Join Rural Vermont and partner organizations National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), and Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) in urging Congress to support clarifying language to the Federal Meat Inspection Act’s (FMIA) personal-use-exemption that will affirm state laws - like Vermont’s! - that allow for on-farm slaughter without state or federal meat inspection.

Currently, there are many people whose businesses rely on the personal use exemption, including farmers selling livestock for on-farm slaughter, itinerant slaughterers, and custom processors. In order for their operations to be in compliance, they are relying on 2018 guidance put forth by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). This puts them in a vulnerable position because an Agency can change their guidance at any moment.

It is time to update outdated language in the FMIA to ensure that standing FSIS guidance is more clearly visible in the written law so that on the ground practitioners have planning security, instead of them continuing to be vulnerable and subject to Agency discretion. 

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is undergoing rulemaking to change their inventory of Class 2 wetlands of significance. Part of the proposed change would be to give the Secretary of Natural Resources the authority to make a general determination of what polygons (parcels of land) qualify as Class 2 - effectively uprooting the current requirement to base such determination on a case-by-case functions and values analysis. Rural Vermont cautions farmers, foresters and other landowners that this change is a DEC money maker as landowners will have to bear the cost to take false determinations off the map and/or to get permits to continue ongoing activities, including agricultural use, in affected sugarbush or fields.

Speak up against this change at the upcoming hearings:

• October 31st at 5pm: Welcome Center  51 Depot Square, Suite 100, St. Johnsbury, VT.  Register to participate virtually.

• November 1st at 5pm: Damon Hall 1 Quechee Rd, Hartland VT.  Register to participate virtually.

• November 2nd at 5:30pm: RRPC Conference Room, 3rd Floor, 67 Merchants Row (Opera House), Rutland, VT.  Register to participate virtually.

• November 4th at 5:00pm: 120 First Street, Swanton, VT.  Register to participate virtually.

More background of the proposed wetland rule changes:

Effectively, DEC is proposing to turn Class 3 wetlands, which are currently not regulated, into Class 2 wetlands by incorporating them into the VSWI (Vermont Significant Wetland Inventory). To our understanding, this seems to be getting rid of a map known as the “advisory layer” - where Class 3 wetlands are marketed for further investigation to become determined as significant, and thus regulated, as Class 2 wetlands.  While the proposed change, for now, focuses on Franklin County, DEC already made a motion earlier this year to apply this methodology to the entire state. After conflicts arose, DEC is presenting a more narrow focus, but is also making clear that this change would be bound to affect the entire State soon. DEC is suggesting a change to the requirement to craft case-by-case functions and values analysis by also allowing the Secretary to make a general determination based on assumptions. In the newly proposed map, polygons that would be incorporated as Class 2 wetlands already appear to be incorporated based on false assumptions. For example, while the general assumption requires polygons to be at least half an acre - the map includes about 2,700 polygons that are obviously smaller than that size. Quality assurance also shows other obvious lacks as many manure pits in Franklin County have falsely been mapped as being incorporated as Class 2 wetlands. While it would seem ridiculous that such obvious mistakes result in regulatory consequences, many of these mini class 2 wetlands would be in the middle of fields and thus require farmers and landowners to apply a 50ft buffer and permitting for any infrastructure within that radius. To us, this is DEC trying to shift their regulatory burden of making adequate determinations of Class 2 wetlands through functions and values analysis onto landowners who now will have to hire a consultant to make a proper analysis and then undertake the bureaucratic efforts to amend the blanket determination by changing it back to Class 3. Should land owners fail to receive an analysis on their behalf they would then also carry the burden of acquiring the permits they will need for activities in association with their, now confirmed, Class 2 wetland. This could be a manure stack that’s within the 50ft radius of a mini wetland that would be Class 3 but now had been incorporated as Class 2 through the Secretaries general determination. This could also be a sugarbush and related infrastructure (forest road, tank) that’s within such radius. 

Rural Vermont encourages farmers, foresters, and landowners to engage in the current public comment process and to express their distress about this proposed change. We suggest to amplify the following message:

“Keep checks and balances - Keep Class 3 wetlands on the advisory layer map! We say NO to a general determination by the Secretary of Natural Resources that would adopt Class 3 wetlands as Class 2 without case-by-case functions and values analysis attesting their significance in advance.”

More info here: Wetlands Rulemaking | Department of Environmental Conservation

We celebrate with all of you who have been following and supporting GMO labeling for years and our attorneys at the Center for Food Safety on this huge win for the people’s right-to-know! Rural Vermont was, as a plaintiff, part of a coalition of nonprofits and retailers in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of San Francisco (California) to successfully challenge the Trump Administration’s rulemaking in 2018 that would have discriminated against tens of millions of Americans by permitting the use of QR codes on packaging. The court has agreed that QR codes alone are not enough !! Unfortunately, the court did not agree to all claims, e.g. the USDA will still define highly refined products that don't need to be labeled because of undetectable GMO traces.

Read the full press release here.

The first stakeholder group meeting launched with discussions around composition, decision making, planning meeting schedules and core principles. The group agreed to make decisions by consent with majority rules when an objection can’t be resolved. Stakeholder group member Tom Gilbert (of Black Dirt Farm, also representing the Poultry Farmers for Compost Foraging as well as the Protect Our Soils Coalition), made a motion to add at least one scientific perspective to the group's slate of industry reps, without success. Noticeably, there was agreement to take testimony from a series of scientists across the board. In another motion, Tom Gilbert suggested agreeing to core values including the precautionary principle, an ethical/legal principle often used to guide states in protecting the natural bases of existence. Further, this principle establishes a responsibility to future generations - a pursuit which can entail measures for precaution and danger prevention. When applied, the precautionary principle often leads to conservative approaches to a risk, and its application calls for the development of solutions (e.g. to health problems).

We were disappointed to hear the Ben & Jerry’s representative caution against adopting the precautionary principle as a guiding value: “In environmental health, there’s so many things that can hurt us out there, the air we breathe, the water bottles from which we’re drinking. The precautionary principle can be applied very broadly. I'm hesitant to agree that because someone could get harmed later, we won’t do it. If it comes to environmental health, it could be almost anything.” This prompted initial support from Michael Casella who would like to get more information about what such an approach could mean on the ground. 

Watch Ben and Jerry’s statement and the full recording here.

The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, & Market’s (VAAFM) 9/15/22 virtual training on On-Farm Slaughter aimed to explain on-farm slaughter in a practical and meaningful way. VAAFM reiterated the requirements announced on 1/6/22 that owners must be present during the act of slaughter, as well as their obligation to hire itinerant slaughterers directly and transport their carcasses to custom processors themselves - though neither requirement appear feasible for many. While VAAFM staff allowed plenty of time for discussion, equity issues arose like “What if a person can’t attend because they have a disability?”  According to VAAFM staff, each household should be able to send an agent (without allowing the use of agents from outside of the household). Discussion also arose around the question of why the farmer wouldn’t be allowed to function as an agent - especially when some whole, half, or quarter of the livestock is for the farm’s own personal use. This discussion continues to lead Rural Vermont to raise legal concerns about the legitimacy of these interpretations offered by the Agency. An Agency's discretion ends where the law at hand (here 6 V.S.A. § 3311a) is rendered impractical - or absurd - through the administration of the law. 

Rather than offering viable pathways to on-farm slaughter, VAAFM prioritized exploring other slaughter strategies at the virtual meeting, especially utilizing or starting custom slaughterhouses while also gauging pathways to fund NEW “Rigs” - trailers used for on-farm slaughter that would include infrastructure and transport capacity, and when used, would not require owners to be present for the outdoor on-farm slaughter by an itinerant slaughterer. Farmers were confused about how this idea could be cost effective and meaningfully different from the current practice. After the event, we heard the following from attendees: 

“There is so little connection to [VAAFM interpretation to] reality in that picture that it borders on the ridiculous. [… What does their] idea for how the OFS system should work, actually do to improve the quality and care involved in getting the meat to the ultimate user? The slaughter is still done by the same professional, the offal is still disposed of by the farmer, now the user has to transport his lamb carcass to a butcher. How - in the trunk of his prius? It's just a cumbersome stack of unnecessary, ineffective requirements that accomplish nothing and doom the small farmer's chances of sustainability.” - Anonymous

“I have worked/spoken with 4 itinerant slaughters and all agree that they do not have time or energy to speak with and schedule every individual owner for a harvest of multiple animals- it is difficult enough to connect with one agent that acts on their behalf to schedule. They are on farms and on the road, or at a job they work, not sitting at a desk with a calendar in front of them. I typically schedule the next harvest during the present harvest because it is so difficult to connect otherwise.” - Rev. Moretti, Murmuration Farm, Fairfax Vermont

On the positive side - VAAFM did express preliminary support for an approach to amend the federal personal use exemption to alleviate this interpretation dispute.

Please do raise your questions and express your areas of concern to Julie Boisvert (Meat Inspection Chief at VAAFM, julie.boisvert@vermont.gov) and CC or contact caroline@ruralvermont.org.

Watch Full Recording Here

The VT Agency of Agriculture’s new interpretation of Vermont’s on-farm slaughter law has created a lot of confusion and concern this year. Bring your questions and comments to this virtual info session with the VT Agency of Ag. Rural Vermont will be there - we hope to see you too.

On-Farm Slaughter Informational and Question/Answer Session

The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is holding an informational and Q&A virtual forum for those interested in On-Farm slaughter, or who have questions about it. Join the Meat Inspection Chief, Julie Boisvert, as she goes through an overview of information, addresses misconceptions, and answers questions you may have in an open and welcoming setting.

September 15, 2022

7:00PM – 8:30PM

Join by clicking the link below or using the call-in number provided.

________________________________________________________________________________

Microsoft Teams meeting

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

Click here to join the meeting

Meeting ID: 256 895 167 824
Passcode: 8CFfoh

Download Teams | Join on the web

Or call in (audio only)

+1 802-552-8456,,100265603#   United States, Montpelier

Phone Conference ID: 100 265 603#

Find a local number | Reset PIN

Learn More | Meeting options

Have you heard of the recent catastrophe of fish dying in a river on the German Polish border? 

Or that rainwater is not safe to drink due to PFAS?  

Or that PFAS is leaching into groundwater around the Coventry VT landfill?

Microplastics should not get into the environment, but do. 

The Universal Recycling Law was meant to "close the nutrient loop" by separating food residuals from trash and recycling, and allowing for the best and highest use of this valuable resource - including their agricultural use. But currently, waste streams are being consolidated through Casella’s zero-sort type services and sent to their depackaging facility in Williston VT. There, the commingled materials get crushed and grinded in a machine, mixed with water to become a pumpable “slurry” and afterwards get sent to digesters, after which they are land-applied. 

Even though science is behind on risk and harm assessments, this practice likely creates environmental harm through soil and water contamination as well as risks for human health. We call on Vermont to apply a precautionary approach. We call on Vermont to avoid these environmental and human health risks as much as possible through whatever means necessary, including regulation, while maintaining the Universal Recycling Law’s mandates.

Rural Vermont is a proud member of the Protect Our Soils Coalition, which successfully advocated for the passage of Act 170, that includes a stakeholder process to develop recommendations by January 2023 on how to regulate depackaging technology.

Now is time to protect the integrity of the URL in Vermont!

---

HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO:

Put this date on your calendar! The first "Food Waste Stakeholder Group" public meeting will be on Wednesday August 31st from 1-2:30pm.

Tom Gilbert (Black Dirt Farm, also representing the Poultry Farmers for Compost Foraging) will be part of the Managing Food Waste Stakeholder Group launching on August 31st 1pm - 2.30pm to find recommendations for the management of food waste and to address contamination issues with microplastics (including PFAS) as well as the role of depackaging technology. See the full list of those involved here.

TAKE ACTION:

(1) Show up in person, virtually or calling in to demonstrate that this matters to you! *

(2) Prepare and provide a one minute public comment on why this concerns you!

(3) Submit your talking points or written comment if you can't make the meeting or choose not to speak at it. Email comments to Ben Gauthier.

Express your concerns regarding the consolidation of waste streams of food residuals and the associated contamination risks for agricultural soils, human health and the environment more broadly. Hold the Agency of Natural Resources accountable for a more strict implementation of the source separation requirement and voice your support for community-scale solutions for the management of food scraps-- such as the innovative agriculture practice called compost foraging, where chickens graze on the compost piles, generate valuable soil amendments, and farmers save the #1 expense in poultry farming: the feed.

* How to Register and/or Join the Stakeholder Meeting:

• In person at the National Life campus, Davis Building, Catamount Room (1 National Life Dr, Montpelier, VT 05604). Please register via email and contact Mia Roethlein at mia.roethlein@vermont.gov

• The online Microsoft Teams meeting here | Meeting ID: 243 876 622 951 and Passcode: 5iiCWU

• Or call in (audio only) | +1 802-828-7667,,656507214#   United States, Montpelier and Phone Conference ID: 656 507 214#

---

BACKGROUND:

The Agency of Natural Resources allowed for the utilization of depackaging technology in Vermont for the management of food residuals without requiring their separation from their packaging at the point of generation. Over the last couple of years, this has led to a consolidation of food waste streams, making it harder for small farms to engage in community-scale composting of food residuals that have been separated from trash and recycling by generators for the diversion within their local communities.

For more information: 

• Supplemental stakeholder group meeting materials (including recordings) will be made available on the Department of Conservation’s website here.

• Read this recent WasteDive article outlining more details of the issue: “As organics depackager equipment market grows, so do concerns over microplastics contamination” 

• Talking Points from the Protect Our Soils Coalition

• More scientific articles on this topic are available at the Protect Our Soils Coalition, of which Rural Vermont is a member.

Today, USDA announced a suite of new actions delivering on key commitments from President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, including issuing a new Packers & Stockyards Act rulemaking, making available $200 Million to expand competition in meat processing, and investing $25 million in workforce training

WASHINGTON, May 26, 2022 – U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced more support, resources, and new rules that will strengthen the American food supply chain, promote fair and competitive agricultural markets, prevent abuse of farmers by poultry processors and make prices fairer for farmers and American consumers. These actions build on President Biden’s historic whole-of-government effort to promote competition in the American economy and fulfill key pillars of the Meat and Poultry Supply Chain Action Plan launched in January by President Biden, Secretary Vilsack, and Attorney General Garland. These actions combat market dominance by a small number of major meat and poultry processors in key markets, where excessive concentration and control has led to lower prices paid to producers and higher prices paid by consumers.

“For too long, farmers and ranchers have seen the value and the opportunities they work so hard to create move away from the rural communities where they live and operate,” Vilsack said. “Under the leadership of President Biden and Vice President Harris, USDA is committed to making investments that promote competition—helping support economic systems where the wealth created in rural areas stays in rural areas—and strengthening rules and enforcement against anticompetitive practices. The funding and new rule we’re announcing today ultimately will help us give farmers and ranchers a fair shake, strengthen supply chains, and make food prices fairer.”

Fighting for Fairness for Poultry Farmers

USDA today announced a proposed rule under the Packers and Stockyards Act to protect poultry growers from abuse. Today’s action is the first of three rulemakings that USDA will issue under the Packers and Stockyards Act under the President’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy in order to stop unfair, deceptive, discriminatory, and anticompetitive practices in the meat and poultry industry.

Currently, poultry processors exert control over much of the process of raising chickens through take-it-or-leave-it contracts with growers. Under these contracts, processors provide inputs like chickens and feed to poultry growers. Poultry growers, who often take on debt to build poultry growhouses, have limited visibility into the real range of outcomes and risks they face under these contracts. Moreover, once in the contracts, the processors then determine the payments that poultry growers receive for their services by weighing the chickens and ranking farmers based on how much the chickens grew. Pay is generally determined based on how a farmer compares to other farmers, but farmers currently have little insight into this comparison. For far too long, growers have complained that the “tournament” system is ripe for abuse.

The new rulemaking will require poultry processors to provide key information to poultry growers at several critical steps—increasing transparency and accountability in the poultry growing system. For example, processors would be required to disclose details of the inputs they provided to each farmer and information about the input differences among farmers being ranked. Furthermore, disclosures would cover the level of control and discretion exercised by the poultry processor and what financial returns the farmer can expect from the relationship based on the range of real experiences of other growers. Contracts would also be required to contain guaranteed annual flock placements and density. Poultry processor CEOs would be required to sign off on the compliance process for disclosure accuracy.

Simultaneously with issuing the proposed transparency rule, USDA is opening an inquiry into whether some practices of processors in the tournament system are so unfair that they should be banned or otherwise regulated. USDA seeks input from stakeholders to determine whether the current tournament-style system in poultry growing could be restricted or modernized to create a fairer, more inclusive marketplace.

Investing in Expanded Capacity

Vilsack also announced that USDA is making available $200 million under the new Meat and Poultry Intermediary Lending Program (MPILP) to strengthen the food supply chain and create opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs in rural communities. These funds will provide much-needed financing to independent meat and poultry processors to start up and expand operations. By introducing competition at this key bottleneck point in the supply chain, these investments will help raise earnings for farmers and lower prices for consumers.

The MPILP will provide grants of up to $15 million to nonprofit lenders, including private nonprofits, cooperatives, public agencies and tribal entities. These intermediaries will use this funding to establish a revolving loan fund to finance a variety of activities related to meat and poultry processing. For example, businesses may use the loans to acquire land, build or expand facilities and modernize equipment.

For more information, please visit www.rd.usda.gov/mpilp and read USDA Rural Development’s program announcement.

Building a Well-Paid, Well-Trained Meat and Poultry Processing Workforce

Vilsack also announced $25 million in investments for workforce training programs for meat and poultry processing workers with American Rescue Plan Act Section 1001 funding. The targeted funding through new and existing National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) programs is designed to create and expand upon good paying jobs that can strengthen the meatpacking industry by attracting and retaining employees.

NIFA is leading two funding opportunities:

• Extension Risk Management Education and Sustainable Agriculture Research Education Programs: An investment of $5 million will be split equally between Extension Risk Management Education and Sustainable Agriculture Research Education programs. Work in these programs will support development of meat and poultry processing training and educational materials for place-based needs, particularly relevant to small- or medium-sized farmers and ranchers. Additionally, training local and/or regional meat and poultry workers presents a unique opportunity to address the demand from niche markets, like mobile processing units fulfilling market demand from fresh markets, on-site processing, farm-to-fork (restauranteurs), boutique grocers and others.

• Community/Technical College Ag Workforce Training and Expanded Learning Opportunities: This Agricultural Workforce Training (AWT) investment makes available $20 million to qualified community colleges to support meat and poultry processing workforce development programs. The AWT program helps develop a workforce ready for the field as well as industry jobs in the food and agricultural sectors. By creating new workforce training programs, or expanding, improving, or renewing existing workforce training programs at community, junior, and technical colleges/institutes, this program will expand job-based, experiential learning opportunities, acquisition of industry-accepted credentials and occupational competencies for students to enable a workforce for the 21st century.

• For more information, please visit NIFA’s Webpage and read NIFA’s agency announcement.

Charting a Comprehensive Strategy for Promoting Competition in Agricultural Markets

Today, USDA also released a new report on Promoting Competition in Agricultural Markets, as required by President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. The report details USDA’s strategy for promoting competition in agricultural markets—including not only actions and initiatives to promote competition in meat and poultry markets, but also other key agricultural sectors like fertilizer and seeds. The report also discusses the negative impacts concentration in shipping has on our food supply chain and describes USDA’s efforts to work across the Administration to use all available tools to promote competition.

The report includes the announcement of two new pro-competition initiatives—initiatives that go above and beyond those required by the Executive Order. First, USDA is announcing plans to complete a top-to-bottom review of its programs to ensure they promote competition. Second, USDA announced it will update guidance to strengthen the verification requirements for the most widely used “animal-raising claims” to ensure consumers are getting what they are paying for.

Biden-Harris Administration Commitment to Supporting American Farmers and Ranchers

These steps are pursuant to President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy and his Executive Order on America’s Supply Chains. As Co-Chair of the Biden-Harris Administration’s Supply Chain Disruptions Task Force and as a member of the White House Competition Council, Secretary Vilsack and USDA have brought together industry, labor and federal partners to address the short-term supply chain disruptions arising from the Administration’s strong economic recovery and to address longstanding problems with the lack of competition in our economy. Today’s announcements are among many key steps that USDA is taking to build a more resilient supply chain and better food system and to increase competition in agricultural markets. This initiative will support key supply chain infrastructure investments to expand and scale existing capacity, as well as support long-term investments in new operations. See all recent actions taken to support the American food supply chain on www.usda.gov/meat.

USDA touches the lives of all Americans each day in so many positive ways. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, USDA is transforming America’s food system with a greater focus on more resilient local and regional food production, promoting competition and fairer markets for all producers, ensuring access to safe, healthy and nutritious food in all communities, building new markets and streams of income for farmers and producers using climate-smart food and forestry practices, making historic investments in infrastructure and clean energy capabilities in rural America, and committing to equity across the Department by removing systemic barriers and building a workforce more representative of America. To learn more, visit www.usda.gov.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

The Joint Fiscal Office issued the Committee of Conference Report on S. 11 - An act relating to economic and workforce development on May 11, 2022. The report nicely summarizes the bill that is still waiting for the Governors signature. Highlights are:

• $250,000 in General Fund dollars to the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation to establish a two-year contract for the development of the Vermont Forest Future Strategic Roadmap. The roadmap is meant to strengthen, modernize, promote, and protect the forest products sector in the State. (Section 45)

• $387,000 in General Fund dollars to Vermont Technical College to develop a skilled meat cutter training and apprenticeship facility.

• $1.3 million in General Fund dollars to Everyone Eats (Restaurants and Farmers Feeding the Hungry Program, Section 53e). The State funds will match Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds available for the program.

• $2.5 million in General Fund dollars to administer a statewide forgivable loan program of $5,000 per graduate who commits to work in Vermont for two years after graduation - with additional loan forgiveness for nurses, physician assistants, nurse faculty members, and mental health professionals

• $500,000 in ARPA SFR funds to the State Refugee Office to administer grants to refugee or New-American focused programs to support increased in-migration or retention of recent arrivals.

• $250,000 in ARPA SFR dollars to the Vermont Professionals of Color Network for business coaching and other training for BIPOC business owners; networking; and career fairs, workshops and paid internships.

Call the Office of Governor Phil Scott if you want to leave a message for the Governor on open bill signing actions at 802 828-3333. Read more about bills that Rural Vermont covered and that also have not been signed yet here.

In the 2022 session we covered 19+ bills related to agriculture and forestry (of which the majority passed) that were either directly related to our policy priorities, that we supported, provided testimony for, or monitored for you, our constituents, members and supporters. More details, including additional issues and policy positions can be found here.

Rural Vermont Legislative Policy Priorities

These are issues we actively advocated for because they are most relevant to current Rural Vermont policy priorities.

★Addressing contamination issues with food residuals management

With an interest in securing markets for clean streams of food residuals, our farmer stakeholder group initiated the Protect Our Soils Coalition that successfully advocated for a bill (H.446) addressing increased consolidation and contamination of soil by launching a process for regulating depackaging technology as well as a study on microplastics and PFAS in food packaging and food waste.

★Just and Equitable Cannabis Cultivation

Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition focused on integrating our primary goals related to social and economic equity, and agricultural access into the many bills related to cannabis introduced this session.  Our primary social equity goals were not integrated into legislation, leaving the marketplace without an ongoing source of funding for the Cannabis Development Fund and no reinvestment from tax revenue in communities disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis.  We sought to shape and improve S.188 - related to outdoor cultivation and agricultural use -which in its final version offers very few gains and some losses, including: a) Agricultural status for the smallest tier of outdoor cultivation license (we advocated to include all tiers of outdoor production) - access to current use status (if already enrolled), exemptions from municipal bylaw, Act 250 and similar development laws, and from tax retail sales. b) Cultivators are given allowance to sell seeds and live plants to other cultivators (but not directly to consumers); c) Wholesalers are also given allowance to sell seeds and live plants to cultivators (which we oppose); d) no direct sales license for producers or product manufactures.

★On-Farm Slaughter Reporting Form Requirement Repeal

Rural Vermont's ask to repeal the form requirements gained 155+ supporters but did not find specific consideration by legislators.  New state restrictions released via email in January now require livestock owners to be “present” during on-farm slaughter and to organize hiring itinerant slaughterers and transport of the carcasses for further processing. Farmers testified that these restrictions impair how they engaged with and built business models around the practice during the past decade, causing some to stop managing livestock. Rural Vermont is a member of the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, where we continue to partner to protect small farms and on-farm slaughter practices.

Bills Rural Vermont Informed

These are bills we testified on and organized for because they are relevant for the agricultural sector.

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

The regulation, reporting, and future permitting process for surface water withdrawals and interbasin transfers in VT (H.466) was an emergent issue in 2022. Currently, those who own or have access to land directly adjacent to a surface water are allowed to withdraw “de minimis” amounts from those waters (so-called “riparian laws”). H.466 aims to develop a fairly comprehensive database to better understand how, where, and for what purposes surface water is currently being used in order to address climate change, water resource supply, and equity concerns, and to inform a future rulemaking & permitting process - similar to regulations in most other States.  The final bill was substantially influenced by farmers and farming organizations in testimony and in outreach to their representatives, and arrived at a compromise agreeable to the agricultural & environmental parties present.

★H.626, neonicotinoid pesticides and treated seeds

This bill changed substantially from its initial proposal resulting in the Agricultural Innovation Board submitting a draft rule with recommended Best Management Practices  and other protocols related to treated articles (seeds & other items treated with pesticides) to the Ag Committees by 2/15/23.  During the implementation phase of the rules, the Agency of Ag is held to “work with farmers, seed companies, and other relevant parties to ensure that farmers have access to appropriate varieties and amounts of untreated seed or treated seed that are not neonicotinoid treated article seeds.” The bill also includes a program monitoring managed pollinator health and proposing benchmarks to the General Assembly by 2024, and provides the Agency with 2 new positions.

★S.258 Senate Miscellaneous Ag Bill, including Right To Farm

S.258 expands what will be covered under the right to farm law by including a new definition of “agricultural activities” in addition to what is already protected as “farming”. The misc. agricultural amendments in S.258 also include an across the board good standing requirement for recipients of VAAFM grants; the Secretary's approval prior to transporting non-sewage waste to farms; the extension of the task force to revitalize the dairy industry into 2023;  and minor tweaks to existing programs.

Bills Rural Vermont Supported

These are bills Rural Vermont supported by amplifying existing advocacy efforts of leading organizations through our network.

★Environmental Justice Bill

S.148 initiates a series of mechanisms and working groups so that the state government facilitates meaningful participation with its constituents on issues of environmental burdens & benefits to fulfill Title XI of the Civil Rights Act.  The bill tasks certain agencies with reassessing past investments and to identify where there has not been an equitable allocation of resources at the municipal or census-block level, with the help of an environmental justice mapping tool that is now being developed. This assessment would determine which communities do not receive a proportionate amount of environmental benefits, and inform the agencies’ subsequent investments.

★BIPOC Land Access and Opportunity Bill

The creation of a diverse Land Access & Opportunity Board to promote racial and social equity in land access and property ownership passed through an amendment to S.226, the VT housing bill. The amendment aims to develop related programming in collaboration with VT Housing & Conservation Board (VHCB) and included $200K in funds and administrative support from VHCB. 

★Liability for poor workmanship at utility construction worksites

An effort to set stringent measures to prevent instances of poor workmanship at utility construction worksites where ingestion of debris can cause hardware disease or poisoning (such as at two farms in Tunbridge last year) ended up in Sec. 23a of H.515 requiring the Public Utility Commission to issue educational risk management guidance to broadband service providers. Unfortunately the bill directly states that: “It is not the intent [...] to establish new or expand existing rights, obligations, or remedies.” Guidance documents are not legally binding and are subject to change at the discretion of the issuing agency. The lack of accountability is disappointing  given the ongoing efforts to expand broadband and the associated risks that surfaced for livestock specifically.

Bill statuses updated 6/9/22.

Rarely have we seen as many bills related to agriculture and forestry as in the 2022 session - we covered 19+ bills that were either directly related to our policy priorities, that we supported, provided testimony for, or monitored for you, our constituents, members and supporters. More importantly, these bills have not just been introduced, but the majority of them have made it through passage by the general assembly. Now they are on their way to the Governor's desk as we’re writing this end-of-session recap.

HIGHLIGHTS: 

With an interest in securing markets for clean streams of food residuals that have been separated from their packaging, our farmer stakeholder group initiated the Protect Our Soils Coalition that successfully advocated for a bill (Now H.446) that addresses the increasing consolidation and contamination of this valuable resource by launching a process for regulating depackaging technology. Regrettably, establishing meaningful agricultural access, racial justice, and economic equity in the emerging cannabis market, could not be achieved in the political landscape this biennium but our Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition succeeded  in having farmers and other community voices heard in testimony on a number of occasions while educating legislators of their challenges and needs.  Emerging issues such as surface water regulations (H.466) were substantially affected by farmers and farming organizations in testimony and in outreach to their representatives, and arrived at a compromise agreeable to all of the agricultural and environmental parties present.

As this is also an election year, this was the last session with some of Vermont’s legislative icons. We say thank you and farewell to progressive leader Senator Anthony Pollina - who co-founded Rural Vermont and served as our very first Executive Director. With fellow Progressive Senator Chris Pearson also leaving the Senate, two of 5 seats of the Senate Agriculture Committee will be available.    Representative Carolyn Partridge is  retiring from her long term Chair position in the House Agriculture and Forestry Committee  - she was a significant supporter of raw milk and on-farm slaughter legislative improvements over the years. The House Agriculture and Forestry Committee will also likely be substantially different next year.

Bill updates:

• On-Farm Slaughter Reporting Form Requirement Repeal

• Addressing Contamination Issues with Food Residuals Management

• Just and Equitable Cannabis Cultivation

• H.626 - Neonicotinoid Pesticides

• H. 466 - Surface Water

• S.258 - Senate Miscellaneous Ag Bill, including Right To Farm

• S.148 - Environmental Justice Bill

• BIPOC Land Access and Opportunity Bill

• Liability for Poor Workmanship at Utility Construction Worksites

• Universal School Meals

• H. 709 - House Miscellaneous Ag Bill

• Clean Heat Standard Bill

• Forestry & Working Lands Bills

• Other Bills

On-Farm Slaughter Reporting Form Requirement Repeal

Why is this a Rural Vermont policy priority? We center our work on food sovereignty and have advanced the right to slaughter livestock and poultry in Vermont through legislation and grassroots organizing for over a decade. 

Advocacy priority: The goal to repeal the registration and report form requirements for farmers would have mirrored the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) policy shift to more responsibly engage livestock owners in on-farm slaughter while alleviating bureaucratic burdens for farmers. New VAAFM restrictions released via email in January to registered practitioners now require livestock owners to be “present” during on-farm slaughter and to organize hiring itinerant slaughterers and transporting the carcasses for further processing themselves. Farmers testified to the fact that these restrictions impair their status quo of how they engaged and built business models around the practice during the past decade, causing some of them to stop managing livestock.

Status update: Both agriculture committees had a hard time making sense of the new requirements, hearing testimonials from farmers, itinerant slaughterers, and advocacy organizations during our Small Farm Action Day, as well as the federal delegation and Vermont agency staff. Rural Vermont's ask to repeal the form requirements gained over 155 supporters but did not find specific consideration by legislators and was not included in a miscellaneous agriculture bill.

Addressing Contamination Issues with Food Residuals Management

Bill info & status update: H.446, relating to miscellaneous natural resources and development subjects now includes language on regulating depackaging technology from the original H.501. The bill includes a moratorium on further permitting of food depackaging facilities until rules have been adopted. This will not impair the existing facility in Williston Vermont but the expansion of capacity for this new industry. Rules will need to be informed by a collaborative stakeholder process that will recommend a role for depackagers in managing food waste as well as a study on microplastics and PFAS in food packaging and food waste. H.446 was signed into law by the Governor on June 2, 2022, and is now Act 170.

Why is this a Rural Vermont policy priority? We support compost foraging as an innovative agricultural practice where farmers import clean streams of food residuals onto their farms and allow their chickens access to compost piles to forage on while producing valuable soil amendments. The “zero sort” consolidation of waste streams of food residuals creates new resource concerns that the Universal Recycling Law was intended to solve while hindering market development for small scale composters.

Advocacy priorities: The introduction and passage of a pathway for regulating depackaging technology is a success of the Protect Our Soils Coalition that Rural Vermont is a founding member of. We will continue to advocate for regulating the industry with a goal to strictly implement the source separation requirement with a strategic plan, a ban of all non-packaged, easily unpackaged and post-consumer materials from being mixed with packaged materials at depackaging facilities as well as a land application ban from slurries from depackaging facilities.

Just and Equitable Cannabis Cultivation

Why is this a Rural Vermont policy priority? As part of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, Rural Vermont is advocating for a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound. This includes core principles such as:  ongoing funding for the Cannabis Development Fund (which funds the State’s social equity programming related to cannabis), a percentage of the tax revenue from cannabis be allotted to reinvestment in communities disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis, scale appropriate regulations, 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, realistic home cultivation allowances.

Bills & status update: About six bills on cannabis have been introduced this session and our coalition has  largely been focused on one remaining bill the last few weeks, S.188 - related to the outdoor cultivation of cannabis.  After a few back and forths between the House and Senate at the tail end, we are left with a bill which still offers very little agricultural or economic equity that our coalition and members directly advocated for. The current bill includes minimal gains and some losses:

• Smallest tier of outdoor cultivation license will enjoy the same benefits of agriculture as relates to a number of things: access to current use status (if already enrolled), exemption from municipal bylaw, exemption from Act 250 and similar development laws, exemption from tax retail sales.

• Cultivators given allowance to sell seeds and live plants to other cultivators (but not directly to consumers)

• Wholesalers are also given allowance to sell seeds and live plants to cultivators (which we are not in support of)

The final bill also included last minute controversial language leveraged by Rep. Gannon to avoid a committee of conference on particular issues in the miscellaneous cannabis bill , H.548, including THC caps on extracts which our organizational ally the Vermont Growers Association, as well as the Cannabis Control Board, have been in opposition to.  S.188 was signed into law by the Governor on May 31, 2022, and is now Act 158.

Advocacy priorities: Ultimately, we support the agricultural status gains for small cultivators - but feel they cannot be limited to only the smallest tier - and oppose a number of aspects of this bill from the allowances for Wholesalers to the inclusion of these agricultural status gains only for land already in current use (which may disproportionately impact particular farmers, and those without current access to land currently in agriculture).  The most important Social Equity goals of our coalition - and a recommendation of the CCB (Jan. 15th Report, Slide 25) - were disappointingly not addressed by legislators:  

• 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).  

Overall, The primary racial justice, agricultural access, and economic equity goals and proposals we were advocating for remain absent as we see this legislative session end, and the market roll-out begin.  The Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition will continue to advocate, organize, and educate about the importance of these priorities.  Please be in touch throughout this first year of the regulated market to share your experiences.!

H.626 - Neonicotinoid Pesticides

What is this bill about? This bill has changed substantially from its initial proposal (which included a moratorium on the use of neonicotinoid treated seeds until rules and integrated pest management practices were developed) to its current form as passed by the House and Senate.  At this point, the bill allows the Agency of Agriculture to adopt by rule Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other protocols related to treated articles (seeds and other items treated with pesticides) as recommended by the Agricultural Innovation Board (AIB) - an authority which the Agency already has.  It also requires the Agency of Agriculture, in consultation with the AIB, to adopt by rule BMPs for the use of neonicotinoid treated seeds.  It requires the Sec. of Agriculture to, “work with farmers, seed companies, and other relevant parties to ensure that farmers have access to appropriate varieties and amounts of untreated seed or treated seed that are not neonicotinoid treated article seeds”.  It also now includes a program of monitoring managed pollinator health and developing benchmarks associated with it.  It requires the Agency and AIB submit their proposed rules to the Agriculture Committees and General Assembly in 2024; and in the case of BMPs for all treated article seed (as opposed to neonics alone) to the Ag Committees by February 15, 2023.  Lastly, it provides the Agency with 2 new positions split between different functions germaine and not germane to pesticides.

Rural Vermont position: We are conflicted in relationship to this bill.  Though we did not draft or know of this bill until after the legislative session began, our goal - and those whom we’ve been working most closely with (including NOFA VT) - has been to shape it towards ending the unregulated prophylactic use of neonicotinoid treated seeds (as has been done in many parts of the world based on significant scientific evidence of their detrimental impacts on pollinator and insect health) while providing the support farmers need to implement integrated pest management protocols, and source adequate varieties and amounts of seed not treated with neonicotinoid pesticides.  It is unclear to us if this bill will get us to this point - and based on the language of the bill it largely depends on the work of the Agency of Agriculture, the Agricultural Innovation Board, and the legislature.  A number of VT beekeepers provided compelling and devastating testimony throughout this process which the legislature has not responded to with the kind of support it has with other agricultural industries in crisis; as beekeepers noted to the committees.  It is unclear if the monitoring program in this bill is supported by VT’s apiaries, and particular beekeepers we’ve been in contact with have expressed their significant disappointment and frustrations with this bill.  

Status: H.626 has been signed into law by the Governor on May 27, 2022, and is now Act 145.

H. 466 - Surface Water

What is this bill about? This bill addresses regulation, reporting, and a future permitting process for surface water withdrawals and interbasin transfers in VT.  Currently, surface water withdrawals are governed by “riparian laws” (which allow those who own or have access to land directly adjacent to a surface water to withdraw from those waters) and “de minimis” withdrawal allowances in VT (a particular amount of water allowed to be withdrawn each day based on particular data related to streamflow - but which does not account for cumulative use); yet most States have implemented regulations similar to what H.466 now proposes.  The goal of this reporting is to develop a fairly comprehensive database and understanding of how, where, and for what purposes surface water is currently being used in the State in order to  address climate change, water resource supply, and equity concerns, and to inform a future rulemaking and permitting process.  This bill may affect you if you are a farm, business, or other entity using surface water.  Important features of the final bill for the farming community:

• “[Beginning in 2023, any] person who withdrew 10,000 gallons or more of surface water within a 24-hour period in the preceding calendar year or 150,000 gallons or more of surface water over any 30-day period in the preceding calendar year shall file a report with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets. The report shall be made on a form provided by the Secretary and shall include all of the following information: 

(1) an estimate of the total amount of water withdrawn in the preceding calendar year; 

(2) the location of the withdrawals;

(3) the daily maximum withdrawal for each month; 

(4) the date of each daily maximum withdrawal

(5) any other information related to surface water withdrawal required by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets.

• An “exception” from the future permitting process for: “surface water withdrawals for irrigation for farming, livestock watering, or other uses for farming, as the term “farming” is defined in 6 20 V.S.A. § 4802”

• Springs are no longer included in the definition of surface water in this bill.

Rural Vermont position: This bill will affect many farms and agricultural businesses in the State.  lt benefited substantially from the organizing, testimony, and expertise of the VT Vegetable and Berry Growers’ Association and the farmers and farming organizations who testified.  In particular farmers such as Justin Rich and Joseph Dutton (among others) who came out to testify many times, organized on farming listservs, and made the time needed to substantially affect this bill.  The Senate Agriculture Committee also took important steps to work with farming and environmental groups to arrive at a compromise which all parties could agree to - including Rural VT.  

Status: H.466 was signed into law by the Governor on May 24, 2022, and is now Act 135.

S.258 - Senate Miscellaneous Ag Bill, including Right To Farm

What is this bill about? S.258 expands what will be covered under the right to farm law by including a new definition of “agricultural activities” in addition to what already has been protected as “farming”. The miscellaneous agricultural amendments in S.258 also include an across the board good standing requirement for recipients of VAAFM grants; the Secretary's approval prior to transporting non-sewage waste to farms; the extension of the task force to revitalize the dairy industry into 2023;  and some minor tweaks to existing programs. 

Status: S.258 was signed into law by the Governor on June 1, 2022, and is now Act 162.

S.148 - Environmental Justice Bill

What is this bill about? Introduced by Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (D-Chittenden), S.148 will set into motion a series of mechanisms and new working groups so that the state government facilitates meaningful participation with its constituents on issues of environmental burdens and benefits in fulfillment of Title XI of the Civil Rights Act.  The goal of this piece of legislation is to ensure that no segment of the population “bear a disproportionate share of environmental burdens or be denied an equitable share of environmental benefits,” and “to provide the opportunity for the meaningful participation of all individuals, with particular attention to environmental justice focus populations, in the development, implementation, or enforcement of any law, regulation, or policy” (S.148, pgs. 8-9).  The bill tasks certain government agencies with reassessing their past investments and to identify where there has not been an equitable allocation of resources at the municipal or census-block level. This assessment would determine where there are communities that do not receive a proportionate amount of environmental benefits and would serve to inform the agencies’ subsequent investments.  Furthermore, S.148 establishes an Interagency Environmental Justice Committee as well as an Environmental Justice Advisory Council — the Interagency Committee would be composed of representatives from the agencies, including ANR and VAAFM, and the Advisory Council would include members of environmental justice populations to represent their community’s interests.  Finally, S.148 sets forth the creation of an environmental justice mapping tool which would assist in the implementation of the environmental justice policy by overlaying different criteria to help identify and depict populations that bear disproportionate environmental burdens.

Status: S. 148 was signed into law by the Governor on May 31, 2022, and is now Act 154.

More info: Much of the bill was informed through work by the R.E.J.O.I.C.E. Project—read more about that initiative here. Environmental Justice in the news on VTDigger here and here AND on VPR here.

BIPOC Land Access and Opportunity Bill

What is this bill about? H.273, An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership, sought to address systemic barriers to property ownership by creating a fund and board that would, per the the bill’s language, “promote racial and social equity in land access and property ownership by creating grant programs, financial education, and other investments targeted to 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” (H.273 as introduced, pg. 1). While H.273 died in committee, the creation of the Land Access & Opportunity Board was included in an amendment to S.226, the VT housing bill, that passed the House last week. The Board would be composed of a diverse set of community members and representatives from racial equity organizations. The amendment included $200K in funds and administrative support by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (Sec. 22a, p. 36 et al.). It appears that the idea of establishing a fund was tabled for the newly created board to develop related programming in collaboration with VHCB instead.

Status: S. 226 was signed into law by the Governor on June 7, 2022.

More info: Lead organizers for H.273 were Seeding Power, a collective of multi-racial organizers working on systemic changes that center BIPOC self-determination and healing relationships with land and between people. Sign-up for updates from Seeding Power here.

Liability for Poor Workmanship at Utility Construction Worksites

What is this bill about? S.166 started as an effort to set stringent measures to prevent instances of poor workmanship at utility construction worksites where ingestion of debris can cause hardware disease or poisoning like it has occured at two farms in Tunbridge Vermont last year. Instead of setting an obligatory liability of contractors for their subcontractors into statute or requiring the Public Utility Commission (PUC) to issue an order to specify requirements, what remains is Sec. 23a in H.515 (p.98) that now requires the Department of Financial Regulation in consultation with the PUC: “to provide educational risk management guidance to broadband service providers engaged in broadband construction projects to reduce the risk  of harm or injury to Vermonters, generally. It is not the intent [...] to establish new or expand existing rights, obligations, or remedies.” Guidance documents are not legally binding and subject to change at the discretion of the issuing agency. The lack of accountability measures that would establish rights, obligations and remedies is disappointing - given the ongoing efforts to expand broadband in Vermont and the associated risks that surfaced for livestock specifically. 

Status: H. 515 was signed into law by the Governor on May 27, 2022, and is now Act 139.

More info: contact the Vermont Farm Bureau who took the lead on advancing this issue here.

Universal School Meals

What is this bill about? Campaign goal was to secure funding to provide free breakfast and lunch to every student in Vermont for another year. S.100 estimated the cost at $29 million that will be secured out of the state’s close to $100 million education surplus. The passage of S. 100 secures the continuation of the program that would otherwise have ended on June 30 due to limited federal funding. Equity is the core piece of this legislation - providing all kids with free meals to reduce stigmas. 

Status: S.100 was signed into law by the Governor on May 31, 2022, and is now Act 151.

More info: Learn more about this initiative from Hunger Free Vermont here. 

H. 709 - House Miscellaneous Ag Bill

What is this bill about? H.709, An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects, is a miscellaneous bill that includes a number of provisions related to agriculture, with major discussions surrounding the provision about accessory on-farm businesses that resulted in  striking the word “principally” from the phrase “principally produced on the farm” in 24 V.S.A. § 4412’s description of what products are allowed to be sold at an AOFB.  Other provisions in H.709 include no longer requiring that owners or lessees of small farms notify the Agency of Agriculture about changes of ownership; changes to how high-THC hemp products are dealt with; incentives for prioritizing larvicide treatments in mosquito control districts; and granting the Agency of Agriculture the ability to consider of past permit or license violations or allegation when issuing a new permit of license. Furthermore, Section 11 includes a clarification to the Act 250 definition of farming after which “small farms” do not have to certify or meet the minimal numbers of animals like “certified small farms” - an important distinction for farmers that want to diversify into compost foraging and the commercial sales of composts derived from food residuals. A tier of the new emerging VAAFM rules privileges small farms that manage poultry to commercially sell all of their composts derived from food residuals without needing to land-apply the majority of those composts. Without the clarification in law, VAAFM interpreted farmers would need to keep at least 6,250 laying hens instead of only 100 laying hens in this on-farm composting category for poultry farmers.  

Status: H.709 was signed into law by the Governor on June 2, 2022, and is now Act 174.

Clean Heat Standard Bill

What is this bill about? The Clean Heat Standard bill aimed to realize emission reduction goals of the Climate Action Plan in the thermal sector.  We reported on H.715, with concerns regarding the bill's inclusion of biofuels and natural gas as clean heat measures (revisit our blog here). In third reading, Sen. Ram Hinsdale and Pollina offered an amendment (p.54) that would have included sustainability measures to cap and sunset the eligibility of biofuels and renewable gas for clean heat credits. The Senate did not agree to these amendments but the bill still failed due to the Governor's veto and subsequent failure of the House to override the same by one vote (read VTDigger report here). 

Status: Vetoed by Governor - override failed in roll call that needed 100 of 150 (Yeas = 99, Nays = 51).

Forestry & Working Lands Bills

• S. 234 - An act relating to changes to Act 250
  

  What is this bill about? This bill functionally acts as a miscellaneous bill that contains a number of updates to Act 250.  The stated purpose of S.234 is to “encourage a municipality to plan for new and infill development in the area including and immediately encircling its designated downtown center [...] in order to provide needed housing and to further support the commercial establishments in the designated center.” (S.234, pg. 1) One of Vermont’s most consequential pieces of land use and development legislation, Act 250’s permitting process, can sometimes impede necessary development — S.234 tries to remedy that by making incentives available to municipalities seeking permits for infill development in their town centers. The bill was controversial because of allowing infill development in “flood hazard areas” provided that the developer institutes a comprehensive series of flood resilience measures.  Many Vemronters remember the consequences of tropical storm Irene well and question how this approach mitigates long term flood projections that are expected to occur with Climate Change. Critics of S.234 also feel the bill does not do enough to ensure that necessary housing projects come to fruition, or even that the bill would further complicate development efforts. 

  Commentary: Initiatives like this may also be seen as a soft version of what’s in geography known as the “central places theory” - a principle that originated in Germany where it is part of the federal building code that resulted in keeping the landscape free from development by prohibiting urban sprawl. Germany’s building code instead only allows for a development project in undesignated outlying areas when it serves agricultural or forestry activities; is for the public supply of electricity, gas, telecommunications services, heat and water or for sewerage, and a very few other permissible uses (see Sec. 35 German Building Code).

  Status:  Vetoed by the Governor on June 1, 2022, because “this bill makes Act 250 even more cumbersome than it is today and it will make it harder to build the housing we desperately need.” Read the Governor’s letter to the General Assembly here. VTDigger reported here.

• H. 566 - Vermont Forest Future

  What is this bill about? H.566 was about a new initiative through the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund that would have served to “strengthen, promote, and protect the forest products industry of Vermont.” (H.566 as introduced, pg. 1) H.566 would have prompted the development of a Vermont Forest Future Action Plan, which would have identified funding opportunities, recommended measures to support and further develop the state’s forest enterprise workforce, and recommend ways to “maintain access by Vermont forest enterprises to forestland while maintaining the stewardship and conservation of Vermont’s forests as a whole.” (H.566, pg. 5)

  Status (updated 5.24.22): The Forest Future Strategic Roadmap passed the Senate and House through S.11, the workforce development bill (Sec 42-45 of the act, starting on pg 31: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2022/Docs/BILLS/S-0011/S-0011%20House%20proposal%20of%20amendment%20Official.pdf). S. 11 was signed into law by the Governor on June 8.

• H. 606 - An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection

  What is this bill about? This bill acknowledges the intrinsic value of biodiversity and the continuous rapid threats of extinction of one million species of plants and animals globally and locally. In consequence of the Climate Action Plan, this bill sets conservation targets of 30% of Vermont’s total land area being conserved by 2030 and 50% by 2050 through the development of a mix of ecological reserve, biodiversity conservation and natural resource management areas according to a conservation plan issued by the Secretary of Natural Resources by December 2023. 

  Status: H.606 was vetoed by the Governor on June 2, 2022, backing up the Agency of Natural Resources position stating: “the conservation goals established in H.606 are unnecessarily tied to - and unreasonably limited to - permanent protection. The Agency has repeatedly said that permanent preservation has not been, and cannot be, the state's exclusive conservation tool and this bill, intentional or not, would diminish the existing and successful conservation tools we have.” Read the Governor’s letter to the General Assembly here. VTDigger reported here.

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

  What is this bill about? H.697 paves the way for landowners to enroll their reserve forestland into the Current Use program which assigns a property tax based on the forestry or agricultural production value rather than the market value.  Currently, privately-owned forestland accounts for 80% of Vermont’s total forests.  “Reserve forestland,” as defined in the bill, refers to “land that is managed for the purpose of attaining old forest values and functions in accordance with minimum acceptable standards for forest management.”  (H.697 as passed by the House, pg. 8) Landowners would need to submit a conservation management plan to the Department of Forests, Parks, & Recreation in order to apply for the Current Use Enrollment. 

  Status: H.697 was signed into law by the Governor on May 27, 2022, and is now Act 146.

• S. 281 - An act relating to hunting coyotes with dogs

  What is this bill about? This bill intends to reduce conflicts between landowners and persons pursuing coyotes with the aid of dogs by reducing the frequency that hunters and their dogs enter onto land that is posted against hunting or where such hunting has not been authorized.

  Status: S. 281 was signed into law by the Governor on June 1, 2022, and is now Act 165.

Other Bills

• FY23 Budget includes $1 M for development of Payment for Ecosystem Services program

  “$1,000,000 for the development of an agricultural Payment for Ecosystems Services Program to support the work of the Payment for Ecosystem Services and Soil Health Working Group (PES WG) – as authorized by 2019 Acts and Resolves No. 83, amended by 2020 Acts and Resolves No. 129 and 2021 Acts and Resolves No. 47 – to enable Payment for Ecosystem Services Program development to retain facilitation services, contract identified research needs, fund pilot program development, and deliver payments to farmers for quantified ecosystem services.”
  The PES WG continues to meet and is yet undecided about the cornerstones of a pilot program - register here and provide public comment during the May 17th mtg.

• FY23 Budget includes $4.76 M to AAFM from ARPA funds for climate mitigation

  “$4,760,000 to the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to provide farms in Vermont with financial assistance for the implementation of soil-based practices that improve soil quality and nutrient retention, increase crop production, minimize erosion potential, and reduce agricultural waste discharges. Assistance may take the form of programs that provide education, training, or instruction to farmers.”

• H. 730 - An act relating to alcoholic beverages and the Department of Liquor and Lottery

  What is the bill about? A bipartisan effort to clarify the regulatory landscape for Ciders and other alcoholic beverages, H.730 includes a wide range of technical corrections. Among those, Cider will now have its own legal definition and will be taxed like beer when lower 7% ABV at 26 ½ cents per gallon and like wine when alcohol contents exceed 7% ABV.

  Status: H. 730 was signed into law by the Governor on June 7, 2022.

• S. 285 - An act relating to health care reform initiatives, data collection, and access to home- and community-based services

  What is the bill about? This bill gives the Green Mountain Care Board $4 million+ to come up with a “patient-focused, community-inclusive plan” for setting hospital budgets. The bill falls drastically short of the reforms needed around overall healthcare costs, and provides an incremental step towards hospital budget reform.
  Status: Signed into law by the Governor on June 1, 2022. Read the signing letter here.

• FY 23 budget includes $8.26M for VAAFM Ag Clean Water Fund Work (Both ARPA and CWF funding sources)

• Take Action! Senate Took Testimony on H. 501 - Regulating Depackaging Technology Bill

• Take Action! S. 148 - Environmental Justice Bill

• "Right to Farm" Now Included in S. 258

• Senate Agriculture Amends H. 466 - Surface Water Bill

• Rural Vermont and Others Express Opposition to Provisions of H. 715 - Clean Heat Standard Bill

• H. 709 - Miscellaneous Ag Bill - Heads to Senate Finance

• Senate Ag Amending H. 626 - Pesticides: Treated Seeds and Neonicotinoids

• Cannabis Market Rollout and Legislation

Take Action! Senate Took Testimony on H. 501 - Regulating Depackaging Technology Bill

Last week, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy (SNRE) began to take testimony on H.501 - the bill that would create a process for regulating depackaging technology. Depack technology is used by Casella to offer generators of food residuals another form of their “zero sort” services - mechanically separating food residuals from their packaging. This is in stark contrast to the “source separation requirement of the Universal Recycling law that mandates generators of food waste to separate the organics from recyclable materials and trash at the point of generation.

 Rural Vermont is part of the Protect Our Soils Coalition that advocates to uphold the source separation requirement by creating a process for regulating depackaging technology and researching the related contamination issues in a holistic manner. We do not believe that source separation is a “lofty goal,” as Casella characterizes the Universal Recycling law. 

In countries like Germany, contamination thresholds and collection bins for organics are everyday standards. Vermont can lead the way but is currently greenwashing the law that was supposed to resolve a resource concern (trash) by creating maybe even a larger one: the contamination of the soils we eat from with microplastics (including PFAS). Any management of food residuals comes with the risk of contaminants like microplastics entering soil, microorganisms, plants and eventually human bodies. The most effective way to mitigate this risk is to be very stringent about not including any packaging or utensils in organic waste - also not the compostable kinds which often still contain plastic film liners. While the scientific findings are still insufficient to suggest a contamination threshold for Vermont (due to the lack of an effective large-scale testing methodology), best practices, guidelines, strategic planning and also clear rules are tools that are also needed and that should be required now.

This is the gap H.501 seeks to close and it’s important to act now, while Casella’s permit is under review. Please revisit our call to action and reach out to SNRE now in support of passing H.501 and to consider the amendment proposals from the Protect Our Soils Coalition. Take Action Now: Support the Protect Our Soil Coalition, here!

More info: View Black Dirt Farm, ANR and UVM testimonials here; view Rural Vermont and Casella testimonials here. You can also read Rural Vermont's written testimony here. 

Latest status: SNRE is considering moving the bill through merging H.501 with the miscellaneous ANR bill, H.446, but was not presented with a new version of the bill yet.

Take Action! S. 148 - Environmental Justice Bill

In the past several weeks, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, & Wildlife continued to take testimony on S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont.  Much of the testimony came from representatives from the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), the main state agency that will be tasked with implementing many of the provisions in the bill.  Maggie Gendron, Deputy Secretary of ANR, provided testimony on logistical concerns with the bill’s timeline—S.148 originally tasked ANR with making several council and committee appointments by December of this year and issuing guidance to other agencies by January 2023.  On Wednesday, April 27, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, & Wildlife approved an amended version of the bill, which amended the timeline to give the agency until September 15, 2023 to issue guidance. Other agencies now have until February 15, 2024 to review their past three years of spending and generate a report on it.

The bill appropriates $500,000 from the General Fund for the development of the mapping tool (including public input on said tool), as well as $200,000 for the conversion of one part-time position at ANR to full-time as well as the funding of two positions that will aid the implementation of S.148. As recommended by House Natural Resources, the bill sets up a Special Environmental Justice Fund so that council members that are not government employees can be paid up to an additional $150 on top of the $50 per diem that is allocated by state statute. But the fund has not been covered with sufficient appropriations so that lead advocates call for action, see below, to secure the financing and functioning of the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. 

Take Action Now! Support the Environmental Justice Bill (S.148) and email your Representative and/or the House Appropriations Committee to secure funding for the Environmental Justice Advisory Council at $200 per diem. Here’s a draft message:

“Dear members of the House Appropriations Committee,

I am writing to you today to ask you to include funds to secure a $200 per diem compensation for the work of the Environmental Justice Advisory Council. It is imperative that environmental justice communities have voice in the state level decisions that will impact them. This is the role of the Environmental Justice Advisory Council and it is only fair that their work be funded.

Regards,

Your Name”

Email the House Appropriations Committee members at:

• Rep. Mary Hooper - mhooper@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Peter Fagen - pfagan@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Kimberly Jessup - kjessup@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Martha Feltus - mfeltus@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. James Harrison - jharrison@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Robert Helm - rhelm@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Robin Scheu - RScheu@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Trevor Squirrell - TSquirrell@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Tristan Toleno - ttoleno@leg.state.vt.us 

• Rep. Maida Townsend - mtownsend@leg.state.vt 

• Rep. David Yacovone - DYacovone@leg.state.vt.us 

More info: Read our previous write-up on S.148 here!

Latest status: On Wednesday, April 27, the House Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, & Wildlife approved an amended version of the bill, which can be read here.

"Right to Farm" Now Included in S. 258

The House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry amended the miscellaneous agriculture bill of the Senate, S. 258, to include an amended version of the Right to Farm bill (S.268). This amended version leaves the conditions farmers have to meet to be protected from nuisance lawsuits unchanged by keeping the rebuttable presumption in place. In contrast to that, the Senate's original version of the bill was changing the conditions to make it easier for farmers to be protected from nuisance lawsuits. What remains is a new definition of “agricultural activities” that will be covered under the Right To Farm laws protection in addition to what is already defined as “farming.”

Rural Vermont had been reaching out through our national network of family farms (via NFFC) to learn more about the role of Right to Farm laws and heard many times that their significance is often related to protecting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s) by discouraging nuisance lawsuits. In Vermont, the legislation was inspired by an agricultural runoff case into Lake Champlain that was subject to litigation. The case was ruled in favor of the neighboring plaintiffs (who had a background in farming themselves) - VTDigger reported, read the latest on that here.

Rural Vermont monitored this bill without taking a stand one way or the other. Instead, we questioned in testimony how far improvements to “Right to Farm” would be able to create incentives for the establishment of more farms, reflect a right to food, protect homesteaders (from municipal zoning for example) and how the law would shake out when neighboring farms have conflicts (for example if there’s a pesticide drift). It appears that the Right to Farm law does not provide the most effective policy mechanism to address any of these concerns well and we’re looking forward to the summer to brainstorm better ways to set new policy priorities to advance some of these issues. Please reach out if any of these subjects are important to you or if you have other ideas for future work that we should consider - info@ruralvermont.org.

More info: We had shared the new list of agricultural activities that are now included in Right To Farm in our last update - read more here. Learn more about what else is part of this miscellaneous ag bill, by browsing through the bill or revisit our brief summary here.

Latest status: The House Appropriations Committee approved of the per diem compensation for members of the continued Task Force to Revitalize the Vermont Dairy Industry that is also part of the bill. The bill is now on the way to the House floor. 

Senate Agriculture Amends H. 466 - Surface Water Bill

After many weeks of repeated testimony and amendments, and many farmers and others contacting their representatives (awesome work everyone!) - an agreement seems to have been reached. The Senate Agriculture Committee took H.466 into its hands after the Senate Natural Resource Committee, and subsequently took testimony from farmers and farm organizations (including Rural VT) on multiple occasions over the past two weeks, creating multiple drafts, before arriving at a final amended version which we expect to be voted out of Senate Agriculture this week.

Features of the amended bill:

• An “exception” from the future permitting process for: “surface water withdrawals for irrigation for farming, livestock watering, or other uses for farming, as the term “farming” is defined in 6 20 V.S.A. § 4802”

• Farmers meeting the registration and reporting threshold will report their use to the Agency of Agriculture, not the Agency of Natural Resources.

• “[Any] person who withdrew 10,000 gallons or more of surface water within a 24-hour period in the preceding calendar year or 150,000 gallons or more of surface water over any 30-day period in the preceding calendar year shall file a report with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets. The report shall be made on a form provided by the Secretary and shall include all of the following information:
  (1) an estimate of the total amount of water withdrawn in the preceding calendar year;
  (2) the location of the withdrawals;
  (3) the daily maximum withdrawal for each month;
  (4) the date of each daily maximum withdrawal
  (5) any other information related to surface water withdrawal required by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets.”

Once the bill is through the Sen. Agriculture Committee it will continue to need support to make it through the rest of the legislative body. The VT Veg and Berry Growers Association, NOFA VT, Rural VT, the VT Farm Bureau, the VT Agency of Ag, and the Chair of the Surface Water Study Committee - Jeff Crocker, DEC Streamflow Coordinator - all support what has been discussed as the most recent version of the bill as an equitable compromise. Now’s the time to contact your reps to express your support and / or ongoing concerns!

More info: Read the most recent Draft No. 4.3 of the bill here and find our previous input on this bill here.

Latest status: The Senate Committee on Agriculture voted the bill unanimously as amended (Draft No. 4.3) out of committee this morning and the bill is on the way to the Senate floor now.

Rural Vermont and Others Express Opposition to Provisions of H. 715 - Clean Heat Standard Bill

Rural Vermont raised concerns about the Clean Heat Standard Bill, H.715, by signing on to a letter that Abbie Corse, organizers from 350VT, the White River Natural Resources Conservation District and others initiated. Areas of concern include a lack of meaningful community engagement in drafting this initiative, not realizing the Climate Action Plans Guiding Principles for a Just Transition, as well as the inclusion of biofuels and Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) in the eligible clean heat measures. Earlier, 350VT had put together a position paper on the bill to raise awareness about Vermont’s heating sector that could rely in the future primarily on biofuels, calling them out as a false solution to Climate Change. Biofuels have similar carbon emissions to fossil fuels (and thus don’t reduce emissions) and agricultural impacts include a continued reliance on fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides, as well as the competing land use to sustainable food production. Similarly, RNG is mostly being produced on CAFOs and its potential for being produced within Vermont to achieve emission reduction goals is limited. 

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy proposes two amendments to the bill, one of which calls out “Vermont needs to transition away from its current carbon-intensive building heating practices to lower carbon alternatives” and another one that would direct the Public Utilities Commission to “hold at least four meetings using deliberative polling or another method” to “receive focused feedback from specific constituents.”

More info: read the sign-on letter here; more detail in the 350-VT position paper here.

Latest status: This morning, the bill was up for second reading on the Senate floor. Subject of the hour long debate was how the included taxes in the bill will impact low income Vermonters and seniors. In roll call, the Senate voted for the bill as amended 23-7. Tomorrow, during third reading another amendment will be presented by Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale that would address the questioned inclusion of biofuels and its global impacts in driving food prices (Sen. Hinsdale did vote yes today). Check the latest bill status here.

H. 709 - Miscellaneous Ag Bill - Heads to Senate Finance

In the past several weeks, the Senate Committee on Agriculture has taken testimony on several of the provisions listed in H.709, which is a miscellaneous agriculture bill that touches on a number of subjects. The Agriculture Committee’s only amendment to this bill was to add one section that pertains to agriculture soil mitigation fees for state airports. Previous discussions around not requiring state airports from paying agricultural soil mitigation fees had encompassed all state airports, but the amendment as recommended by the Senate Agriculture Committee applies this exception only to the Franklin County State Airport in Highgate.  

More info: read the bill as passed by the House here and Senate Ag’s amendment here. Learn more about other provisions of the bill in our previous updates here and here. 

Latest status: On April 22, 2022, the bill was voted out of Senate Agriculture and referred to the Senate Committee on Finance. 

Senate Ag Amending H. 626 - Pesticides: Treated Seeds and Neonicotinoids

Pesticides: Treated Seeds and Neonicotinoids - H.626 (as passed by the House).

Little action was taken on this bill over the past 2 weeks until this morning (April 28th) when there was some substantive conversation leading to an amendment being drafted and discussed in the near future.  This morning Sen. Pearson suggested that the bill be narrowed to focus on neonicotinoid treated seeds (as opposed to treated seeds and articles for all pesticides) based on testimony from the Agency of Agriculture (VAAFM) that it has a substantial amount of the Best Management Practices for them already in development.  Sen. Pearson’s idea was then supported by Cary Giguerre, Vermont Agency of Agriculture.  

The option currently being presented is for the committee to either send the Agency of Ag and Agriculture Innovation Board (AIB) a letter encouraging them to enact these BMPs and IPM protocols, or to require them to develop them in statute and in a particular timeframe and manner.  Cary Giguerre suggested the legislative path is feasible and agreeable, and would be better than the letter as it provides support that the VAAFM and the AIB needs to do the remaining work.  This is certainly our preference - and we are glad to see a renewed focus on neonicotinoid applications in particular; as was the original intention of the bill.

More info:  See our past updates on this issue and bill here.

Latest status:  Sen. Pearson and the Sen. Starr will be working on an amendment which will be brought to the committee as early as tomorrow, April 29th.  It is important that we take this opportunity to address neonicotinoid treated seeds in statute - and we will keep you up to date as the bill develops and need for action emerges.

Cannabis Market Rollout and Legislation

S.188, on cannabis cultivation and farming, has now passed the House Agriculture Committee and moved on to the House Ways and Means Committee.  Despite more consistent testimony from farmers, Rural VT, the VT Growers Association and the rest of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition - the bill has not incorporated important structural changes:

• All tiers of outdoor production be given the status of agriculture being provided to the smallest tier of cultivation in this bill

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

• Increased home grow allowances that bring VT closer in line to other States and reasonable horticultural practice

• Including a Nursery License and allowing Cultivators and Nurseries to sell plants directly to consumers. 

There have however been substantial changes to the current bill based on testimony from Cary Giguerre and the VT Agency of Agriculture (VAAFM) which begins a process of moving substantive parts of the VT Hemp Program from VAAFM to the CCB (Cannabis Control Board).

The current bill includes gains sadly restricted only to the smallest tier of outdoor cultivators, and minimal gains for live plant sales for cultivators; these include:

• Smallest tier of outdoor cultivation license will enjoy the same benefits of agriculture as relates to a number of things: access to current use status (if already enrolled), exemption from municipal bylaw, exemption from Act 250 and similar development laws, exemption from tax retail sales.

• Cultivators given allowance to sell seeds and live plants to other cultivators (but not directly to consumers)

• Wholesalers are also given allowance sell seeds and live plants to cultivators

Unfortunately, we do not expect action on our core agricultural and social equity advocacy this session (see past posts for more information).  It is disappointing; in particular as the primary concern expressed by legislators to our proposals (and those of the CCB’s Social Equity Sub-Committee) have been based on concerns about the lack of support from other legislators - particular members of the House.  We will continue to advocate and connect with cultivators, community members, and other cannabis licensees throughout the year - and plan on coming back for the next biennium to address action on these fundamental issues of equity and repair.

More info: As of April 25, 2022 the application window for all available tiers and types of cultivator licenses is open.  Our coalition partner VT Growers’ Association has been tracking the CCB meetings and provides links to information, forms, and more on its website.  The Cannabis Control Board also offers information, links, and support through its website.  See more information about our Social Equity and Agricultural Access advocacy in our past posts on this issue here.

Latest status: S.188 was voted out of the House Agriculture Committee and is now in House Ways and Means.

Thanks to the National Family Farm Coalition for passing along these federal updates!

At the end of last week the Biden-Harris administration released a list of resources highlighting plans by executive agencies to advance equity and racial justice across the federal government. The action plan for USDA can be found here, and names a number of areas related to NFFC's current policy work, including:

• Improving equitable access to fair credit for family-scale producers, and farmers of color in particular.

• Strengthening the land tenure rights of heirs property owners through the FSA Heirs’ Property Relending Program.

• Expanding access to USDA's contracting and procurement programs to underserved communities.

• Improving equitable access to USDA technical assistance programs for underserved communities.

• Establishing and implementing USDA's Equity Commission.

You can find the full list of agency action plans here, and a fact sheet on the initiative here.

In other related news, today the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau released a new report (here) on the rural banking challenges faced by rural communities and farmers, which touches on a number of credit issues NFFC has highlighted in recent comments to the administration.

As we approach the final weeks of the legislative session, there is still much to do! Take action to keep plastic contamination out of our soils; weigh in on Right to Farm, Surface Water and Pesticide bills; press for accessible and equitable cannabis legislation; and, support funding for Conservation Districts! Read on for all the details and updates on bills we are tracking:

Plastic Contamination of Food Residuals

Right to Farm

Surface Water

Pesticides

Cannabis

Utility Companies Liability

Accessory On Farm Business 

Conservation District Funding Request Sign-On

Plastic Contamination of Food Residuals

Join the Protect Our Soils Coalition and support H.501 - An act relating to the regulation of food depackaging facilities - NOW! H.501 is currently in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources - the committee who originally drafted the bill language. Time is running out and the committee is planning to pick up this bill next week while also being preoccupied with MANY other bills. Call your Senator and express that risks of contaminating soils with microplastics are a priority for Vermonters and your support for passing this bill out of committee in time. Read the full Action Alert here

Right to Farm

The House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has been taking testimony from farmers about the Right to Farm bill (S. 268), which has not made the crossover deadline, in consideration of including the bill's language in one of the miscellaneous agricultural bills. 

Goal is to update the existing statute to strengthen farmers' protection against nuisance lawsuits more similar to the higher standards from other states. A side-by-side of the current statute and the bill shows the proposed changes that include a new definition of what would be protected as a “farm operation” that would then also include what is defined in the definition of farming in Act 250 and more (see list below). The legal protection would function by requiring individuals who pursued legal action for a nuisance complaint to pay the legal fees of the farmer, if the courts side with the farmer. 

Do you have feedback about the bill? Contact Legislators of the House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry:

Rep. Carolyn W. Partridge, Chair - cpartridge@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Rodney Graham, Vice Chair - rgraham@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Thomas Bock, Ranking Member - TBock@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Terry Norris, Clerk - tnorris@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. John O'Brien - jobrien@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Henry Pearl - hpearl@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Heather Surprenant - hsurprenant@leg.state.vt.us

Rep. Vicki Strong - vstrong@leg.state.vt.us

(A) marketing produce at roadside stands or farm markets; 

(B) the generation of noise, odors, dust, fumes, and other associated conditions; 

(C) the composting of material principally produced by the farm or to be used at least in part on the farm; 

(D) the ditching and subsurface drainage of farm fields and the construction of farm ponds; 

(E) the handling of livestock wastes and by-products; 

(F) the operation of machinery and equipment necessary for a farm, including irrigation and drainage systems, pumps, and on-farm grain dryers; 

(G) the movement of vehicles, machinery, equipment, and farm products and associated inputs necessary for farm operations on the roadway; 

(H) field preparation and ground and aerial seeding and spraying; 

(I) the on-site storage and application of agricultural inputs, including lime, fertilizer, organic materials, conditioners, and pesticides;

(J) the use of alternative pest management techniques; 

(K) the management, storage, transport, utilization, and application of farm by-products, including manure or agricultural wastes; 

(L) the conversion from one farm operation to another farm operation; and 

(M) the employment and use of labor

Surface Water

The last two weeks have seen substantial testimony in the Senate Natural Resources Committee on H.466, a bill which seeks to regulate surface water withdrawals and interbasin transfers.  In response to testimony from a number of farmers (including Justin Rich representing the Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers’ Association, which has more than 425 farmer members), the Agency of Agriculture, and others the bill was amended a number of times to its current version.  After the last session of testimony, legislative council has provided this document comparing surface water withdrawal regulations in the northeast states to help provide comparative context.  Here are some of the recent amendments made:

• required metering for withdrawals of over 50,000 gallons over a 24 period of time has been changed to allow for alternative (less costly) approved methods of reporting.

• “Springs” are no longer included in the definition of “surface water” proposed in the bill (though the Agency of Natural Resources has clarified that this change in language does not change the scope of what they feel is addressed in this bill)

The exclusion of constructed ponds for irrigation and watering of livestock has become more explicit.
The VT Veg and Berry Association and the Agency of Agriculture continued to express concerns related to the bill which can be seen in the last session of testimony. The committee will meet again on Friday for discussion and a planned vote on the bill.  The bill will likely be voted out of committee, after which we are uncertain if it will head to the Senate Agriculture Committee prior to the Senate Floor.  At this point the best folks to contact are your representatives, the Chair of the Senate Natural Resources Committee Christopher Bray (cbray@leg.state.vt.us), and the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee Bobby Starr (rstarr@leg.state.vt.us). 

Pesticides

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

There has been substantial testimony and debate on H.626 over the past 2 weeks in the Senate Agriculture Committee.  The latest testimony ended with some competing proposals for going forward - letting the bill die in committee and sending a letter from the Committees to the Agency of Ag asking them to focus on BMPs for treated seed, or continuing with this bill or a bill more specifically focused on neonics.  We are hopeful that our proposed amendment which maintains a focus on all treated seeds while specifically also focusing on neonics will be discussed in committee.  We feel it is important to address treated seeds in statute as opposed to encouraging the committee to act with a letter from the committees.

As mentioned in our last update, the bill was in amended in House Agriculture to no longer specifically focuses 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.

Act now by contacting your representatives, and the Chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Bobby Starr (rstarr@leg.state.vt.us), 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. 

Cannabis 

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

The VT Cannabis Equity Coalition (including Rural VT) is continuing to track and provide testimony on two particular bills related to cannabis: H.548 and S.188.  S.188 is the bill Rural VT is most focused on, and we will be providing testimony in support of amending the bill to include:

• All tiers of outdoor production be 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

• Including a Nursery License and allowing Cultivators and Nurseries to sell plants directly to consumers. 

S.188 has made its way through the Senate and was taken up by the House Ag and Forestry Committee on Tuesday the 12.  Sam Bromberg of Mountain Fire Farm, and Rick Fox of Meristem Farms provided very good testimony in support of outdoor cultivation of cannabis being given agricultural status for the purposes of Act 250 and municipal ordinances, direct sales licensing, and other important additions to the bill.  Rural VT and the VT Growers Association will testify on S.188 on Thursday, April 14.  

The primary Social Equity goal of our coalition 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).  

The legislature continues to 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 - and we have seen no action.  We continue to let policy makers know that this matters to us, and is another critical element for an equitable market roll-out.

Contact your representative and others!

• 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

• Including a Nursery License and allowing Cultivators and Nurseries to sell plants directly to consumers. 

• 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).  

Utility Companies Liability 

The original bill for this issue to address poor workmanship instances of utility companies and their subcontractors did not make crossover but Senators continued working on the issue, gauging ways to include legislation in other insurance bills, like H.515. This afternoon, the committee will vote on an amendment proposal that would include language about requiring the issuance of a guidance document on the issue into H.515. The guidance would be developed by the Department of Financial Regulation in consultation with the Public Utility Commission, and the focus would be standard insurance requirements and measures that ensure adequate coverage for the duration of broadband construction projects. Follow the committee here and find more background information on this legislation here.  

Accessory On Farm Business

H.709, An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects and H.704, An act relating to the regulation of accessory on-farm businesses

These two agriculture bills have remained stagnant over the past couple weeks in the Legislature.  Neither have seen any committee activity since the last week of March and, at this time, the fate of each of these bills remains unclear.  H.709 includes a change to the definition of an accessory on-farm business as well as changes to some mosquito control regulations due to ongoing litigation.  H.704 also touches on accessory on-farm businesses, attempting to clarify its definition and amending what characteristics are used to determine the legitimacy of an accessory on-farm business.

We will continue to monitor the progress of these bills, but in the meantime, check out our most recent write-up on H.709 here and the last update on H.704 here.

Conservation District Funding Request Sign-On

Conservation Districts are doing incredible work to support farmers with planning needs, program enrollment, implementation and more. Did you know? The District Managers are historically underfunded and have to do most of their grant writing themselves. This needs to change! Farm businesses please speak up and support the Conservation Districts funding requests for their operational budget and more to be included in the FY2023 state budget - sign here.

During our Small Farm Action Day with NOFA-VT on March 24th, farmers, itinerant slaughterers, customers of on-farm slaughtered livestock, as well as farm business advisors and advocates, testified in a joint hearing of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees. Rural Vermont staff thanks all farmers and local food advocates who took the time and testified. Hearing real life stories is always the most persuasive advocacy. They eloquently expressed how the “new” VAAFM (Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets) interpretations of our State and Federal policies relating to On-Farm Slaughter will negatively affect them, their farms, and their communities.  They also spoke to their concerns related to a document provided to staff of our federal delegation by the  FSIS (federal Food Safety and Inspection Service) asserting further new interpretations and restrictions. Curt Peterson from Shincracker Icelandic Sheep Farm in Hartland Vermont and Katy Wolfe from Boondoggle Farm in Putney Vermont, testified about how they have been organizing and conducting the slaughter of their lamb over many years and how the new interpretations being put forth will present significant barriers to their farms and businesses. 

The memo in question that VAAFM had sent to registered farmers on January 6th, 2022, highlighted in yellow: “USDA has reinforced the requirements in all states, including Vermont, that in order to qualify for the personal exemption, the owner(s) of the animal has to conduct the slaughter and/or be present if they hire an itinerant slaughterer.” While the VAAFM General Council Steven Collier stated on record that rules and regulations have NOT changed in recent years, that these restrictions have always been the law as they understand it - Legislative Council Michael O’Grady aimed to clarify during the hearing that there is a lack of a documented change in guidance from FSIS. During the hearing, Rural Vermont intern Elena Roig read testimonials from farmers and custom processors attesting to their recognition of these restrictions as new and different interpretations of the law, and the real life implications this communication from the VAAFM entail for them, their farms, and their communities.

We are continuing to work with a group of local On-Farm Slaughter stakeholders to inform our path forward, as well as seeking partnership with national organizations.

Stay tuned for updates on the issue and be in touch with your questions and concerns with info@ruralvermont.org. 

• Watch the recorded hearing from 3/24 here 

• Read the sign-on letter here

• Read a summary of testimonials here

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 Senate Ag Committee moving ahead with H.709, which includes altering the definition of on-farm businesses

• H.704, An act relating to the regulation of accessory on-farm businesses House Committee on Natural Resources hearing testimony on H.704, which is related to H.709 (above) and could change how accessory on-farm businesses are regulated

• Senate Misc. Ag Bill, S.258 House picked up S.258, Senate bill to amend required agricultural practices

• S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont S.148 passed third reading on Senate floor

• Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies Causing Animal Welfare Issues S.166 didn't make crossover; might resurface in misc insurance bill

• Racial Equity and Land Access H.273 has stalled; some aspects of bill might be included in a different piece of legislation | TAKE ACTION!

• Cannabis Bills H.701 signed into law (without our recommendations) and S.188 still in play | TAKE ACTION!

• Neonicotinoid Pesticides H.626 has been substantially amended and we have concerns | TAKE ACTION!

• Surface Water Withdrawal Regulation there has been a lot of testimony and a lot of farmer concerns voiced about H.466 | TAKE ACTION!

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.

In a recent letter to the State of Vermont, the USDA’s Food Safety & Inspection Service (FSIS) continued to render an opinion that Vermont's practice of on-farm slaughter does not meet FSIS' interpretation of the federal law. The letter arrived without letterhead or a signature and used language that is blatantly contradictory. The letter further negates the existence of Vermont's on-farm slaughter law by stating: “the personal use exemption requires all owners to be individuals who were involved in the raising of the animal” AND “There is no provision in the statute or regulations allowing the use of third-party itinerant slaughterers under the personal use exemption.”

At this point, only a lawsuit would result in an injunction and thus the protection of farmers and livestock owners to go about their business as usual without needing to fear VAAFM or FSIS law enforcement at the risk of losing their good standing with the agency and the access to state programs and funds in the future. Absent attorneys on staff, Rural Vermont is seeking partnerships with organizations that would be able to provide legal representation to all itinerant slaughterers, farmers and livestock owners affected.

Rural Vermont has been organizing and advocating with you for on-farm slaughter for over a decade and we are painfully aware that this news does risk and may even put at halt businesses you have been growing on the grounds of the food sovereignty we’ve been creating together. This is not just an assault to on-farm slaughter, this is an assault to our democracy as we’ve been achieving our RIGHT to perform on-farm slaughter through advancements of the law in the democratic process. 

On March 24, members of the on-farm slaughter community joined NOFA-VT and Rural Vermont to testify in front of House and Senate Ag committees.

Watch the recording below:

Stay tuned for more updates and next ACTION steps!

“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

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

• Miscellaneous Agricultural Bills

  • H. 709 - An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

  • S. 258 - Housekeeping Bill

  • S. 148 Environmental Justice Bill

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

• Racial Equity and Land Access

• Cannabis Bills

• Neonicotinoid Pesticides

• Surface Water Withdrawal Regulation

• S.268 – The Right to Farm Bill

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: 

• H.501~Caroline Gordon~Written Testimony~2-11-2022.pdf (vermont.gov)

• Protect Our Soils Coalition - Recommended Amendments to H.501~2-11-2022.pdf 

• H.501~Peter Blair~Written%20Testimony~2-11-2022.pdf (from Feb 11)  and H.501~Peter Blair~Written%20Testimony~2-1-2022.pdf (from Feb 1)

• Natasha Duarte~Written Testimony~2-4-2022.pdf 

• H.501~Tom Gilbert~Written%20Testimony~2-4-2022.pdf (& supplemental materials); Testimony (recording): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHLAa6Je1MA

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:

• Sign onto Seeding Power Vermont’s collective letter.

• Email to your legislator:

• 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.”

  • Rural Vermont is part of the National Family Farm Coalition raising awareness about funds like TIAA impacts small farmers land access. 

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:

• 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 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. 

• Summary of VT’s Right to Farm law

• Previous coverage by VTDigger on what changes S.268 would have made to the Right to Farm Law

Want to know more about applying for a license in the cannabis industry? The license pre-qualification window opens on March 16th. Have questions you'd like answered as a producer? Attend a CCB Networking Meeting this Thursday. See this newsletter from the Cannabis Control Board about these upcoming events and processes.

Contents:

• H. 501 on regulating depackaging technology passed the House

• S. 148 Environmental Justice Bill

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

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

• Racial Equity and Land Access

• Cannabis Bills

• Neonicotinoid Pesticides

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. 

• More background information here.

• Learn more about Ocean Plastic Is Bad, but Soil Plastic Pollution May Be Worse here!

• Read & watch testimonials here:
  * Rural Vermont Written Testimony 2-11-2022
  * Protect Our Soils Coalition - Recommended Amendments to H.501 2-11-2022.pdf
  * CLF Written Testimony 2-11-2022 and Written Testimony 2-1-2022
  * CAV, Natasha Duarte Written Testimony 2-4-2022
  * BDF, Tom Gilbert Written testimony 2-4-2022.pdf (& supplemental materials)
  * RV Testimony (recording): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHLAa6Je1MA 

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:

• Sign onto Seeding Power Vermont’s collective letter.

• Email to your legislator:

• 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.”

  • Rural Vermont is part of the National Family Farm Coalition raising awareness about funds like TIAA impacts small farmers land access. 

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:

• 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 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