USVI Public Records

Document text

Technical Comments on Bill 36-0074 1 Virgin Islands Roadside Property Maintenance and 2 Vegetation Act 3 4 Good morning Senator Blyden, members of the Committee, and those in attendance. 5 My name is Greg Guannel, and I’m the Director of the Caribbean Green Technology Center 6 at the University of the Virgin Islands. We develop and share knowledge on how 7 infrastructure, ecosystems, and institutions interact in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with the goal 8 of supporting more resilient and sustainable development of the islands. 9 Thank you for the opportunity to provide technical comments on Bill 36-0074. This bill 10 amends Virgin Islands law to require property owners to keep roadside vegetation trimmed 11 so it does not block public roads or utility lines. The Department of Public Works (DPW) can 12 inspect, issue notices, and if the owner fails to act within 30 days, DPW can do the work 13 and impose a $1,500 lien (plus costs) on the property, collected via property taxes. There is 14 a hardship waiver and an exception for natural disasters. 15 My goal in this testimony is to provide technical context on the proposed legislation. In 16 preparing these comments, I reviewed similar laws from other jurisdictions, and consulted 17 with my staff who is an arborist. My comments are mostly about what the law as written is 18 missing, and I provide some recommendations for your consideration. 19 Jurisdiction Overlap 20 The bill addresses the issue of transportation safety, which is vegetation encroaching on 21 roads, but also addresses utility safety, such as vegetation near energized power lines, or 22 water pipes. These two matters require different expertise. 23 As written, roadside clearance is appropriately the responsibility of the property owner and 24 enforceable by DPW. However, when it comes to vegetation near energized power lines, I 25 wonder if that responsibility should not fall under WAPA’s purview. As written, the bill 26 assigns responsibility of maintaining vegetation near utilities to property owners. However, 27 they are neither trained nor legally equipped to work near high voltage lines or critical water 28 lines. This creates both safety and liability exposure. I recommend that vegetation 29 management be the responsibility of utilities. In Puerto Rico, PREPA bears exclusive 30 responsibility for vegetation management within line corridors, with clear separation 31 between utility and property owner responsibilities. Similar models exist across the 32 Caribbean and the U.S. mainland. I could not find similar law in the USVI. 33 The bill should explicitly separate these functions and assign utility corridor management 34 to WAPA, with defined clearance zones and coordination with DPW. The same principle 35 applies to other utilities, such as telecommunications, water, and sewer. The only 36 regulation we found in the code related to natural resources and utilities is the prevention 37 from cutting vegetation near guts. No laws exists that specifies who should be in charge of 38 maintenance of vegetation near utilities. However, in 2023, in a case related to street lights, 39 the VI Supreme Court (WAPA vs Cyprian) affirmed that WAPA has an “explicit statutory 40 duty” to maintain its infrastructure with “reasonable care... for the safety of drivers”. So 41 there might be some legal clarification needed here. 42 Property Boundaries and Ownership 43 The bill assumes property boundaries align with areas of responsibility. In practice, this is 44 often not the case in the Virgin Islands. Road rights-of-way are not always clearly defined 45 on the ground, and utility easements are often undocumented or not visible to property 46 owners. A property owner may be held responsible for vegetation in an area they do not 47 know is within a public right-of-way or utility corridor. 48 The bill should require clearer definition or guidance on rights-of-way and easements to 49 avoid inconsistent enforcement and legal challenges. 50 Similarly, the bill assumes a clearly identifiable and capable property owner. This is often 51 not the case in the Virgin Islands, where many properties are vacant with unclear 52 ownership, or they are inherited or passed to heirs without the legal papers to justify 53 ownership. That was an issue after the hurricanes, and it is still an issue from my 54 understanding. 55 Also, there may be an equity issue, where some residents do not have the physical and 56 financial capacity for ongoing vegetation management. The recent Census found that we 57 have a growing number of people over 65, and if the trend observed since 2000 continues, 58 we will have a greater proportion of our population in fixed income. 59 Without mechanisms to address unclear ownership and limited capacity, enforcement will 60 be uneven and may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. Trinidad’s ME WE 61 GREEN is interesting because it offers training and build community connection around 62 these issues. It builds community capacity while reducing the burden on individual 63 property owners. 64 Need for Measurable Standards 65 The bill does not define what “overgrown” means in measurable terms. Without clear 66 standards, enforcement will be subjective and difficult to defend. For example, Jamaica 67 sets maximum vegetation heights along roadways, Trinidad defines setback and clearance 68 distances, and Florida requires minimum vertical clearance over roadways. 69 The bill should require DPW to publish measurable standards before enforcement begins 70 and include minimum threshold. Minor encroachments that pose no safety risk should 71 result in a warning, not a lien. 72 Environmental Protection and Institutional Capacity 73 The bill allows broad clearing authority without addressing protected species or cross- 74 referencing existing law. For example, provisions in Title 12 and Title 30 discuss that 75 vegetation management near guts falls under the jurisdiction of DPNR. At the same time, 76 requiring individual permits for routine trimming would create a bottleneck. A general 77 permit and training model, something like a registry of protected species, training for 78 property owners, and targeted permitting only where needed, offers a workable balance. 79 UVI’s Cooperative Extension Service already has the foundation to support this, and should 80 be consulted. 81 The bill also might create an enforcement mandate that exceeds current DPW capacity. 82 Other jurisdictions address this by allowing contracting of vegetation management 83 services, which reduces pressure on government while creating local employment. 84 Due Process and Enforcement Gaps 85 As written, the enforcement structure lacks basic safeguards. There is no appeal process 86 before a lien is applied; a single notice may not ensure awareness; there is no expedited 87 process for imminent hazards; and there is no requirement for an itemized cost before a 88 lien 89 The bill should include an administrative appeal process, strengthened notice procedures, 90 itemized cost requirements, and an emergency provision allowing rapid response to 91 hazards, especially during hurricane season. Barbados, for example, allows removal within 92 24–48 hours for imminent risks, with post-action notice and appeal rights. 93 Debris Disposal 94 As we discussed last time we were here, vegetation debris removal is a big question. This 95 bill will generate a substantive amount of green waste. I would recommend that there is 96 some coordination with Waste Management Authority to discuss how to properly manage 97 the waste. For example, Grenada operates public woodchipping services, Barbados runs 98 composting and collection programs, and Puerto Rico processed large volumes of 99 vegetative debris through mulching. 100 Post-Disaster Provisions 101 The bill includes an exception for natural disasters, but it is unclear for how long these 102 exceptions would remain in place, or mechanisms for who would create conditions for 103 these exceptions. 104 The bill should suspend enforcement deadlines for at least 90 days following a declared 105 emergency, with the option to extend, while DPW and WAPA prioritize clearing public 106 infrastructure. 107 Implementation Timeline 108 Finally, the proposed 60-day implementation period might be too short. Before 109 enforcement begins, there is a need to establish measurable standards; put in place 110 coordination with WAPA and DPNR; and create practical disposal options. More 111 importantly, the public must be educated and possibly trained. In other islands, there 112 usually an implementation period of six to twelve months for this. 113 Conclusion 114 This bill addresses a real and important problem. However, in its current form, there may 115 be issues with implementation on the part of property owners, and capabilities on the part 116 of agency. I think that the utility management part of the bill is the one that creates both a 117 safety and liability issues that should be clarified. 118 The amendments I suggests are to 119 1. Separate utility and roadside responsibilities, and clarify any types of liability issues 120 2. Define measurable standards 121 3. Address disposal and capacity constraints 122 4. Strengthen post-disaster provisions, and 123 5. Allow time for the public and agency to build the proper capacities to follow the law. 124 Thank you, and I am happy to provide additional technical input if helpful. 125 126