2022 Legislative Crossover Update

“Crossover” describes the deadlines by which policy bills and those with money involved have to pass one chamber in order to make it through the process in the same year. Good news: H.501 on regulating depackaging technology made crossover! Read on for status updates on other priority bills including H. 273 - BIPOC land access and opportunity bill and S. 166 - improving liability of utility companies for poor workmanship.

Contents:

H. 501 on regulating depackaging technology passed the House

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

Rural Vermont is part of the Protect Our Soils Coalition that advocates for the passage of H.501 to regulate depackaging facilities that aim to mechanically separate food residuals from their packaging, including plastics, with a greater likelihood of the end products to be contaminated with micro and nano plastics. The depackaging process can result in microplastics ending up in compost or methane digestate produced with this material, which then ends up in farm soils when it is applied. Some packaging materials contain PFAS (forever chemicals) that could end up in soils as well. In 2018 the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources reinterpreted key provisions of the Universal Recycling Law governing the management of discarded food and allowed for the use of mechanical depackaging technology to separate food from packaging. Our coalition argued that this would negate the ‘source separation requirement’ which had been established in 2012 and requires generators of food residuals to separate these from other recyclable materials, like their packaging, and trash.  

Our bill, H. 501, would establish a moratorium on further permits for food depackaging facilities, charge the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources to conduct a collaborative stakeholder process that would report on the management of the materials produced by those facilities, including an assessment of the amount of microplastics, plastics, or other contaminants present in the materials produced from depackaging facilities. Stakeholders would also be charged to recommend ways on how to implement the source separation requirement and the organics management hierarchy in a more stringent manner. These recommendations will then be subject to a subsequent rulemaking process of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 

We are hopeful that this bill will pass the Senate as the current language of the bill originated in the Senate Committee of Natural Resources and Energy which already started to pick up their work on the bill this week! Contact Senators from the committee now and express your support for H.501 as well as the importance to consider our coalition's recommendations: find their contact information here.

News: Website launch of the Protect Our Soils Coalition - learn more about this important issue here!

Protect Our Soil Coalition Testimonials: 

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.

This important bill did not pass through the Senate in time to make the crossover deadline. The good news is that legislators did not want to fall short on their ultimate goal of getting this complicated liability issue right and thus resisted in passing the latest version of the bill that did fall short of their expectation to prevent instances of poor workmanship of utility companies like the one that still impacts the Hoyt Family in Tunbridge today in the future as well as providing sufficient liability coverage. Part of the struggle is to find the best way to ensure that if subcontractors don’t have sufficient insurance coverage that the contractor becomes liable.

On Friday afternoon, the last day of crossover, the committee started to review a third proposal that would have required the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC) to issue an order, instead of a rulemaking process, to specify requirements about contractors and their subcontractors working on pole attachments. The proposal also included establishing best practices for safe removal and disposal of construction worksite debris and requirements for proofing sufficient insurance coverage to ensure a robust chain of custody. Senators expressed support for the quick turnaround on this third proposal to get at their intent to create the best protection while also providing flexibility to the PUC to find the best way of regulating this. Unfortunately, the PUC has not had a chance to provide input to the proposal prior to the hearing and questioned the practicality of this approach given the scope and limitations of existing PUC domains. 

Chair Cummings of the Senate Finance Committee announced that the committee will continue to work on language to include in a miscellaneous insurance bill instead so that her committee will continue to be working on finalizing language during this second half of the session. Lead Champion of this work, Senator Ruth Hardy, has a seat in the committee and will continue to push to get this done. The committee already started brainstorming other ideas like the one of Senator Serotkin to establish a joint liability between contractors and their subcontractors. 

Watch the recording from the last Senate Finance hearing prior to crossover on 3/11/22 here.

View this comparison chart of the three different proposals to date here. 

H. 709 - An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

This miscellaneous agricultural bill has passed the House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry after a single (!) hearing. The bill addresses a wide array of agriculture-related issues, including:

  • slight changes to the on-farm business standards—which removes a single word to clarify that 50% of a sold product needs to be “produced on the farm at which the business was located”—as well as changes to general powers that now allow the Agency of Agriculture (AAFM) to serve enforcement and other documents electronically rather than by mail. The latter change prompted some discussion among Senators from the Agriculture Committee- who already started to discuss this bill more thoroughly- about rural Internet access as well as concerns that a served party could overlook the electronic notice. 

  • changes to how AAFM considers licensing applications and would allow AAFM to assess whether an applicant already has any pending violations to a  license they already hold.  To the surprise of some of the legislators, AAFM does not currently have a system in place to consider pending violations during the licensing process.

  • changes to mosquito control district treatment options, only allowing in-kind larvicide treatments as a result of ongoing litigation about adulticide.  This proposed change has received pushback from one mosquito district in Rutland County, which the committee heard testimony on the week after H.709’s introduction.

  • changes to language and definitions to produce inspection that would better align state policy with the corresponding Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA).  In response to this, committee Chairman Bobby Starr (D, Essex-Orleans) inquired about the degree to which current practices would change to come into compliance with federal law, as well as whether these changes would open opportunities for Vermont to engage more with an interstate market.  Both issues were referred to VAAFM for further inquiry.  

  • H.709 also aims to bring Vermont’s hemp regulations in line with federal law, changing some language and ensuring that hemp can be considered an ag product. Changes to the enforcement of non-conforming hemp product are being simplified through remediation by the extraction of Delta-9-THC so the non-conforming hemp can be brought into compliance and introduced into the market.

  • Finally, H.709 makes some changes to farm permitting certification.  The bill suggests the repeal of the required notice of change of ownership and lease for permitted small farms. Under this change, there is no need to report the selling of a permitted small farm.  Some changes to medium farm permitting make it easier for medium farms to retain existing permits, but keeps the more rigorous permitting process for new permit applicants.

Status: H.709, originating in the House Committee on Agriculture & Forestry, has crossed over to the Senate and was introduced to the Senate Committee on Agriculture on March 8th, 2022 (watch initial walk-through here).

S.258 - Housekeeping Bill

Originally, this bill was drafted to amend the Required Agricultural Practices to address climate resiliency (see bill as introduced here). The idea to test how waterproof the RAP’s are to meet the challenges of the changing climate, including the flood resiliency of our agricultural soils, had been stressed by environmental organizations prior to the session (read the related VTDigger article here). After taking testimony from VAAFM on the issue the committee dismissed the original language given that VAAFM is underway to open up the RAPs for amendments anyways this year. Instead, the bill was amended to become another miscellaneous or housekeeping bill for VAAFM and now includes (read the bill as passed out of committee here):

  • provisions to streamline requirements for being in good standing with the agency in order to access programs and funding;

  • tweaks to provisions regarding waste storage facilities and the management of non-sewage waste - including a permit requirement prior to transporting non-sewage waste to the farm;

  • a repeal of the provisions for incentive grants for Nutrient Management Plans;

  • a minor tweak to the capital Equipment Assistance Program;

  • the inclusion of soil-based practices in the eligibility for the Farm Agronomic Practices Program;

  • an extension of the task force to revitalize the VT Dairy industry.

Status: The bill is currently moving on the Senate floor and has a good chance to make crossover this week!

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

Since our last update, the H.697, An act relating to eligibility of reserve forestland for enrollment in the Use Value Appraisal Program, a bill that opens up a new avenue for forestland to be enrolled into Current Use, passed the House and has crossed over to the Senate. As of March 16, it has not yet been introduced to the committee.  As we wait for more committee discussion on this bill, read our previous write-up on the content of H.697 here!

         Another forest bill of interest is H.566, An relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program.  It is unclear whether this bill will make it in time for the crossover deadline out of House Appropriations and through the House floor. As of March 16, H.566 remains in the House Committee on Appropriations with a deadline of March 18 to be voted out.  As we await the fate of H.566, read our initial write up on it 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.  The following is information and calls to action shared by Seeding Power.  We have heard that the Committee may not continue to work on this bill since our Feb. 25 update, and that there may be support for moving the program to another piece of legislation.  Please continue to make your voice heard in support of this 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 (proposed changes and background information) 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.  It was recently passed out of committee after the adoption of significant amendments proposed by Cary Giguerre and the Agency of Agriculture reducing its focus to only treated seeds, including funding for 2 agency positions only partially related to the subject of the bill, and potentially not including the needed focus on immediate transition away from the prophylactic use of neonics.  The bill will likely pass through the House and then move to the Senate Committee on Agriculture where we will continue to advocate.

"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.  The impacts of neonics which are understood broadly in the scientific community.  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 originally included 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 had 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 phased 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.  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.  

We are working across organizations to determine paths forward as we anticipate the bill moving to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and to also consider the potential revision of the VT Pesticide Rules.  

In the meantime, we are pursuing emergency funding for beekeepers and apiaries through the legislature and will keep you updated on how you can support those efforts!

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 has now been introduced in 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.  Now is the time to consider offering testimony and contacting your representatives and members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to voice your concerns and ideas for this bill.  This week and next they are scheduling in testimony.  

Rural VT has been concerned about and monitoring conversations about H.466 among farmers, will support farmers providing testimony as is needed, and will offer our own testimony. We have heard substantial concerns from many different farmers about this bill: from extremely low thresholds for inclusion in registration and metering, to the eventual permitting program envisioned in the bill, to the lack of consideration of how this water is used, and the overall positionality and impact of agricultural water use in VT in comparison with other uses.

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

S.268 – The Right to Farm Bill

Based on current information, the Senate Judiciary Committee will take no further action on S.268 this session. They do intend to include a provision in their Misc. Judiciary Bill recommend that revisions to Vermont’s Right to Farm Law should be reconsidered in 2023. The committee noted that the conclusion of the lawsuit concerning pollution from the Vorsteveld Farm near Lake Champlain should inform any revisions to the Right to Farm Law. 

Rural Vermont