Act 250 for logging?

MR. BARTLETT: Because it’s above 2500 feet. There’s a jurisdiction that is triggered above 2500 feet.

SEN. READY: But there’s no land above 2500 feet.

SEN. RIEHLE: Right. That’s his point.

MR. BARTLETT: Right, in the Nulhegan. I’m just trying to show, since a lot of this has to do with people’s confidence in – I just was trying to interject into the discussion the fact that this is the worst case scenario. And here’s the record. Now, take it or leave it. But I just thought that might be helpful to put this in some context.

SEN. READY: Okay. Quick question. Do you have any problem with this language?

MR. BARTLETT: No, I think your language – with all due respect I think it’s clearer what the outcomes are.

SEN. RIEHLE: And that’s the most recent draft, the one with participate in Water Resources Board (interrupted)

MR. BARTLETT: Yes. Again, I suggest a couple of edits if you want to consider them for clarification. It changes your language.

SEN. RIEHLE: Could I just ask you – now, I have some language that was given to me – and they suggest, Steve – to include after “continued” but not on this piece so maybe it’s redundant – on lands which are subject to working forest or public access easements.

MR. BARTLETT: To restrict it to only those lands.

SEN. RIEHLE: Yes. So who does that – I mean, does that stay in place for a week (inaudible).

SEN. READY: I don’t know. We haven’t had a presentation on the language. It’s hard to comment.

SEN. RIEHLE: Well, I’m just telling you, it adds after the last word: recreational uses are continued, to add: on lands which are subject to working forest or public access easements.

SEN. CHARD: And the purpose is to?

SEN. READY: What does that do?

SEN. CHARD: That’s what I’m asking her.

-----: (Inaudible) which is what this is all about (inaudible) land is subject to the working forest easement (inaudible-someone talking faintly from the sidelines).

SEN. RIEHLE: (Inaudible) clarify and (inaudible) certain lands we’re talking about. I only want this as clear as we can.

MR. BARTLETT: As drafted this would seem to be universal. I don’t think it’s even limited to the Nulhegan. Frankly, I think the Board would welcome ANR’s – they often do, but I’m sure if I went back and looked, they don’t participate in every proceeding. Clearly, the state agency that’s responsible for managing the waters - I think it would be helpful to the decision-maker if we had their input. If they don’t participate, we sort of assume they don’t care which way we decide the question, but still it would be helpful to proactively have their views.

SEN. RIEHLE: So I guess it’s a question of whether we want to take up that issue.

SEN. READY: Okay, thanks, Bill.

MR. BARTLETT: Thank you.

SEN. READY: I thought Emily was bringing us some language. Does the committee agree to change streams to waters?

SEN. RIEHLE: Oh, yes.

SEN. CHARD: Yes.

SEN. READY: And do you like that idea that Cheryl brought in (inaudible) on the camps?

SEN. SPAULDING: I’d like to hear about that.

SEN. CHARD: I have a little trouble with it.

SEN. CANNS: I have a little trouble with it.

SEN. READY: You do?

SEN. MacDONALD: On state lands, federal lands or all lands?

(Several inaudible comments.)

SEN. SPAULDING: Well, I think she was just proposing state land. My question is – and I’d like to – I don’t know if anybody has it – is that I’d like to refresh my memory on what the leases are now, which I think is five years, right?

SEN. CHARD: Yes, that was my recollection.

SEN. SPAULDING: And here we’re going to have something that’s going to be owned by all of the people of the state, and I don’t know where those camps are, but it’s like a long time – I mean, perpetuity is a long time, and if 100 years from now they go, you know, we’d really like to have – the Long Trail goes near here, and why don’t we make this a camp that anybody that’s helped by this can use on weekends, or if turns out that the wildlife migrations are different and there are some other reasons, I don’t know why we want to say people that are currently having five-year leases are now having in perpetuity on land that’s owned by the entire state. I just don’t know. It strikes me as a rather (interrupted)

SEN. READY: It’s just that (inaudible).

SEN. SPAULDING: I know, that’s why (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: I know, and that’s what we’re doing, and so I have some concern about it.

SEN. READY: Well, we have to make a decision because – is your goal still to get this out today?

SEN. CHARD: What?

SEN. SPAULDING: Uh.

SEN. MacDONALD: (Inaudible) testimony (inaudible) these five-year leases which have been renewed in perpetuity, and I don’t know when they’ve been renewed over the years (inaudible).

SEN. SPAULDING: Actually, Mark, that’s a good question that went through my mind. I actually don’t know that whether 100 percent of them have always been renewed or every once in a great while there’s one that goes, you know (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: Goes on the market.

SEN. SPAULDING: Yes, and I don’t know why. I’d be careful about locking ourselves into something like that.

SEN. MacDONALD: When we listened to Senator Rivers (inaudible) sells it certainly falls within the 50-year (inaudible), but if they don’t sell it, (inaudible) and pass it down from generation to generation (inaudible). I think that was the intention of her proposal.

SEN. RIEHLE: That was, and I sort of have some questions about that, whether that’s really a state policy that I want to (interrupted)

SEN. SPAULDING: It would help me to hear the response from either Fish and Wildlife or the Agency or somebody that maybe knows more about it than I do.

SEN. READY: Okay, let’s hear just two seconds from (inaudible), but we do have to decide about the down (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: Right, I understand.

SEN. READY: Commissioner, if you want to make a comment.

COMM. REGAN: Sure. Well, I think the state would not prefer to have these perpetual leases. I think in general the state feels that it’s being generous if you will with terms of 50 years, and it’s better taking the situation as Senator Canns has pointed out where we may be creating new problems, not to mention all the issues that go over time with managing these leases, we prefer the kind of language that’s been created already.

SEN. RIEHLE: Because it doesn’t preclude – the language that we have, renewal for the life of the leaseholder for up to 50 years. That’s the guarantee, up to 50 years for the current leaseholder, but for not less than 20. But the reality may be that they will, in fact, renew the lease for a period of time, correct?

SEN. READY: It doesn’t preclude them.

SEN. SPAULDING: Well, at the end of 50 years they might.

SEN. RIEHLE: Right. It doesn’t say they can’t. All this is is kind of a guarantee for the life of the leaseholder. That’s the person who holds the lease, right? Up to 50 years, that’s the guarantee. But it doesn’t say that after 50 years the leaseholder’s son or daughter or grandson or granddaughter can say the lease is ending; I’d like that lease, and the state can say fine, this is the price.

SEN. MacDONALD: If you made that clear (inaudible).

SEN. READY: Okay, let’s get a sense of the committee, what would you like to do. Would you like to leave the language as it is or would you like to add in language that allows for more perpetual (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: Without a lot more testimony about things that are happening in other places and practice and so on, I would leave the language as it is. I’m not comfortable giving somebody something forever just because great grandfather was lucky enough to get it.

SEN. READY: Okay, Dennis(?), did you want to make a quick comment?

-----: Yes. I would suggest that you allow the current camp owners a one-time opportunity to buy that lot that they’re leasing, and those who choose to buy it, then own that less than an acre, and it resolves the state’s issues of favoritism and all these other issues. The ones who don’t opt to accept that, then it becomes private state land.

SEN. READY: Okay, thank you. All right, what would the committee like to do?

SEN. MacDONALD: Madam Chair, as someone who arrived at his present house in which I’ve lived (inaudible) 52 years ago, 50 years is a short time, and if I were subject to this, I would be tossed off two years ago (inaudible).

SEN. RIEHLE: You mean, you have a camp?

SEN. MacDONALD: It was purchased as an old farmhouse.

SEN. RIEHLE: Oh, but it was on the open market, it wasn’t in the middle of a forest.

SEN. MacDONALD: Fifty years is a long time, until it expires; then it’s a short time.

SEN. RIEHLE: Okay, I just don’t equate it to other kinds of real estate purchase.

SEN. READY: We’ve got several other issues that we need to deal with on this particular amendment, so I’d like to get a sense of the committee.

SEN. CANNS: Can I just comment?

SEN. READY: Yes, but we won’t be voting this amendment out if you keep commenting.

SEN. CANNS: My comment is that I feel as Senator Chard does, that it’s very doubtful that we can do anything else with this successfully, and we could even be challenged in court if we (inaudible). We could create more problems, and I think the commissioner has addressed this issue, and I move that we keep the same language that we have.

SEN. READY: Okay, Senator Canns has moved that we retain the language that we have.

SEN. MacDONALD: (Something inaudible about a straw vote.)

SEN. READY: Okay, I would vote to put in the perpetual language, but it sounds like we have to keep it the way it is. All right. There is one other issue that I think you might want to consider. This is Senator Illuzzi’s latest. Now, would the committee like to consider, on page 12 of the amendment – it’s in the Capital Bill – subchapter 2. Is this your work, Al?

MR. BORIGHT: No, it isn’t.

SEN. CHARD: BLH. Who is BLH?

MR. BORIGHT: Ben Huffman.

SEN. CHARD: Oh.

SEN. RIEHLE: All right. So it is Capital Bill lingo. Well, if it doesn’t fit in here, it will fit in there.

SEN. READY: We’re creating a council here, folks. The Senator is creating a council. The only thing I was wondering about it, it says that the representative of municipal government in Essex County shall serve as chair of the council. I don’t know if we want to designate (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: Let them elect their own chair. Where are you reading? There are nine voting members.

SEN. READY: On page 13. Page 13, right here, Julius.
SEN. CANNS: Okay, thank you.

SEN. RIEHLE: To be appointed by the state legislative delegation of Essex County.

SEN. READY: Oh, I didn’t see that. Where is that?

SEN. RIEHLE: Interesting.

SEN. READY: Where’s that?

SEN. RIEHLE: At the end of one.

SEN. CHARD: Actually if we amend that and just say in order to have it represent the whole state since these are state lands, we’ll let the Windham County delegation do it.

SEN. CANNS: Sounds good.

SEN. RIEHLE: Actually I think Chittenden County has more interest than the Northeast County at least from other debate, you would think we stick our nose in all the time.

SEN. CANNS: I’m on this one, but this changes things.

SEN. READY: Okay, let’s strike that. Would you want to say at the top the council shall consist of nine voting members appointed by the (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: Are we talking about the need for a council. Is that the first question?

SEN. READY: It is, but – yes, that’s right.

SEN. CHARD: What is – the job of the council is to (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: A forum. You serve as a forum to hear (inaudible).

SEN. READY: Well, listen, Helen’s got an excellent point. Do you like the idea or not?

SEN. CHARD: I do not object to an advisory council and especially if it will ease the angst of the other (inaudible). If you want to vote in a few minutes, I’m not sure that I am going to be able to go through this with a fine-tooth comb to see the red flags, see what I’m saying?

SEN. READY: We don’t have to go on the floor, though.

SEN. CHARD: I worry that everyone of these things I read has a bomb in it that I didn’t see the first time.

SEN. READY: Well, to be honest with you, there’s a couple of concepts that I have swirling around in my mind. One is that this isn’t a bad idea.

SEN. CHARD: I agree with that.

SEN. READY: The other is that there seems to be a lot of resistance to the federal ownership, and one thing that we could do, either here or somewhere else is to take up the notion of what lands – or somebody could consider – you know, we could appropriate the money for the easements on the 85,000 acres, and we could ask some group to consider whether or not there should be greater state ownership and whether or not there should be some kind of conservation bonds that would allow that to happen. And you know, there might be a broader use for conservation bonds in maintaining our state park infrastructure. So you know, I’m just saying that the idea of – obviously, I would like to appropriate these funds so that this deal can go forward in April. But you know, what we’re doing is we’re purchasing easements. The federal piece is not closing the day after tomorrow, and there is no reason somebody couldn’t be considering or looking at which portions might be federal and which portions might be state.

SEN. RIEHLE: Well, can I suggest that it might be more appropriate if we really want to pursue the idea of an advisory council and looking at some conservation bonds or whatever else they want to look at, that that be a separate bill.

SEN. CHARD: Well, that’s what you’re saying, isn’t it?

SEN. READY: I don’t know.

SEN. RIEHLE: Can submit it at a later date rather than try to (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: If the goal is to be a part of the budget adjustment act, the simple form that we have allows us to do that. Nothing in that form precludes an additional bill doing this.

SEN. RIEHLE: Right. That’s a good point.

SEN. CHARD: So, again, rather than just react, I’d rather stay with what we’ve really been working on, what we’re all comfortable with, and move it out of here.

SEN. READY: Okay.

SEN. CHARD: How do others feel?
SEN. MacDONALD: I agree.

SEN. RIEHLE: I guess I’m not totally opposed to the council.

SEN. CHARD: Nor am I. I want to make that clear.

SEN. READY: Well, the council seems kind of harmless.

SEN. RIEHLE: I think I’d like to think about it in a broader sense, and maybe it can do some of those bigger issues. Maybe it shouldn’t be just the northeast.

SEN. READY: Okay, that makes sense. Because I would like to consider this idea about conservation bonds and about whether we could have more state ownership instead of federal ownership, and we will get a chance to listen to people.

SEN. CHARD: Can you respectfully communicate that?

-----: (Inaudible comment about budget act.)

SEN. RIEHLE: No, no, not do it on the budget. Really look at it separately.

SEN. CANNS: (Inaudible) that suggestion. I think Illuzzi is working on it (inaudible). What we’re going to do actually is to buy the federal out and not have them in here at all because if at all possible because we feel safer with the control of the state of Vermont than we do with the federal government, and I brought that issue before the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and they seemed to be divided. One of them said, yes, it’s possible. The other one said, no, I didn’t want to get in their way, but we still are very much concerned with can we do that, and we’d like to do that somehow. The Senator suggested here we have been even talking about floating a bond issue so that everybody in the state of Vermont would become a part of this and perhaps to enlarge it to a conservation, but a bond would be the answer because we have a lot of sportspeople in the state of Vermont that would be interested in having the state ownership rather than the federal government.

SEN. READY: Well, that’s a good idea. I think that’s an excellent idea. We could work on it.

SEN. CHARD: And probably end up with strong support for it.

SEN. READY: And maybe even have a hearing on it. Because we didn’t get a chance to go up there, and we could maybe go up. So I expect some or all of this is going to be offered as an amendment. Okay, so (interrupted)

SEN. RIEHLE: That’s the problem.

SEN. SPAULDING: That’s the major issue going through my mind. This is a complicated piece of work. Either it’s got to go down or somebody has got to spend some time reading through this thing. He didn’t mention he’s got another $6.2 million appropriation in this thing.

SEN. READY: Well, I’ve been reading through it, then I say come on, but I can tell you that doesn’t mean that you’re not going to know what’s in it.

SEN. SPAULDING: Oh, I know.

SEN. CHARD: That makes me all the more convinced that we should handle what’s on our plate and let this surface as it needs to surface and will surface.

SEN. READY: All right. Now, Carl wants to present. Okay, here we go. This is the last one. Welcome, Carl.

Carl Powden
Manager, Champion Lands

Thank you. We apologize for our timing on this, but like yourselves, there are many parts moving, and we were losing track of this one. Essentially, what we’re asking for is the authorization for the state to be able to transfer an easement or place an easement on this property after it takes ownership. The Mellon Foundation is really gifting this property to the state. Ordinarily, when the state is purchasing lands, simultaneous with that purchase is the placing of an easement on those lands so that should the state at some point in the future decide to sell those lands, the intentions behind originally purchasing the property are protected as much as possible. So in order to do that, you need legislative authorization once the state owns the land, and that’s what this language would enable us to do.

SEN. READY: Would you object, Carl, if we didn’t put the number of acres since we might have this other go-around of how much is federal and what is state?

MR. POWDEN: I don’t think that matters.

SEN. RIEHLE: And the Mellons don’t care or the Foundation aren’t concerned about the language that recognizes there will be easement afterwards – there will be restrictions after they are deeded to the state?

MR. POWDEN: That’s the state’s choice. They want to be able to give the gift without restrictions on it.

SEN. READY: Does the Mellon want to give a larger gift?

MR. POWDEN: I think they’ve been asked once or twice.

SEN. RIEHLE: Why don’t they want restrictions? Does it increase the value so there’s a bigger tax deduction or something? I don’t understand that.

MR. POWDEN: I don’t know, but certainly if the land were restricted in advance of their purchasing it, the value would be less, without an easement on it in advance or essentially they were conveying it with a requirement that it be restricted.

SEN. CHARD: In other words, you’re not speculating on their motivation, but that’s a reality either way.

SEN. SPAULDING: Carl, can you help me read this, though?

MR. POWDEN: Sure.

SEN. SPAULDING: It looks like the Department and ANR are authorized to convey to the Housing and Conservation Board and the Vermont Land Trust a conservation and public access easement protecting the natural resources on and assuring public access to the approximately 22,000 acres of land. I mean, the way I read that it sounds like what we’re doing is actually placing an easement on the land, aren’t we? Is protecting the natural resources on and assuring public access – it sounds to me like it is restrictive.

MR. POWDEN: It does, but it’s after the state takes ownership. This is the standard practice.

SEN. SPAULDING: Yes, but just how does this relate to everything you just went through about wanting to make sure people can log on the state land and have camps on the state land and do all these things on the state land?

MR. POWDEN: It would be consistent. Should some future state government (interrupted)

SEN. SPAULDING: It doesn’t sound like it to me, that’s all. It sounds like it’s narrowing what you can do on the state land. Am I getting that wrong?

MR. POWDEN: I think you’re right, yes, yes. It’s really protecting – it’s an additional layer of protection should (interrupted)

SEN. READY: Well, why don’t we say consistent with this subchapter.

MR. POWDEN: That would be dandy.

SEN. RIEHLE: That would be dandy or dangerous?

MR. POWDEN: I assume dandy.

SEN. RIEHLE: Oh, okay.

SEN. READY: If we say consistent with this section or whatever. Can I just make a suggestion? If we said that and then if we struck the approximately 22 acres of land and said that portion of land.

SEN. SPAULDING: Because even above where it says the Foundation wishes to have the land conveyed in fee to the state without restrictions. See, what I say is we are putting on restrictions. We’re putting a lot of restrictions on. You’ve got to renew the camps. You’ve got to allow them to do this. And what it sounds to me like they’re asking for is, hey, no, we want to be able to have the land without restrictions.

MR. POWDEN: The restrictions that you are applying through your bill are once the state takes ownership, there are no restrictions on the Mellon Foundation or the Conservation Fund prior to the state taking ownership of that parcel. And this is just to ensure that the state (interrupted)

SEN. SPAULDING: Okay, all right.

SEN. READY: They’ve been working with them day and night.

SEN. SPAULDING: Just wanted to make sure it says what we’re trying to do.

SEN. READY: So what we’ll say is consistent with this is a section (interrupted)

MR. BORIGHT: You would add it in here. I think I would – it’s going to take me a couple of minutes figure out how to fit it in, but it’s a subdivision. It will be in a subdivision.

SEN. READY: In other words, just strike the approximately 22 acres and put in that portion of land. Does the committee like that?

(BREAK TO TURN TAPE OVER.)

SEN. READY: All right. How does everybody feel about this?

SEN. RIEHLE: This is fine. I don’t have a problem.

SEN. READY: So this is what it seems that we’ve done, and tell me if I’m wrong. Based on the draft 4.1, we have done nothing more on camps. We have changed under water reclassification, streams to waters. And we have done nothing on a study or on anything else, and that will possibly be a separate effort. And we have added this language here (inaudible) Al thinks is right. What else would you like to do?

SEN. RIEHLE: I just have a question on our definition of recreation on page 1 and going over to page 2, after hunting we further defined hunting to include training with and using hunting dogs. And then (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: And that because that’s a traditional use.

SEN. RIEHLE: Right. And we have identified other things for recreation so we’re going to (inaudible). But then when we go down to collaboration with federal agencies, we simply say hunting. Now, is that because they don’t want to allow dogs to hunt on federal property?

SEN. READY: No, it’s supposed to be in there.

SEN. RIEHLE: To be consistent, okay.

SEN. READY: Let’s have the same laundry list there.

SEN. RIEHLE: Okay, that was my question.

SEN. READY: Excellent eye.

SEN. RIEHLE: Well, you know, we have hunting dogs.

SEN. READY: Don’t want to leave them dogs out. Yes, Dennis.

-----: Hunting camps are one of those traditional uses. It wouldn’t hurt having that in there.

SEN. READY: It is. Sub one.

SEN. CANNS: Riding horses?

SEN. RIEHLE: What, riding horses?

SEN. CANNS: To the hounds?

SEN. RIEHLE: Ah, fox hunting. Shall we put traditional fox hunting?

SEN. READY: How about sled dogs on motorized sleds. Yes, Al.

MR. BORIGHT: Sen. Riehle made a suggestion on (interrupted)

SEN. READY: No, not like that, but if she wants to make a motion, any senator can. Are you making one?

MR. BORIGHT: No. I didn’t know if you wanted that explained.

SEN. CANNS: I would move the bill at this point.

SEN. RIEHLE: I’m not going to make that motion.

SEN. CANNS: At this point I think we’ve beat it to death by now. I move the bill.

SEN. RIEHLE: Can I just ask, why do we go from former to so-called?

SEN. CHARD: Yes, I wondered about that, too.

SEN. RIEHLE: What’s the difference?

SEN. CHARD: I don’t like so-called.

MR. BORIGHT: Because they’re not former at this point. They’re currently owned by (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: Oh, okay. All right. That makes sense.

MR. BORIGHT: And you want to avoid arguments about what was former at the moment it happens.

SEN. READY: Okay, Senator Canns moved.

SEN. CHARD: So-called sounds so slang. Do we need it?

SEN. RIEHLE: Can’t you just say the Champion Land?

SEN. READY: Senator Canns has moved that we amend this draft by adding the hunting dogs and the waters and the Mellon’s right to ease.

-----: The dogs, the waters and the Mellons.

SEN. RIEHLE: Watermelons?

SEN. READY: Okay, Senator Canns has moved that we amend draft 4.1 adding the dogs, the waters and the Mellons.

SEN. RIEHLE: Okay, back to our question. Do we even need so-called?

SEN. CHARD: Why can’t we just say Champion Lands?

MR. BORIGHT: How about lands referred to as Champion Lands because once they’re sold, they’re not Champion Lands.

SEN. CHARD: All right, okay, it’s obviously a legal point missed on me.

MR. BORIGHT: If so-called seems too slang-like, we could say lands referred to as – how about lands commonly referred to as Champion Lands?

SEN. CHARD: That would be better.

SEN. READY: Is that a friendly amendment?

SEN. CHARD: Yes, very friendly.

SEN. READY: Senator Canns has moved that we amend draft 4.1 with the dogs, the waters, the Mellons and the clarifying Champion language. Okay, Senator Canns?
SEN. CANNS: Yes.
SEN. MacDONALD: Yes.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes.
SEN. CHARD: Yes.
SEN. SPAULDING: Yes.
SEN. READY: Yes.

VOTE: 6-0-0

SEN. READY: Sen. Canns has moved that we ask the Appropriations Committee – how do you want to do this?

SEN. SPAULDING: What was the answer?

SEN. READY: I don’t know. I was going to suggest that we ask the Appropriations Committee to incorporate it. I don’t know, do you want to do it as a floor amendment? How do you want it?

SEN. SPAULDING: I don’t know, how do you want to do it? I’m happy to go either way. We should maybe think it through. We could do it as a Senate amendment. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the approach of having the Natural Resources Committee offering an amendment to the Appropriations Bill with our proposal. I don’t have any problem with that either.

SEN. CANNS: What would you suggest?

SEN. RIEHLE: I would actually prefer it be in the Appropriations Bill.

SEN. SPAULDING: You would?

SEN. RIEHLE: Yes.

SEN. CHARD: So would I.

SEN. RIEHLE: I’d like it to be a little package deal.

SEN. SPAULDING: Okay. Well, the only thing about that is – that’s fine with me, but then I hope that we can at least say this has been recommended by the Natural Resources Committee so that we’re not left out there to dry dealing with this when the Senator from Essex-Orleans gets up, and I’ve got to answer the questions.

SEN. RIEHLE: No, I just think that’s more powerful.

SEN. CHARD: I do, too. This is too important an issue for a floor amendment.

SEN. SPAULDING: Fine.

SEN. READY: Okay, yes, that’s a good thing, and then we can ask the chair to report it for both committees.

SEN. SPAULDING: I mean, the only thing I’m thinking of in the Appropriations Committee is if we go that route, I want to ask the question – because we haven’t addressed it – do we need to include the 260,000 or 250 or whatever the figure is for the holdharmless payments, and I thought it was going down, the number, in the budget adjustment.

SEN. READY: I think what we should do (interrupted)

SEN. MacDONALD: Perhaps the Finance Committee will make a similar recommendation to your committee.

SEN. SPAULDING: That would make sense.

SEN. READY: Then you can just report the whole thing.

SEN. SPAULDING: That would be fine.

SEN. READY: Okay, what would your next motion be? That we recommend this to be included (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: In the supplemental.

SEN. RIEHLE: Yes. And I think you’re on that committee.

SEN. READY: No, Jeb will.

SEN. SPAULDING: She can come in.

SEN. READY: Yes. So what’s the motion?

SEN. MacDONALD: I move that we recommend to the Appropriations Committee to amend the bill.

SEN. SPAULDING: That’s a good point. It’s within the realm of possibility that we’ll got outvoted, but we’ll do our best, won’t we?

SEN. RIEHLE: Well, if you don’t, then I would go back to offering this on the floor.

SEN. SPAULDING: Yes.

SEN. CHARD: Which is the other reason for doing it this way.

SEN. READY: What’s the motion before we have discussion? I’m sorry. I’m trying to get it down.

SEN. MacDONALD: That this committee recommend to the Appropriations Committee to include this.

SEN. SPAULDING: To amend the section of the Appropriations Bill related to the Champion Lands to incorporate our language. Do you want it short?

SEN. READY: I’m trying to write it down.

SEN. SPAULDING: In our committee I keep trying to get Elizabeth not to write these things down, but she always does. It’s fine – that we recommend to the Appropriations Committee incorporate our language relative to the Champion Lands into the portion of the bill dealing with Champion Lands. To substitute our language, I guess, for the (interrupted)

SEN. CHARD: For the House language.

SEN. SPAULDING: Right.

SEN. READY: We recommend that the Appropriations Committee substitute the Senate Natural Resources language in the supplemental budget, is that right?

SEN. SPAULDING: Yes, in the section with Champion bill, which happens to be…..

SEN. READY: Okay. Senator Canns.
SEN. CANNS: Yes.
SEN. MacDONALD: Yes.
SEN. RIEHLE: Yes.
SEN. CHARD: Yes.
SEN. SPAULDING: Yes.
SEN. READY: Yes.

SEN. READY: Okay, great. So, Jeb, are you going to do it?

SEN. SPAULDING: Well, I think you should explain it to the committee.

SEN. READY: Okay.

SEN. SPAULDING: I’m going to report the bill when it comes up on the floor, but we’ll all pitch in.

SEN. READY: All right. Great. Thank you all very much

END OF PORTION OF MEETING ON CHAMPION LANDS.