Legislative Update 2.28.22

H. 501 on regulating depackaging technology passed the House

H.501, as recommended out of House Natural Resources and passed by the House

Draft No. 3.1 of H.501 includes the language our Protect Our Soils coalition suggested that includes a moratorium on further permitting of food depackaging facility while also charging ANR to facilitate a collaborative stakeholder process that would further research the use and impact of the existing facility in preparation of a rulemaking process on depackaging technology. 

In a strike-all amendment these suggestions replaced the original language of the bill that would have set a contamination standard for soil amendments. Testimonials have shown that science and technology are in the midst of developing more consistent methodologies for analyzing contamination levels of composts with plastics of all the various particle sizes in an efficient way. Rural Vermont recommended in testimony to leave setting contamination standards to the upcoming VAAFM rulemaking process, on the regulation of on-farm composting of food residuals and soil amendments, because of the lower bar to be inclusive of farmer perspectives. Farmers  perspectives will be critical on questions about entry barriers, liability for contaminants, testing cost and frequency in the upcoming rulemaking process. 

S. 148 Environmental Justice Bill

S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont, as recommended out of Senate Natural Resources Committee on 2/25/22

This important legislation seeks to establish an explicit environmental justice policy in Vermont where “no segment of the population should, because of its racial, cultural, or economic makeup, bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens or be denied an equitable share of environmental benefits.”  The bill encourages the redirection of agency funding to these underserved groups, and the mechanisms and tools in S.148 that, if passed, will attempt to achieve this goal include the creation and adoption of agency-specific community engagement plans, the establishment of an Environmental Justice Advisory Council and an Interagency Environmental Justice Committee, and agency inventory of the past three years of spending to identify where certain communities have been underserved along with annual reports on agencies’ redirection of funds.  

The bill sets the ultimate goal of having each agency direct at least 55% of overall environmental benefits to “environmental justice populations,” which the bill defines as census block groups that an annual median household income of less than 80% of the state median, have a BIPOC population of at least 6%, and 1% or more of households have limited English proficiency.  In a recent Senate Committee on Natural Resources meeting, it was noted by Elena Mihaly, Vice President of the Conservation Law Foundation, that those “benefits” may not necessarily be monetary benefits, and that the 55% figure is a goal and not a requirement.  

The Environmental Justice Advisory Council would serve to advise participating agencies on how to incorporate environmental justice procedures into their operations to ensure equitable distributions of funds and benefits.  The bill encourages the Advisory Council to have as diverse a membership as possible, with 50% of its members residing in environmental justice populations.  In recent committee hearings on S.148, a topic of significant discussion was how to ensure that the Advisory Council’s feedback is taken into consideration, particularly during the rulemaking process.  The Interagency Committee, which includes representation from each relevant state agency, would be tasked with developing guidance on community engagement plans and determining which agency investments provide environmental benefits.

The efforts of S.148 would largely be led by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the bill explicitly names the other agencies and departments that would be subject to the adoption of environmental justice policies: “Agencies of Natural Resources, of Transportation, of Commerce and Community Development, of Agriculture, Food and Markets, and of Education; the Public Utility Commission; the Natural Resources Board; and the Departments of Health, of Public Safety, and of Public Service.”  

The bill was voted out of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Friday, February 35th with a bipartisan 5-0 vote.

Forest bills: Forest Future Program (H.566) and Current Use (H.697)

H.697, An act relating to eligibility of reserve forestland for enrollment in the Use Value Appraisal Program 

H.566, An act relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program

Currently, House committees are considering two bills that pertain to Vermont’s forestland.  H.697, recently voted out of the House Committee on Ways & Means, offers a new way to enroll forestland into Vermont’s Use Value Appraisal Program (often referred to as “current use”).  Per Michael Snyder, Commissioner of the Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation, H.697 was the result of requests from advocates for “wide open enrollment” into current use for land that retains old forest functions.  The new category, referred to as “reserve forestland,” allows for parcels of land managed for old forest values to be enrolled into the current use program at the standard forestland value rate.  Moreover, if more than 30% of a parcel of land falls into what the bill refers to as an “ecologically significant treatment area,” then the remainder of the parcel can be enrolled as reserve forestland as well.  This new category would pave the way for 230,000 acres of unenrolled forestland eligible for enrollment. Though it was noted in a recent committee hearing that this would ultimately result in some acres of forestland coming out of forest product production.  The bill would also incur costs to the general fund as well as the education fund–a caveat that elicited some concern from some lawmakers.

The second forest-related bill, H.566, seeks to establish a “roadmap” for bolstering Vermont’s forest economy, spearheaded by the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund in collaboration with the Commissioner of Forest, Parks, and Recreation.  The intended outcomes of H.566 are the sustainable economic development of the forest industry, developing a workforce to support the forest industry, and encouraging responsible forest management practices.  Lawmakers heard testimony from witnesses that included a forest industry professional who had been part of a similar strategic plan in Maine in the wake of the closing of several paper mills.  H.566 encourages all state agencies to engage with the forest industry as well as mandates a public stakeholder process for consultation as the Sustainable Jobs Fund develops its action plan.  On February 22, H.566 was voted out of the House Committee on Agriculture & Forestry and referred to the House Committee on Appropriations.

S. 166 - Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies Causing Animal Welfare Issues

S. 166, An act relating to utility construction worksites and consumer protection, as recommended out of the Senate Judiciary.

Kudos to Amber and Scott Hoyt from Tunbridge to testify again in committee this past week to continue their advocacy in support of this bill that aims to protect fellow farmers from poor workmanship scenarios in the future. Left behind wire from a utility company subcontractor continues to impair up to two thirds of their hayland to date. The Farm Bureau takes the lead on this bill that aims to tighten the chain for liability issues in relation to the ongoing broadband expansion. Watch the recording of their testimony here.

Racial Equity and Land Access 

H.273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership

The Vermont House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs has continued taking testimony.  An amended draft was proposed on February 16th.  On February 22nd, Seeding Power Vermont (the organization spearheading efforts on H.273) hosted an online celebration during which they provided updates on the bill. 

Information on H. 273 shared by Seeding Power:

  • Creates a $10 million dollar BIPOC Land Access Opportunity Fund.

  • Establishes an independent Board that will direct investment of the fund into grants for individual and collective land access and property ownership, financial assistance, and anti-racist mutual aid.

  • Expands financial education and resource management programs for BIPOC.

  • Was designed by a BIPOC-led team with widespread BIPOC network and community input.

  • Calls for the independent Board to be made up of Vermonters who have historically suffered from discrimination and who have not had equal access to public or private economic benefits due to race, ethnicity, sex, geography, language preference, immigrant or citizen status, sexual orientation, gender identity, socioeconomic status, or disability status.

  • Explores mortgage assistance for BIPOC and tax benefits for BIPOC and owners.

Calls to action shared by Seeding Power:

  • Share your name and where you live

  • Describe your support for H. 273, the BIPOC-led Land Access & Opportunity Act

  • Share why you support the bill, and make it as personal as possible

  • Ask your legislature to commit to championing this bill

  • Find your legislator here.

  • House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs Committee Page

A little more information compiled by Rural VT:

Did you know? 

  • Between 1920 and 1997, the number of African Americans who farmed decreased by 98 percent, while white Americans who farmed declined by 66 percent OR at the time of World War I there were 1 million black farmers, and in 1992 there were 18,000

  • In Pigford v. Glickman 1997, thousands of black farming families won settlements against the USDA for discrimination between 1981 and 1996; with outlays over $2 billion

  • TIAA is a pension company originally set up for teachers and professors and people in the nonprofit world. Investment in farmland has proved troublesome for TIAA in Mississippi and elsewhere. “In Tunica County, where TIAA has acquired plantations from some of the oldest farm-owning white families in the state, black people make up 77 percent of the population but own only 6 percent of the farmland.”

Read More in The Great Land Robbery - The shameful story of how 1 million black families have been ripped from their farms, by Vann R. Newkirk II, theatlantic.com, September 2019 Issue.

Cannabis Bills

S.188 (Amended Version moving now) - Agriculture, Wholesaler allowances, etc.

H.701 (Recent amendment can be found in here) - Fees, Social Equity

We continue to work to influence primarily two bills related to the coming recreational cannabis market: S.188 and H.701.  

S.188 has moved from the Senate Agriculture Committee to the Senate Finance Committee and if voted out will move to the Senate Floor, where it is likely to pass over to the House.  On February 11, Sen. Pearson and Chair Pepper (CCB) said the quiet part out loud about S.188 and the market the legislature has designed:

Sen. Pearson:  “I guess I worry that at some level we will be almost guaranteeing that they [outdoor cultivation operations greater than 1,000 sq ft] will not be happening on current farms because the cost benefit analysis will be difficult for a farm to consider if the cannabis plot could be subject to local zoning… a different regulatory scheme….”

James Pepper (Chair of the CCB):  “...small cultivation, those playing at 1,000 sq ft or less will be playing with a different playbook no matter what… and this is just one of the kind of growing pains we’re going to have to suffer through.  My only concern is that this bill doesn’t get across the finish line…”

After this exchange, the Senate Agriculture Committee voted out S.188 without including our recommendations, or those of any of the many people we brought in to testify before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees for our Small Farm Advocacy Day focused on cannabis.  It may be acceptable to the Senate Ag Committee that meaningful participation in this economy by farmers will likely not happen due to the barriers they have put in place - but it is not acceptable to Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition.

Graham, RV Policy Director, testified (see app. 40 min. mark) in the Senate Finance Committee on February 23rd, in support of our recommendations and the lack of action related to them from the legislature.  He received little support there, despite testimony from the Fiscal Office supporting his concerns related to farmers’ challenges entering the market.  See our specific proposals here, and more background info here.

H. 701 is the cannabis “fee bill”.  This bill must pass this year in order for the market to roll out.  It includes the fees for licensing, as well as specific Social Equity components.  Our primary Social Equity goal right now is integrating one of our, and the CCB’s (Jan. 15th Report, Slide 25), most significant Social Equity recommendations into H. 701 (or another legislative vehicle) which would:  

  • bring 20% of excise tax revenue from this market to a “reinvestment fund” to invest in the needs of communities impacted, and disproportionately impacted, by the criminalization of cannabis

  • bring 5% of the excise tax to the Cannabis Development Fund (a fund established by the legislature to fund social equity initiatives largely within the industry, but which has no source of ongoing funding).  

The legislature has put forth no plan to act on this fundamental social equity recommendation from the CCB and our Coalition despite its statutory obligations and expressed prioritization for social equity.  We have contacted House and Senate Leadership, Chairs of various committees, and more seeking their support.  

Bring your voice to the table!

Contact your representatives to make sure the State’s profits from this market share in the repair of, and generating of opportunities for, communities who have been harmed by the criminalization of this plant; and that this market protects and supports cultivators, product manufactures, and consumers - the primary actors and producers - rather than providing disproportionate privileges and power for wholesalers, retailers, and vertically integrated dispensaries.  

Contact your representative and copy:

  • All tiers of outdoor production given the status of agriculture

  • Direct market access for producers, product manufacturers, and consumers

  • Increased home grow allowances that bring VT closer in line to other States

  • For Social Equity:

    • Contact the House Speaker Jill Krowinski (jkrowinski@leg.state.vt.us) and Senate Pro Tem Becka Balint (bbalint@leg.state.vt.us) urging action on this Social Equity provision fundamental to the statutory goals and obligations of the legislature:

      • bring 20% of excise tax revenue from this market to a “reinvestment fund” to invest in the needs of communities impacted, and disproportionately impacted, by the criminalization of cannabis

      • bring 5% of the excise tax to the Cannabis Development Fund (a fund established by the legislature to fund social equity initiatives largely within the industry, but which has no source of ongoing funding).  

Neonicotinoid Pesticides

H. 626 - An act relating to the sale, use, or application of neonicotinoid pesticides

In recent weeks, the House Agriculture & Forestry Committee has taken testimony from over 20 expert witnesses on H.626, a bill that would prohibit the use of neonicotinoids unless the Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (AAFM) creates regulations that protect pollinators from exposure.

"Neonics" are regularly applied as a seed coating on corn and soybean seeds to protect seeds from early season pests. Currently, nearly all corn seed planted in the state is coated with these pesticides whether or not there is a known pest threat that calls for them.  Beekeepers, agronomists, researchers, and farmers have presented powerful, science-based testimony making the case that widespread use of neonics is harming bees and other non-target insects while not, in most cases, helping farmers' bottom lines. As Vermont beekeepers report record losses (up to 50% of hives are dying annually), one beekeeper told the committee, "There's a saying in the industry that we're no longer beekeepers - we've become bee replacers."

H.626 includes recommendations for neonicotinoids made to the legislature by the Pollinator Protection Committee in 2017. Despite having been granted the authority to regulate treated seeds, the Agency of Agriculture has not acted on these recommendations.  Rural VT, NOFA VT, and the Lake Champlain Committee have proposed an amended version of H.626 which Graham (RV) introduced to the Committee in his testimony to House Agriculture on February 17th.  The amended version phases out the prophylactic use of neonics by providing a deadline by which AAFM must work with the newly created Agriculture Innovation Board, agricultural service providers, and others to develop and administer this IPM protocol and training, and to support farmers in transitioning away from prophylactic use of treated seed further by assisting in sourcing seed not treated with neonics. 

We're not asking the farmers using these seeds to quit cold turkey. Farms have already invested in this year’s seed, and their ability to source the appropriate amount and varieties of seed not treated with neonics is challenging given - among other things - the consolidation and concentration of seed companies.  In addition to phasing out the use of neonic treated seeds, we are calling for an appropriate Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocol and training for farmers and service providers.  

Cary Giguerre, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, has released a competing proposal, which does not focus on neonicotinoids, and which directs considerations for all treated articles (and determining which are problematic) to the Agricultural Innovation Board (which Cary and VAAFM direct).  This bill provides for no direct action, and does not acknowledge the impacts of neonics which are understood broadly in the scientific community.

Right now, the House Agriculture & Forestry Committee has the ability to take clear steps to limit the use of neonicotinoids in ways that protect bees and beekeepers, while actively supporting other farmers in transitioning away from widespread, prophylactic use. 

What can you do?

  • Write to your legislator (find them here) and urge their support for NOFA-VT and Rural Vermont's redraft of H.626 which requires AAFM to phase out prophylactic use of neonics by 2024 and support farmers in accessing untreated seed and implementing Integrated Pest Management (IPM).

  • Copy Carolyn Partridge, Chair of House Agriculture & Forestry Committee, cpartridge@leg.state.vt.us, on your message.

Surface Water Withdrawal Regulation

H.466 - An act relating to surface water withdrawals and interbasin transfers

H.466 is a bill which seeks to regulate surface water withdrawals which moved very quickly through the House Natural Resources Committee, has now passed the House, and will head to the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  We hope that the Senate Committee process is more deliberate and inclusive of the voices of the people living in VT who may be affected by this legislation.  Rural VT has been monitoring conversations about H.466 among farmers, and will support farmers providing testimony in Senate Natural Resources when the bill is taken up.  We have heard substantial concerns from many different farmers, including the eventual permitting program envisioned in the bill.

Some excerpts / key features of the bill identified by the VT Veg and Berry Association include:

Registration. Beginning on January 1, 2023, any person withdrawing 5,000 gallons or more of surface water within a 24-hour period shall register with the Secretary. Registration shall be made on a form provided by the Secretary, and shall include the following information:

(1) the location of each withdrawal, including each impacted surface water;

(2) the frequency and rate of each withdrawal;

(3) a description of the use or uses of the water to be withdrawn;

(4) the capacity of the system to be used for the withdrawal; and

(5) a schedule for the withdrawal.

(a) Program development. On or before July 1, 2026, the Secretary shall implement a surface water withdrawal permitting program that is consistent with section 1041 of this subchapter provided by the Secretary and shall include all of the following information:

(1) the total amount of water withdrawn each month;

(2) the location of each withdrawal, including each impacted surface water;

(3) the daily maximum withdrawal for each month;

(4) the date of daily maximum withdrawal; and

(5) any other information required by the Secretary.

(c) Methods of estimating withdrawals. The following methods shall be used to report the amounts of withdrawn surface water required to be reported under subsection (b) of this section:

(1) Withdrawals of between 5,000 and 50,000 gallons of surface water in a 24-hour period shall either provide an estimate of total volume or provide meter data. The report shall describe how any estimate was calculated.

(2) Withdrawals of more than 50,000 gallons of surface water in a 24-hour period shall provide meter data.

.....

(5) establish limitations on withdrawals based on low flow or drought conditions and the development of potential alternatives to meet surface water withdrawal needs in such cases; and

(6) require assessment of any reasonable and feasible alternatives to proposed withdrawals that may have less of an impact on surface water quality.

What can you do?

  • Contact your representative and the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, Christopher Bray (cbray@leg.state.vt.us) and tell him how this law may affect you.

  • Join a conversation with other producers about your concerns and make a time to testify in the Senate Natural Resources Committee:  contact Graham@ruralvermont.org

Rural Vermont