Combined sewer overflow outfalls; DEQ to identify owner of outfall discharging into Chesapeake Bay. (SB898)

Introduced By

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland) with support from co-patron Del. Kaye Kory (D-Falls Church)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); combined sewer overflow (CSO) outfalls; Potomac River Watershed. Directs DEQ to identify the owner of any combined sewer overflow outfall that discharges into the Potomac River Watershed and to determine what actions by the owner are necessary to bring the outfall into compliance with the Presumption Approach described in the CSO Control Policy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). The bill requires any owner of such an outfall to bring it into compliance with the EPA policy by July 1, 2020. When the owner is a locality and it fails to meet the 2020 compliance deadline, the bill directs the Governor to withhold all state appropriations from the locality until it brings the outfall into compliance. The bill does not apply to any outfall for which a higher level of control is necessary to comply with a TMDL. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Passed

History

DateAction
12/22/2016Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/17 17100814D
12/22/2016Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
01/12/2017Impact statement from DPB (SB898)
01/12/2017Reported from Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources with substitite (10-Y 3-N) (see vote tally)
01/12/2017Committee substitute printed 17104109D-S1
01/13/2017Incorporates SB818 (Surovell)
01/16/2017Constitutional reading dispensed (39-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
01/17/2017Read second time
01/17/2017Floor substitute printed 17104358D-S2 (Ebbin)
01/17/2017Reading of substitute waived
01/17/2017Committee substitute agreed to 17104109D-S1
01/17/2017Committee substitute reconsidered (39-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/17/2017Passed by for the day
01/18/2017Passed by for the day
01/19/2017Read second time
01/19/2017Floor substitute printed 17104434D-S3 (Stuart)
01/19/2017Reading of substitute waived
01/19/2017Committee substitute rejected 17104109D-S1
01/19/2017Substitute by Senator Ebbin withdrawn 17104358D-S2
01/19/2017Substitute by Senator Stuart agreed to 17104434D-S3
01/19/2017Engrossed by Senate - floor substitute SB898S3
01/19/2017Impact statement from DPB (SB898S3)
01/20/2017Passed by for the day
01/23/2017Read third time and passed Senate (39-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
01/30/2017Placed on Calendar
01/30/2017Read first time
01/30/2017Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources
02/06/2017Assigned ACNR sub: Chesapeake
02/15/2017Subcommittee recommends reporting with substitute (7-Y 0-N)
02/15/2017Reported from Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources with substitute (22-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/15/2017Committee substitute printed 17105511D-H1
02/16/2017Read second time
02/17/2017Read third time
02/17/2017Committee substitute agreed to 17105511D-H1
02/17/2017Engrossed by House - committee substitute SB898H1
02/17/2017Passed House with substitute BLOCK VOTE (99-Y 0-N)
02/17/2017VOTE: BLOCK VOTE PASSAGE (99-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/21/2017House substitute rejected by Senate (1-Y 38-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/22/2017House insisted on substitute
02/22/2017House requested conference committee
02/23/2017Senate acceded to request (39-Y 0-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
02/23/2017Conferees appointed by Senate
02/23/2017Senators: Stuart, Wagner, Surovell
02/23/2017Conferees appointed by House
02/23/2017Delegates: Lingamfelter, Wilt, Plum
02/24/2017C Amended by conference committee
02/24/2017Conference substitute printed 17105887D-S4
02/24/2017Conference report agreed to by House (61-Y 34-N)
02/24/2017VOTE: ADOPTION (61-Y 34-N) (see vote tally)
02/25/2017Conference report agreed to by Senate (32-Y 7-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
03/07/2017Enrolled
03/07/2017Bill text as passed Senate and House (SB898ER)
03/07/2017Signed by Speaker
03/10/2017Signed by President
03/13/2017Impact statement from DPB (SB898ER)
03/13/2017Enrolled Bill Communicated to Governor on 3/13/17
03/13/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, March 27, 2017
03/24/2017Governor's recommendation received by Senate
04/05/2017Senate rejected Governor's recommendations #1, #3 (10-Y 29-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/05/2017Senate rejected Governor's recommendation #2 (14-Y 25-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/05/2017Senate rejected Governor's recommendation #4 (15-Y 24-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/05/2017Motion to pass in enrolled form rejected (23-Y 16-N 1-A) (see vote tally)
04/05/2017Requires 27 affirmative votes to pass in enrolled form
04/05/2017Communicated to Governor
04/05/2017G Governor's Action Deadline Midnight, May 5, 2017
04/26/2017G Approved by Governor-Chapter 827 (effective 7/1/17)
04/26/2017G Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0827)

Video

This bill was discussed on the floor of the General Assembly. Below is all of the video that we have of that discussion, 5 clips in all, totaling 1 hour.

Transcript

This is a transcript of the video clips in which this bill is discussed.



Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): THAT THE HOSTS AND ORGANIZERS FOR THOSE CLINICS HAVE THE SAME PROTECTIONS. IT EXTENDS THOSE PROTECTIONS PAST JUST EXISTING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND IT GIVES IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ADMINISTER, ORLGZ, ARRANGE OR PROMOTE THE CHARITABLE CLINIC. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, MR. PRESIDENT, LET'S SAY THERE'S A CHAURCH THAT HOLD AND FREE DENTAL CLINIC AND LET'S SAY THE CUB SCOUTS THAT ADVERTISE OR PROMOTE THAT AS A PART WHATEVER THEY DO IN THE COMMUNITY. THOSE LIABILITY PROTECTIONS, IMMUNITY PROTECTIONS WOULD BE EXTENDED TO THEM. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND THOSE WHO MAY BE MEMBERS OF THE BAR, THIS DOES NOT EXTEND TOTAL IMMUNITY IF THERE ARE AXES OF GROSS NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT THAT TAKE PLACE BY THESE PEOPLE TO WHOM WE ARE EXTENDING THE LIABILITY PROTECTION. THAT WOULD NOBT COVERED, SO IT'S A GOOD IMMUNITY PROVISION THAT EXTENDS TO THOSE WHO DO SO MUCH FOR US IN THE UNDERSERVE AND UNDERPRIVILEGED MEDICAL SERVED AREAS AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK THAT THIS BILL PASS.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY, SENATOR PETERSEN.

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FA A QUESTION?

[Unknown]: THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?

Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax): YES, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Unknown]: I'D ASK THE YES, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S AN EXISTING STATUTE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS WHICH PROTECTING HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS FOR SERVICES THAT THEY RENDER FOR FREE IN THIS CONTEXT, CORRECT? THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I'D ANSWER THE GENTLEMEN BAY BY SAYING YES, THERE IS, AND THERE'S THO PIECE OF LEGISLATION WHAT WE'RE SEEKING TO EXTEND THAT PROTECTS HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AS WELL. THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST HE. I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN IN LINE 18 IN WHICH THE EXISTING LAW EXISTS, THAT IT USES THE PHRASE VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT COMPENSATION TO EXPRESS THOSE SERVICES THAT ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE STATUTE. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I'D ANSWER THE FINE GENTLEMEN BY SAYING, YES, IT DOES. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. DOES THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I THINK HE YIELDS, SENATOR. I YIELD. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMAN THAT THAT SAME PHRASE IS NOT COPIED AND PASTED INTO THE NEW TEXT IN WHICH WE'RE ADDING A NEW CLASS OF PEOPLE TO BE PROTECTED, IS THAT CORRECT? SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE TEXT IS THERE AND READS FOR ITSELF AND I AGREE WITH HIM IT DOES NOT HAVE THOSE WORDS AS FOUND IN THE CODE ALREADY STATED. FURTHER QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION. YES, MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LOVE TO. I'D ASK THE GENTLEMEN, THAT BEING THE CASE, WE ARE ACTUALLY PROTECTING PEOPLE THAT MAY BE PROVIDING SERVICES FOR A FEE UNDER THIS STATUTE FOR THE FIRST TIME. SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ANSWER THE GENTLEMEN BAY SAYING, THERE MAY BE THOSE OCCASIONS WHERE A CHURCH THAT PROVIDES THIS SERVICE FOR CHARITABLE HEALTHCARE MAY BE EITHER PAID A FEE OR COMPENSATED FOR WHATEVER KIND OF INSURANCE OR COST THAT MAY BE INCURRED, AND BY THAT ALONE, WE MIGHT THINK THAT THAT IS NOT WITHOUT COMPENSATION OR VOLUNTARILY. THIS CAPTURES NOT ONLY THOSE SITUATIONS, BUT THOSE OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE PERSONS, ADMINISTRATORS, BOY SCOUTS, CHURCHES OFFER IT FOR FREE SO IN THAT INSTANCE, MR. PRESIDENT, LET'S SAY IF THE BOY SCOUTS WHO ARE ADVERTISING AND GOING TARND AROUND TO BUSINESSES AND TRYING TO GET HELP AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE GET TO THIS CHARITABLE MEDICAL CARE, REFER A DONATION TO THAT YOU ARE BOY SCOUT OR CUB SCOUT GROUP, ONE COULD CONSIDER THAT IS WITH COMPENSATION AND WOULD EXEMPT THEM FROM WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THEM WITH. THE SENATOR YIELD FOR AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION? I WILL, MR. PRESIDENT. WE CAN GO OUTSIDE AND TALK ABOUT IT OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO IT HERE. I WOULD ASK THE GENTLEMAN, I UNDERSTAND HIS ANALOGY OR HIS USE OF THE BOY SCOUT OR A CHURCH, BUT LET'S SATE ORGANIZER OF THIS MEDICAL HEALTH CLINIC OR THIS RURAL HEALTH CLINIC GOES AND BICE A SEFRT TIRES FOR THE HEALTH WAGON AND THEN TURNS AROUND AND DOESN'T PAY FOR THOSE TIRES. WILL HE NOT BE IMMUNE FROM HAVING TO PAY FOR THOSE TIRES UNDER THIS NEW LANGUAGE? THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY. MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD ANSWER BY SAYING I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T THINK HE WOULD BE IMMUNE FROM THAT AT ALL. I'LL SPEAK TO THE MEASURE. THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ARE THE SENATE, I QUESTION PLI GOOD FRIEND FROM FRANKLIN FOR TWO REASONS. ONE IS I DON'T WANT THE FRESHMAN IN THIS BODY TO THINK WE NEVER HAVE DEBATES ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, WHICH A LOT OF YOU DO, BUT IMMUNITY BILLS ARE LIKE TAX CREDITS. ONCE THEY GET CREATED, THEY NEVER GO AWAY AND THEY TEND TO EXPAND. THERE'S A LOT OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE THE SAME WAY, BY THE WAY, AND WITH THIS IMMUNITY BILL, IT WAS PUT IN PLACE TO PROTECT MEDICAL PROVIDERS, NOT DJs, NOT PROMOTERS, NOT BUS DRIVERS, NOT PEOPLE THAT BRING PEOPLE TO THE MEDICAL CLINIC. THEY WERE TO PROTECT MEDICAL PROVIDERS AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE EXPANDING THE STATUTE TO COVER PEOPLE THAT GET PAID FOR THEIR SERVICE. WELL, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT GET PAID THAT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY UNIQUE. THEY HAVE SOMETHING CALLED INSURANCE AND INSURANCE MEANS THAT WHEN PEOPLE GET HURT, THEY GET COMPENSATED AND WHEN YOU PUT A STATUTE LIKE THIS ON THE BOOKS, THAT MEANS THERE'S NO CLAIM, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO INSURANCE, WHICH MEANS THERE'S NO RECOVERY. SO YEAH, MAYBE I'M A TRIAL ATTORNEY, MAYBE THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT OF THIS, BUT I'VE REPRESENTED PEOPLE THAT ARE IN SITUATIONS WHERE THEY GET HURT AND THERE'S NO INSURANCE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CREATING IN THIS SITUATION, SO LISTEN, I UNDERSTAND THE STATUTE, IT'S A GOOD STATUTE, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS IT'S STARTING TO BECOME SOMETHING IT WASN'T INTENDED TO BE, AND SO I DON'T THINK EXPECT MORE THAN A FEW PEOPLE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS, BUT I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE CREATING A CLASS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GOING TO GET A RECOVERY IF THEY GET INJURED AND THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATOR FROM HANOVER, SENATOR McDOUGLE.

Sen. Ryan McDougle (R-Mechanicsville): MR. PRESIDENT, WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM FRANKLIN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WOULD THE GENTLEMAN FROM FRANKLIN YIELD FOR A QUESTION?

Sen. Ryan McDougle (R-Mechanicsville): I WAS JUST SITTING HERE, BUT SURE, I'LL YIELD.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT, I WANTED TO ASK THE GENTLEMEN IF THIS WOULD APPLY TO ORGANIZERS OF EVENTS IF THEY WERE PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGISTS. THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY. MR. PRESIDENT, I AM PROUD TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. THAT I WOULD SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM HANOVER THAT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGISTS KNOW AND WANT TO BE A PART OF CHARITABLE CARE. IN FACT, IF I MAY SAY, I KNOW ONE PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGIST WHO HAS BEEN DOWN THERE OFFERING AND ADMINISTERING CHARITY CARE AND WE ARE ETERNAL GRATEFUL AND WHILE HIS NAME ESCAPES ME RIGHT NOW, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD APPLY TO PEDIATRIC NEUROLOGISTS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENIOR SENATOR FROM LOUDON, SENATOR BLACK.

Sen. Dick Black (R-Leesburg): THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I RISE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE -- OF THE BILL. YEARS AGO, I WAS PLEASED TO, TO VISIT WITH ONE OF THESE CLINICS IN LOUDOUN COUNTY. THEY SERVE A VARIETY OF PEOPLE, MANY OF THEM OF UNCERTAIN CITIZENSHIP, BUT THEY'RE PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK AND THEY NEEDED HELP AND IN GOING AROUND, I WAS REALLY STRUCK BY THE PERSONAL SACRIFICE OF PEOPLE WHO WENT AND DID THIS, AND I WAS PLEASED TO SPONSOR THE BILL THAT CREATED THE ORIGINAL IMMUNITY FOR THE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS. YOU HAVE THE VOLUNTEER HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A STRUCTURE TO HOLD THE WHOLE THING TOGETHER. I WILL GUARANTEE YOU, HAVING SEEN THESE, THERE IS NOBODY WHO IS LINING THEIR POCKETS AND MAKING A FORTUNE ON ADMINISTERING THESE CLINICS. THEY ARE, THEY ARE RUN ON A SHOESTRING, VERY LITTLE MONEY TO THEM, AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO IT AND IN A FAIRLY SACRIFICIAL WAY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT AND HAVE CONTINUITY, YOU CAN'T JUST THROW IT TOGETHER STRICTLY WITH VOLUNTEERS. TYPICALLY, YOU GOT TO HAVE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE WHO DO THE ADMINISTRATION, WHO RECRUIT THE PHYSICIANS AND THE NURSES AND ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, AND SO THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING ADDED AND TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN ANYBODY CAN GET INSURANCE IF THEY CAN AFFORD INSURANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEING PAID TO THE ADMINISTRATORS OF THESE POOR LITTLE CLINICS IS SUFFICIENT AND I WOULD NOT LIKE TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON THEM, SO I THINK THAT THE WAY THAT THE BILL IS DRAFTED, I THINK IT'S DONE VERY SKILLFULLY IN A VERY MEASURED FASHION. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE TRIAL BAR, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP THESE CLINICS FUNCTIONING, THAT WE PROVIDE THIS IMMUNITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATOR. THANK YOU.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE SENATE WILL STAND AT EASE. ONE OF THE PAGES JUST COLLAPSED, SOIL BE RIGHT BACK. -- SO I WILL BE RIGHT BACK. [ GAVEL BANGING ] THE SENATE WILL COME TO ORDER. THANK YOU FOR THAT BRIEF RECESS, EVERYBODY IS FINE, SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH BUSINESS. THE SENATOR FROM ROCKINGHAM, SENATOR OBENSHAIN.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE FURTHER EXPERIENCE DO ANY MORE HARM CONCERNING THIS BILL, I WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS BILL TO GO BYE FOR THE DAY.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THANK YOU, SENATOR. WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 981 WILL GO BYE FOR THE DAY.

Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg): UNCONTESTED CALENDAR, SENATE BILLS ON SECOND READING.

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM JAMES CITY COUNTY, SENATOR NORMENT.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): MR. PRESIDENT, BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION ON THAT, I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND THE BODY OF A VERY INTERESTING FACT OF LIFE. WE HAVE 38 DAYS LEFT. YESTERDAY, 289 BILLS WERE DROPPED INTO LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. THAT BILL IS PROBABLY GOING TO PASS WITH 37 VOTES AND WE ARE A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE AND I RESPECT THAT, BUT WE JUST, TO BE -- NEED TO BE MINDFUL THAT THE VELOCITY OF LEGISLATION IS GOING TO INCREASE AND I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT WANT TO CHILL ANYONE'S OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, BUT YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT SOME PRAGMATISM HERE. WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY MOVE THAT ALL THE SENATE BILLS ON THE SECOND READING ON THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR, INCLUDING ALL SENATE BILLS ON PAGE 5 THROUGH PAGE 8, INCLUDING SENATE BILL 852 THROUGH SENATE BILL 1164, BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THEIR THIRD READING IN THE BLOCK AFTER THE ADOPTION OF ANY AMENDMENTS, THAT ANY SENATOR WHO DESIRES TO REMOVE A BILL SHOULD PLEASE DO SO AFTER THE CLERK HAS READ THE NUMBER OF THE BILL.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL ALL SENATE BILLS ON SECOND READING OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR ON PAGES 5 THROUGH 8, SENATE BILL 852 THROUGH SENATE BILL 1164, BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THEIR THIRD READING IN THE BLOCK AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS THERETO, THAT ANY SENATOR DESIRING TO REMOVE A BILL FROM THE BLOCK WOULD DO SO AFTER THE CLERK HAS READ THE NUMBER OF BILL. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. [ AYES EXPRESSED ] THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE MOTION IS AGREED TO.

Sen. Tommy Norment (R-Williamsburg): SENATE BILL 852. REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WITH A

[Unknown]: THE SENATOR FROM FRANKLIN SUBSTITUTE. COUNTY, SENATOR STANLEY.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): I MOVE MOVE THAT THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED

[Unknown]: THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE TO. COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE SUBSTITUTE IS AGREED TO.

Sen. Bill Stanley (R-Moneta): SENATE BILL 856 REPORTED FROM THE COME OAT AGRICULTURE, CONNECT AND NATURAL RESOURCES. SENATE BILL 909 REPORTED FROM THE COME OAT AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES. SENATE BILL 910, REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES. SENATE BILL 911, REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES. SENATE BILL 940, REPORTED OUT OF THE COMMITTEE ON REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE.

[Unknown]: MR. PRESIDENT. THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN CHESAPEAKE, SENATOR COSGROVE.

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake): THANK YOU. MR. PRESIDENT, SENIOR SENIOR FROM CHESAPEAKE, I WILL LIKE PULL SB 940 FOR THE PURPOSES OF A MOTION.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): WITHOUT OBJECTION, SENATE BILL 940 WILL COME OUT OF THE BLOCK.

Sen. John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake): SENATE BILL 941 REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES. SENATE BILL 968 REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES. SENATE BILL 1122, REPORTED FROM THE COME OAT REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES. SENATE BILL 1164 REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON REHABILITATION AND SOSH SERVICES.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, MADAM CLERK. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE SENATE BILLS BE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THEIR THIRD READING. THAT IS ALL BILLS SENSE 940 ON PAGE 6. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE BILLS ARE ENGROSSED AND ADVANCED TO THEIR THIRD READING. RETURNING TO PAGE 6, SENATE BILL 940, THE SENATOR FROM SOUTHERN CHESAPEAKE, SENIOR COSGROVE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I WOULD MOVE THAT SENATE BILL 940 BE REREFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE ON REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES. I'VE BEEN NOTIFIED BY A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATION FOLKS THAT THERE'S A CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER BILL. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL SENATE BILL 940 BE RECOMMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON REHABILITATION. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. [ AYES EXPRESSED ] THOSE OPPOSED NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE BILL IS RECOMMITTED TO REHABILITATION COMMITTEE. REGULAR CALENDAR, SENATE BILLS ON SECOND READING. SENATE BILL 898, RELATING TO DIRECT COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS OF CERTAIN COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW OUTFALLS, POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED. REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES WITH A SUBSTITUTE. AND THERE IS A FLOOR SUBSTITUTE. THE SENATOR FROM STAFFORD, SENATOR STUART.

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): MR. CHAIRMAN -- SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, I MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE ADOPTED.

[Unknown]: THANK YOU, SENATOR. THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION WILL SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. THE SUBSTITUTE IS AGREED TO. THE SENATOR FROM XRARND DRA, SENATOR EBBIN.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY.

[Unknown]: YES, SENATOR.

Sen. Adam Ebbin (D-Alexandria): THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE WAS DISTRIBUTED. IS THAT DISCUSSED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE OR AFTER?

[Unknown]: THAT'S OUT OF ORDER PRESENTLY BECAUSE HIS SUBSTITUTE WAS JUST AGREED TO. I THOUGHT I -- IN ORDER TO COME TO YOUR SUBSTITUTE, HIS SUBSTITUTE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO BE REJECTED. AND IT WAS JUST PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. IS THERE A -- THE SENATOR FROM FAIRFAX CITY. [ INAUDIBLE COMMENTS ]

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE QUESTION IS SHALL THE VOTE BY WHICH SENATE BILL -- THE SUBSTITUTE WAS AGREED TO BE RECORD THEIR VOTES AYE, THOSE OPPOSED NO. ARE THE SENATORS READY TO VOTE? HAVE ALL THE SENATORS VOTED? DO ANY SENATORS DESIRE TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE? THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.

[Unknown]: AYES 39, NOS 0. RULE 36-1. AYES 39, NOS 0, RULE 36-1. THE SUBSTITUTE WILL BE RECONSIDERED. THE SENATOR FROM STAFFORD, SENATOR STUART.

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD -- I'M SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, I WOULD MAKE THE SAME POTION. I THINK I NEED TO DEFER TO THE SENATOR FROM ALEXANDRIA.

[Unknown]: I MOVE THAT THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE BE AGREED TO AND SPOKING TO THAT MOTION -- SPEAKING TO THAT MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE BE ACCEPTED. I MOVE THE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE BE REJECTED. AND SPEAKING -- AND THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE BE ADOPTED? IS THAT THE SAME MOTION?

Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): SENATOR, HE HAS MADE THE MOTION TO AGREE TO HIS SUBSTITUTE, SO YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE SUBSTITUTE.

[Unknown]: SPEAKING TO THE COMMITTEE THE SENATOR HAS THE FLOOR. SUBSTITUTE. THIS BILL ADDRESSES ALEXANDRIA DRA'S COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ISSUE AND ONLY ALEXANDRIAS, AND THE REASON IT DOES THAT IS BECAUSE THERE'S A LIKE 800 CITIES ACROSS THE PROBLEM. COUNTRY, INCLUDING RICHMOND AND LYNCHBURG, ALEXANDRIA AND THOSE WITH OLDER SEWER SYSTEMS WHEN IT RAINS, THE WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER CAN BE DISCHARGED AT THE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POINT. WHILE RICHMOND AND LYNCHBURG HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR AT LEAST 25 YEARS OR SO, ALEXANDRIA IS DEALING WITH IT AND IT'S UNDER A FULL COMPLIANCE WITH NINE EPA MINIMUM CONTROLS AND 95% OF OUR CITY IS SERVED BY SEPARATE SANITARY SEWERS WHICH FLOW TO A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS 5% OF THE CITY THAT DISCHARGE WASTE SERVING THE REMAINING 5% OF THE CITY OLDTOWN WHERE THE SEWERS WERE BUILT MANY YEARS BEFORE WE KNEW WE'D HAVE THIS KIND OF POPULATION WE SHARE TODAY. IT'S A COMPLEX ISSUE WITH MANY A FULLY DEVELOPED CITY WITH MANY HOMES AND HISTORIC STREETS THAT COVER I WANT NETWORK OF PIPES AND OUT -- COVER UP THE NETWORK OF PIPES AND YOUTH FLOWS. I HAVE THAT CONCERN AND THE CITY HAD A CERTAIN AS WELL. THE CITY AGREED TO TAKE PROACTIVE STEPS TO DEAL WITH THIS SOONER THAN REQUIRED TO BY FEDERAL LAW OR BY DEQ, AND I WANTED TO ACCELERATE THE PROCESS. I INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD HOLD THE CITY TO WHAT IT PROMISED TO DO. SENATOR SUROVELL INTRODUCED LEGISLATION TO ACCELERATE AND WE HAVE THE THIRD OPTION, THIS BILL WHICH WE HEARD IN COMMITTEE, SOME CALL THE NUCLEAR OPTION. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE THAT WE DEAL WITH THIS IN THREE YEARS AND I SPOKE TO DEQ. THEY COULDN'T FIND ON THE CSO IN THE YUNES OR DIDN'T KNOW OF -- UNITED STATES OR DIDN'T KNOW OF ONE THAT HAD BEEN DEALT WITH IN THREE YEARS, SO I TALKED TO THE CITY AND ASKED THEM TO SPEAK WITH ENGINEERS. I HAVE A LETTER FROM THE ENGINEERS AND TO SUM RISE, IT SAYS IF THE PROCESS WERE STARTED TODAY, THE EARLIEST THE FACILITIES COULD BE GIVEN THE CERTIFICATE TO OPERATE WOULD BE 2026 TO 2029. AND BECAUSE WE'RE BUILDING A SOLUTION TO CSOs NUMBER 2, 3 AND 4 IN A MORE CONCENTRATED AREA IN HUNTING CREEK, WE'D BE DEALING WITH 4, SO IT SAYS THAT BY 2028 WOULD BE AN EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. ALTERNATIVELY A DEADLINE OF 2030 WOULD STILL BE AGGRESSIVE BUT A BIT MORE REASONABLE. THAT'S WHAT THIS CALLS FOR. NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO ALL THE ENGINEERING, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WONDERING WHY DOES IT TAKE TO LONG AND IF YOU WANT TO BUILD A MULTI-MILLION-GALLON STORAGE TANK UNDER THE POTOMAC RIVER OR DIG UP POLLUTED RECONCILE AND PUT IT -- SOIL AND PUT I WANT THE STREETSES OF OLDTOWN OR DEAL WITH MUCH LARGER PIPES, THOSE ARE SOLUTIONS, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE PLANNED FOR. THERE'S A PLANNING PHASE A TASE WHERE YOU HAVE COMPLIANCE WITH NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AND YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH AND CONDUCT FACILITY PLANNING AND GEOTECHNICAL PHASE A DESIGN PHASE, A CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT PHASE, THE FINAL CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN EVEN TO START UP AND COMMISSION THIS PLANT, IT IS REQUIRED SIX MONTHS OF TESTING. THAT'S NINE TO TWELVE YEARS, SO THE STATE HAS ALREADY GIVEN US PERMITS FOR DEALING WITH THE OTHER THREE OUTFLOWS WHICH ARE QUITE SERIOUS, OF SEVEN TO NINE YEARS EACH. WE'VE INVESTED ABOUT 120 MILLION, WHICH I BELIEVE -- IN TOTAL, WE'RE WILLING TO INVEST 4,000 PER RESIDENT. LYNCHBURG AND RICHMOND HAVE GOTTEN ABOUT 100 MILLION TO 200 MILLION FROM THE STATE BETWEEN APPROPRIATIONS AND LOANS AND THEY'VE GOTTEN FEDERAL EARMARKS. WE HAD ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET THAT SENATOR SASLAW OBTAINS OR PUT IN THE BUDGET SEVERAL YEARS AGO, ONE MILLION DOLLARS WENT WE STARTED TO START THAT PLANNING AND THAT ONE MILLION DOLLARS WAS REMOVED. NOW, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MONEY TODAY, BUT THE COST PER RESIDENT WOULD LIKELY BE $4,000 PER RESIDENT TO DO ALL THIS, RUTTING IN A 50% INCREASE IN WATER BILLSES ON OUR MAN FOR OTHER OUTFLOWS IS BASED ON EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING STUDIES, COORDINATION WITH THE STATE. WE'VE GOT A LETTER FROM THE CITY'S BOND COUNSEL THAT THE UNDERLYING BILL IF THIS FLOOR SUBSTITUTE WERE TO BE REJECTED AND THE OTHER BILL TO PASS, QUOTE, MAY STRAIN THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POSITION TO THE POINT THAT THE VIABILITY OF THE CITY'S TRIPLE-A BOND RATING ARE BROUGHT INTO QUESTION. I HAVE A LETTER FROM ALEXANDRIA'S CHAMBER CALLING THE UNDERLYING BILL A DRACONIAN MEASURE THAT UNFAIRLY TARGETS ALL BUSINESS OWNERS, PUBLIC SAFETY SERVANT AND TEACHERS BASED ON THE KIND OF TAX INCREASES THAT COULD BE REQUIRE IN OTHER CUTS. XERND DRA WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. I WANT TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. EVENTUALLY UNDER EXISTING LAW, THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE ADDRESSED, BUT WHAT I'M PROMOTING HERE ON THE FLOOR SUBSTITUTE IS A REALISTIC WAY TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM, NOT A WAY THAT CAN'T BE MET, NOT A NUCLEAR OPTION THAT WOULD TAKE $150 MILLION, 15% OF ALL OUR FUNDING, $150 MILLION OF STATE FUNDING AWAY FROM US. I DON'T RECALL US DOING THIS TO ANYONE, BUT FURTHER, WHAT'S WORSE IS IT MAKES 140 OF US ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORS. DO WE KNOW THE COMPLEXITIES OF PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS? I LEARNED A LOT ABOUT THEM, BUT I DON'T KNOW OUTLINE ALL OF IT AND I COULD READ YOU ENGINEERING LETTER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO UNLESS SOMEONE ASKS ME TO. THIS IS A GROSSLY INAPPROPRIATE FINANCIAL PENALTY AND IT'S


Sen. Richard Stuart (R-Westmoreland): THIS HAS NOTHING DO WITH PEACEFUL PROTEST. MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T ENWHEELS KNOW WHATELSE TO SAY. WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS GIVES THE SAME PENALTY FOR RECKLESS DRIVING, MAXIMUM PENALTY THAT YOU COULD RECEIVE FOR RECKLESS DRIVING IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA IF YOU REFUSE TO STOP BREAKING


[Unknown]: [APPLAUSE] I ALSO MOVE THAT WHEN THE HOUSE ADJOURNS TODAY WE DO SO IN HONOR AND MEMORY OF WORTH SMITH. THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM PETERSBURG MOVES THAT WE ADJOURN IN THE HONOR AND MEMORY OF MR. SMITH. AS MANY AS FAVOR THAT MOTION WILL PLEASE RISE. THAT MOTION IS AGREED TO.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- MR. ADAMS.

[Unknown]: I RISE FOR A REQUEST.

Del. Bill Howell (R-Fredericksburg): THE GENTLEMAN MAY STATE IT.

[Unknown]: ON PAGE 30 OF THE CALENDAR,