An act relating to repealing the three-acre stormwater permit
H.162 would repeal Vermont’s statutory requirement that the Agency of Natural Resources issue a stormwater permit for discharges from impervious surfaces of three or more acres when those discharges were previously unpermitted or were permitted under the 2002 Stormwater Management Manual. In practical terms, the bill targets the so-called “three-acre stormwater permit” and would remove that specific permitting trigger from state law.
The bill is framed as a narrow change to Vermont’s water resources and stormwater regulatory framework. By eliminating the three-acre permit requirement, it would reduce or remove a permitting obligation for certain property owners and developers with large impervious surfaces, while also reducing the Agency’s regulatory reach over those stormwater discharges. The measure would affect the statutes governing conservation and development, water quality permitting, and stormwater management administration.
If enacted, H.162 would amend Vermont law by repealing the statutory basis for the Agency of Natural Resources to require permits for certain stormwater discharges associated with three or more acres of impervious surface. That would likely relieve some landowners, developers, and municipalities from an existing state permitting requirement tied to older stormwater standards, while also limiting the Agency’s authority to regulate those specific discharges through that permit program. The bill would therefore change how stormwater runoff from larger developed sites is regulated, but the short-form text does not indicate any replacement permitting standard or alternative compliance mechanism.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, amendments, or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to reflect a deregulatory or permit-relief approach to stormwater regulation, which may appeal to affected property owners and development interests. At the same time, because stormwater permits are closely tied to water quality protection, the proposal could draw concern from environmental regulators or conservation advocates.
The main point of contention is likely whether repealing the three-acre stormwater permit would appropriately reduce regulatory burden or instead weaken oversight of stormwater runoff and water quality impacts. Supporters would likely emphasize reduced permitting costs, administrative simplicity, and relief for existing developed sites. Opponents would likely focus on the risk of increased runoff, erosion, and pollution if a state permitting tool is removed without a substitute standard. No specific individuals, committees, or recorded positions are available in the provided materials.