Nine Years and $600 Million Later: Vermont Can't Swim in Most of Lake Champlain—Why?
If the state is spending so much money, why are our lakes and rivers still plagued by algae blooms and pollution?
When Vermonters see a $45 million annual clean water budget up for public comment, a common question arises: If the state is spending so much money, why are our lakes and rivers still plagued by algae blooms and pollution?
A recent social media post from the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) inviting public input on the upcoming budget is a case in point. According to a VBM report, the post frames the process as a collaborative choice, asking Vermonters how funds should be allocated among municipalities, farmers, and other stakeholders.
However, a deeper analysis of the state’s own reports, legal mandates, and stakeholder critiques reveals that this public-facing narrative, while procedurally correct, omits the most critical context. The $45 million figure is not a discretionary fund; it is a small installment on a multi-billion-dollar legal obligation.
This article fills in those missing pieces to provide a complete picture of Vermont’s clean water initiative, helping you understand the full scope of the challenge, the pace of progress, and the systemic fractures that must be addressed.
The Real Issue: A $2.5 Billion Legal Mandate, Not a Choice
The most important piece of missing context is that Vermont’s clean water spending is not optional. The entire initiative is a compulsory effort to comply with a federal “pollution diet” for Lake Champlain, legally known as a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL).
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which established the stringent TMDL in 2016 after a lawsuit by the Conservation Law Foundation, Vermont is legally required to reduce its share of phosphorus pollution by nearly 470,000 pounds per year. This federal order is the “club that forced state policy changes,” as one stakeholder described it.
The state’s response was the 2015 Clean Water Act (Act 64) and the 2019 Clean Water Service Delivery Act (Act 76), which created the regulatory and funding framework to meet this mandate.
The $45 million annual budget, therefore, is not a question of if we should spend, but how we must spend to meet our legal requirements. And the total cost is staggering. A 2017 report from the Vermont State Treasurer’s Office estimated that meeting the state’s 20-year clean water goals would require an investment of over $2.5 billion. More recent estimates for just one part of the cleanup—stormwater compliance—project a cost exceeding $700 million alone.
The Progress Report: $600 Million Spent, 26% of the Goal Met
So, where has the money gone, and what has it achieved?
According to the state’s 2024 Clean Water Initiative Annual Performance Report, Vermont has invested over $603 million in clean water projects since 2016. This spending is not from a single source but a “patchwork” of state money (like the Clean Water Fund and Capital Bill) and, critically, temporary federal aid from programs like the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).
This $603 million has funded a high volume of on-the-ground work, including:
Pollution-prevention projects on over 456,000 acres of agricultural land.
Upgrades to over 1,000 municipal road culverts to reduce erosion.
Treatment of stormwater runoff from over 3,360 acres of pavement.
Upgrades to more than 100 wastewater treatment systems.
The ultimate measure of success, however, is phosphorus reduction. The 2024 report states that these projects have successfully reduced annual phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain by an estimated 120,593 pounds.
This is the central fact Vermonters need to understand: That 120,593-pound reduction represents 26% of the total reduction required by the federal TMDL.
After nine years and over $600 million, the state has achieved roughly one-quarter of its legal goal. At this average pace, achieving the remaining 74% would take approximately 26 more years, pushing the potential completion date to around 2050. This multi-generational timeline is the clearest reason why Vermonters’ lived experience of polluted waters feels disconnected from the high price tag.
The Systemic Fractures: Why Progress is Slow
The official narrative often portrays a unified partnership. The reality, according to key stakeholders, is a system grappling with deep, structural conflicts that hinder progress.
1. The Agency “Turf War”
The Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the group that sued to force the TMDL, argues that progress is actively jeopardized by a “longstanding turf war” between the two state agencies responsible for agricultural pollution.
Under state law, the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) regulates “point source” farm pollution (like a pipe discharge), while the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (AAFM) regulates “non-point source” pollution (like field runoff).
Critics allege this split authority creates a dysfunctional system of enforcement. In a 2018 report card, CLF gave the state’s cleanup efforts a “D+.” More pointedly, ANR Secretary Julie Moore herself acknowledged in an interagency memo that the split “has led to tension and conflict between the agencies... and more time-consuming outcomes for water quality resulting in more pollution.”
According to a CLF investigation of public records, AAFM has allegedly delayed referring pollution incidents to ANR for enforcement and, in 2019, took an average of 177 days to finalize farm inspection reports. CLF and other environmental groups have since formally petitioned the EPA to intervene and consider forcing Vermont to consolidate all agricultural regulation under ANR.
2. The Farmer’s Economic Dilemma
From the agricultural community’s perspective, farmers are essential stewards who are being asked to bear an immense economic strain. The Vermont Farm Bureau (VTFB) has consistently argued that while farmers support clean water, they cannot be regulated into economic hardship.
Testifying before the legislature, the VTFB has stated that robust state funding is not a “subsidy” but a prerequisite for compliance. Many farms, especially small operations, simply cannot afford the costly new infrastructure and practice changes required by state regulations without significant financial and technical assistance from the state.
3. The Municipal Burden
For Vermont’s 246 cities and towns, the clean water mandate represents a potential fiscal crisis. According to the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT), municipalities are facing massive, often underfunded, mandates to upgrade wastewater plants, stormwater systems, and local roads.
A VLCT survey revealed 35 municipalities with a collective $240 million funding gap for planned water and sewer projects. The small town of Waitsfield, for example, received a $23 million feasibility study for a wastewater project after receiving only $500,000 in federal funds, illustrating the chasm between available aid and actual need. The VLCT argues that without a more reliable, non-competitive state funding source, local property taxpayers will be forced to shoulder this state and federal mandate.
An Informed Path Forward: What Vermonters Can Ask
Understanding this full context—that the clean water effort is a mandatory, multi-billion-dollar, multi-generational compliance program hampered by funding instability and governance failures—allows Vermonters to move beyond a simple budget survey and ask more pointed questions.
To make an informed determination, the public can demand accountability on three key issues:
Ask for the Audit. Vermont state law (10 V.S.A. § 1389b) required the Secretary of Administration to commission a comprehensive, independent audit of the Clean Water Fund and the performance of ANR and AAFM. This report was due to the legislature on January 15, 2023. Vermonters have a right to ask their representatives: Where is this audit, and what does it recommend?
Demand a Stable, Long-Term Funding Plan. The state’s reliance on temporary federal funds creates a “funding cliff.” Vermonters can ask state leaders for a transparent, long-term plan to pay the remaining ~$2 billion of this obligation without overburdening local property taxpayers.
Monitor the “Turf War” Resolution. The EPA is currently reviewing the petition to fix the ANR/AAFM jurisdictional conflict. The federal response to this petition may be the single most significant factor in determining whether Vermont can effectively enforce its own laws and accelerate the pace of the cleanup.
Progress has been made, but the state’s own data shows the road is long. Acknowledging the deep structural challenges with funding and governance is the necessary first step for any real solution.