Legislative Update 3/30/22

Since our last update, there has been some news and movement on the bills that we're advocating for and/or monitoring. Below is a list of our priority bills with links to the latest updates on each. Note there are options to TAKE ACTION for four of these issues!

Contents

H.709, An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

Since crossover from the House, the Senate Committee on Agriculture has heard an extensive and detailed walk-through of H.709 from Legislative Counsel Michael O’Grady.  Most notably, H.709 amends the definition of an accessory on-farm business by removing the word “principally” from the description of the qualifying product sold through the business, a continuation of the accessory on-farm business changes being made through H.704.  The Senate Agriculture Committee also took testimony from Cary Giguere of the Agency on Agriculture on the implications of the changes to the regulations on mosquito control.  Mosquito control and the application of adulticied is the topic of ongoing litigation about the use of adulticide in one mosquito district in the state.  Senators raised concerns about passing legislation before the outcome of the litigation is decided by the courts and potential risks of doing so.  In the coming weeks, the Senate Committee on Agriculture will continue to hear testimony from witnesses on the remaining sections of H.709.  

Aside from the amendments in H.709, accessory on-farm businesses are also subject to H.704.

H.704, An act relating to the regulation of accessory on-farm businesses

Over the past couple weeks, the House Committee on Natural Resources has been hearing testimony on H.704, An act relating to the regulation of accessory on-farm businesses.  The stated purpose of H.704 is to “clarify” the definition of an accessory on-farm business (AOFB) and how they are regulated at the municipal level.  H.704 seeks to limit the amount of disturbed land to one acre in order to qualify as an AOFB, prevents towns from prohibiting AOFBs, and further defines a “qualifying product” that can be sold at an AOFB. The bill removed the consideration of the use of water as an ingredient to determine whether a product was principally produced on a farm which would effectively widen the possibilities of what can be sold through an AOFB for businesses such as breweries and distilleries selling beverages.  In testimony to House Natural Resources, Abbey Willard and Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets testified in support of the bill, stating that AOFBs encourage farmers to diversify and also have the potential to bring in tourism revenue, and that farmers are often burdened by Act 250 requirements (which qualifying AOFBs are exempt rom).  

However, in this hearing as well as subsequent hearings, farmers provided testimony that highlighted their skepticism about opening up AOFB regulations too much, voicing concerns that it could become a “slippery slope” that ultimately leads to small farmers having to compete with large businesses that would more appropriately be categorized as commercial enterprises.  In particular, Beth Kennett of Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester testified about concerns over the AOFB exemptions being misused by people whose primary income is not farming, and that the original intent of the AOFB was to provide a farm family with more financial stability with sales that were subordinate to the primary income of the farming itself.  Together with Jackie Folsom of the Farm Bureau, the two provided a bit of history on their personal roles in the early agritourism movement and their advocacy in getting the Vermont definition of agritourism recognized nationally.  Much of their testimonies encouraged the legislators to preserve the original intention of agritourism as a way for small farmers to bring in extra income.  Tim Taylor, a vegetable farmer who is also the chair of the District 3 Environmental Commission, echoed those sentiments and argued that the production of the qualifying product is not the most important detail, rather, the most important detail is the size and scope of the business itself in relation to the farm it is associated with.

House picks up Senate Misc. Ag Bill, S.258

An act amending required agricultural practices bill has been used as a vehicle for parts of the original miscellaneous ag bill or H.709. Section one has to do with good standing with the agency to access programs and grants, meaning absence of enforcement actions or violation of grant or other agency program requirements. A technical clarification in the definition of agricultural waste that such waste could also be imported onto the farm, rather than only originating on the farm in order to be regulated by VAAFM. A change to the provisions around waste storage facilities includes that the Secretary of Agriculture pays for initial monitoring expenses of the facility upon concern that there may be an incident of groundwater contamination. 

Note: Section four includes a provision about the management of non-sewage waste infrastructure, like a manure pit or methane digester, that the Secretary may require to obtain approval prior to transporting non-sewage waste to the farm for their deposit in the a manure pit or anaerobic digester. The Legislative Council clarified that this new permit requirement would also affect the import of food residuals, for example as slurries from depackaging technology that are being incorporated into digesters on farms.

Furthermore, some minor programmatic adjustments include a program around nutrient management planning that has been moved to UVM Extension and is thus being removed from statute; as well as changes to the Capital Equipment Assistance Program to focus program spending more on the purposes from the Climate Council's plan: water quality, reducing odors and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. Finally, the bill also includes more agency discretion for approving soil based practices in their program funding as well as an extension of the Task Force to Revitalize the Vermont Dairy Industry until February, 2023. The latter includes an appropriation over per diem compensations and reimbursement of expenses for task force members for not more than 10 meetings which has been approved by the Senate Appropriation committee earlier this month.

S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont

The House Committee on Natural Resources recently heard overview testimonies on S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont.  A particularly enlightening testimony came from Maggie Gendron, Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), in which she discussed the context of S.148 within federal law as well as what steps ANR has already taken within the agency itself.  Meanwhile, S.148 passed third reading on the Senate floor on March 29th, 2022.  Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale, original sponsor of the bill, requested a roll call vote–the bill passed with 28 yeas and 1 nay.

Per Gendron, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that recipients of federal funding, such as the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, ensure that their programs and activities do not discriminate on the basis of “race, color, or national origin,” including language access.  Gendron went on to say that Title VI lays the groundwork for a lot of environmental justice work because of its consideration of “social determinants” such as demographics when it comes to allocation of public funding.  When met with questions from committee members about the relationship between environmental justice and Title VI, Gendron emphasized that an environmental justice policy/program is intended to change the way state agencies interact with and engage the communities they serve in a way that is quite different from how the government currently operates; under an environmental justice program, a state agency’s interactions with a community would be based upon that community’s needs and an effort to ensure they are not unintentionally left out of funding and public benefits.

Notably, Gendron also provided some insight on what steps ANR has taken recently to ensure their compliance with Title VI, which include the hiring of an Environmental Justice and Civil Rights Coordinator.  Additionally, ANR has drafted an English proficiency plan that will be set into motion in the fall, as well as issuing training to help agency employees understand how non-discrimination work is incorporated into their day-to-day.

Some committee members brought up questions about how other states have implemented environmental justice policies–specifically, states like New Jersey have policies that focus on environmental burden “hot spots” while Vermont’s policy has a much wider scope.  Witness Jennifer Byrne, Environmental Justice Fellow at Vermont Law School, noted that Vermont does not have major polluters like New Jersey and that S.148 sets up guidelines for working up to what other states have achieved.  Byrne as well as Deputy Secretary Gendron reiterated that S.148 is a bill that puts into place the procedural framework necessary to carry out environmental justice work in Vermont, and that the work will only be starting out once the bill is implemented.  

Read our previous write-up on the content of S.148 here.

Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies Causing Animal Welfare Issues

As shared before, S. 166 has not made the crossover deadline. The Senate Finance Committee now began to work on another potential bill to incorporate provisions to increase liability: H.515, which is the misc insurance bill, might be up for amendments in this regard soon - stay tuned as the committee is starting to pick up this bill (see agenda 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 stopped taking testimony on H.273, and the focus of organizers and supporters of the bill’s programs such as Seeding Power is working to include them in other legislation, in particular S.210. 

Sign onto Seeding Power Vermont’s collective letter of support here: https://forms.gle/mdX6MHHKqMv8E1QR8 

Find more information on H. 273 and how to support advocacy efforts in our previous update, here.

Cannabis Bills

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

H.701 - Fees, Social Equity (signed into law by Governor Scott, 3/29)

We continue to work to influence bills related to the coming recreational cannabis market.

S.188 is a bill related to cultivation and agriculture which has been voted out of the Senate and is waiting to be taken up by the House Committee on Agriculture.

Graham, RV Policy Director, testified (see app. 40 min. mark) most recently testified about this bill 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.   

We now turn our attention to the House Committee on Ag and Forestry, please contact your reps and the Chair of the Committee Carolyn Partridge (cpartridge@leg.state.vt.us) asking her to support the recommendations of Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, including all outdoor production be given agricultural status, market equity and direct market access for producers, nurseries and manufacturers for the very products and crops they produce, and realistic home cultivation allowances.

H. 701 is the cannabis “fee bill”.  We had been working to get social equity recommendations (described below) into this bill; but it has now passed both the Senate and the House, and has been signed into law by Gov. Scott without our recommendations and the recommendations of the Cannabis Control Board’s Social Equity Subcommittee.

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 a legislative vehicle:  

  • 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).  

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:

  • For S.188 and agriculture:

    • Chair Carolyn Partridge of the House Ag Committee, cpartridge@leg.state.vt.us, urging her to incorporate the recommendations of Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition in S.188 when it comes to her Committee.  Specifically: 

      • 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 Becca 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 the cannabis 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

H.626 has been voted out of the House, introduced in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and there will be significant testimony offered on it this week.  The bill has been substantially amended since our last update to no longer specifically focus on neonicotinoids (based on suggestions by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture) - rather, it focuses more broadly on the development of BMPs (Best Management Practices) for treated article seeds (seeds treated with pesticides) by the Agricultural Innovation Board (AIB) and the Agency of Agriculture (of which the AIB is a part).  Though we support addressing BMPs and IPM for all treated article seeds, it is critical that this bill specifically address neonicotinoid seeds, the development of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols, and support for farmers transitioning in order to end the unmediated prophylactic use of neonic treated seed.  Rural Vermont is working with a number of organizations and individuals to advocate for these changes and outcomes.  We hope to have new proposed amendments soon, and have the opportunity to testify in committee.

We are working across organizations to also consider the potential revision of the VT Pesticide Rules.  

We are also awaiting updates related to emergency funding for beekeepers and apiaries after some interest from lawmakers and connecting them with members of the beekeeping community.

Act now by contacting your representatives, and the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, and asking them to make sure that neonicotinoid pesticides are specifically addressed in this bill, that integrated pest management (IPM) is specifically defined and included in the language of the bill, and that farmers are provided the technical and financial support needed to transition to seeds not treated with neonics. 

Background on Neonicitinoids and this bill:

"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 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 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.  Since then, the bill has been significantly amended to not even include addressing neonicotinoid pesticides in particular.  We are drafting new amendments with allies and will present them in testimony soon.

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.  It moved very quickly through the House Natural Resources Committee, has now passed the House, and there has been testimony taken from numerous people, Agencies, and organizations both supporting and opposing the bill in its current form in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  See testimony from Ryan Patch of the Agency of Agriculture, as well as farmers and others on 3/25; you can also see a number of differing voices including Justin Rich of the VT Veg and Berry Growers’ Association on 3/22.  Rural Vermont has requested the opportunity to provide testimony.   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.   

The Agency of Agriculture has offered specific proposed amendments to the bill with respect to scale appropriate regulation; you can find them at the end of the Agency’s presentation.  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).  Ask for an opportunity to testify, and tell him how this law may affect you.

  • Please be in touch with Graham - Graham@ruralvermont.org - if you’d like to discuss the bill or need assistance in offering testimony.

Rural Vermont