Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That is last week and possibly the week before, and had wanted to hear from some other folks who've been interested following this conversation, very much part of the discussions that have been going on all summer and all fall to try and come to a place that everybody can be comfortable with. And we're gonna start out by hearing first today from the conservation districts and the sustainable jobs fund sustainable jobs and then the land access and opportunity board. So with that, welcome.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: Thank you. For the record, I'm Michelle Monroe. I'm the executive director of the Vermont Association of Conservation District. I just want to start my testimony by saying that the districts do not have a formal position on this issue yet, because the conversations have been so influx that I have not brought it to them to get consensus position. So I'm really just speaking about some general principles and observations from having been involved in these conversations that you referenced Chair Durfee over the last few months. So I think one thing that you are probably hearing loud and clear from many, many groups that work with farms is that we would rather not change the definition of farming in the RAPs as part of sort of resolving this question around municipal authority over farms. I think that really seems to be a separate issue. How do we define a farm for the purposes of being regulated under the RAPs is different from what authority should municipalities have and where should they have it to oversee farms. I think those are really two because of the history of how the RAPs have been used, they're sort of interconnected, they've become interconnected. But I think this is an opportunity to really kind of separate those a bit. Because if you're representing farms, you're going to advocate, and farms are going to determine the extent of municipal regulation is going to be determined in the RAPs. You're going to want to maximize how many farms under fall under those REPs. But that might not actually be appropriate for the purposes of really, truly follow, you know, the regulation of the REPs, the regulated the provided regulation, if that makes sense. I think it does. And so one of the things that really, the driving issue behind this has been

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Actually, sorry, gonna stop you there. Yeah. And go back to it, if that makes sense. Because I think this is really, really a critical thing. Since we did hear testimony from the agency representing the interests or one understanding of the interests of farmers on this question, and they are recommending reopening. So can you just let her spend another few minutes talking about what that might mean?

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: I think so if you're Farming. Farming. If you're a small backyard operation I was talking with one of your colleagues last week who raises backyard chickens, and donates his the eggs to his local food bank. And under some versions of the RAPs that have been kicked around this past summer, that he would if he's donating $2,000 or $1,000 worth of eggs, that could qualify him to be regulated under the REPs. And, you know, is that really appropriate, an appropriate level of regulation for somebody who's raising backyard chickens and donating eggs? And so I think if we there's an interest in if the definition of farming in the RAPs is has that municipal exemption, then advocates for farming may wanna say, let's maximize the number of people who are exempted from municipal regulation by maximizing the number of people who fall under the RIPs. But is that truly what would be in the interest of the state Or in the interest of those farmers who would then fall or people who might just be backyard homesteaders who might now fall under the REPs because they sell or donate some of the stuff that they raise on their backyard homestead. So I think we it really is would be clearer and, from a policy perspective, a better approach to look at the approach that VLCTS suggested, I think is an interesting one of saying, it's not about what you're doing or how many agricultural activities you're engaged in, it's about where you're engaging in them. I think that might be a more a different approach that would provide some clarity around authority without having to get into that all of these questions about who falls under the required agricultural practices and who has to comply with them. Instead, it would be if you're in Rutland City, what what do you what authority will the municipality have over you if you're located in one of these dense, small areas? And we're not necessarily saying that I don't think anyone is there yet on like tier one b or tier one a. Those are still conversations that we're having. As I mentioned, we were all of us who are here now, we're talking with the LCT just downstairs ahead of this ahead of this hearing. But that's, I think, that would be the reason for looking at separating them and looking at a different way of approaching this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, thank you for that. Representative Nelson. Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Tier one a is its own animal that's very high dense housing. Tier one b is a different breeder, and that's where I have a lot of concern with the VLCCs or BLCT, is tier one B, is there are many farms that could be broke into the tier one B. We have the best soils, and that's where towns wanna grow into, are those climatic soils that are so dear and ought to be protected under almost all costs to feed people. And by putting the definition of farming in a tier, you know, into the rats, I think it protects farmers. I don't think it's a hindrance for farmers. And as one that's working on the stakeholder group, no farmer has a right to pollute. And we have to assure that right to the public that we're not polluting. And if you have enough chickens to hit the $2,000 sell enough bags for the $2,000 threshold, you have a fairly robust chicken farm, and you need to show how you're handling your nutrients that that farm produces. I I I don't understand your concerns with putting farming into the definition of the rats to to give every farmer, every person, the ability that meets that definition to grow food.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: Oh, I I think the ability to grow food is a separate question from do you have to comply with this very specific set of regulations? And I think that those are separate things. I think first, I share your concerns about 1B. I think we all, everybody who's been involved in these conversations, aside from VLC even VLCT, you know, they're they're open to conversation around one b and is one b really appropriate for for allowing municipal regulation of farming activities?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think what we I think what we heard and saw in their presentation last week was 1A specifically.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: They talked a lot about 1A. They sort of slid 1B in there, but I think they've indicated in conversations we've had that that they're not 100% sold on 1B either. There's an there's an area for discussion there. So I think, you know, the proposal that you heard from Maddie Kempner on Thursday that the ag groups would put forward would have a right to grow food in it. And so the ag groups have spent a lot of time over the past few months talking about that right to grow food and what would that look like. The L. C. T. Also has told us that they are interested in proposing a right to grow food. They think it should be located somewhere else in the regulations and not in Title 24. So I think that's one of the areas where we have broad agreement. So, Representative Nelson, I think we can there are ways we can ensure that all Vermonters have the ability to raise food, to feed themselves or to feed their neighbors, if that's what they wish to do, without saying, do you fall under the required agricultural practices? Because I think once you start opening up the RAPs as part of this discussion, then there are other groups that have a stake in the RAPs, like the ag water, like the water quality groups, you know. So I think it's just cleaner to me to say, we're gonna talk about where is it appropriate and where is it not appropriate for towns to have authority over agricultural activities. And I think in the vast majority of the state of Vermont, it is not appropriate for towns to have authority over agricultural practices. And that seems to me like a good a good way to go to say, sorry, towns, you don't get to regulate farms, the vast majority of you, outside of these very dense areas where there is this potential for conflict. That seems to me a good place to start the conversation. But then the question becomes, what authority should towns have, and where should they have it? And that that's the question that I think is still sort of lurking out there. How extensive should that authority be, and how extensive should the landmass that they have it be? To talk, go back to the sort of the right to grow food, I think if that's an approach that the legislature takes, generally, sort of any right that someone possesses, right? There's always an imposition against that right. Like, right is absolute. I can't yell fire in a burning theater. But the presumption is that any regulation of that right will be minimal. And I think that that's a good place to start, to say, Vermonters have a right to grow food. And if and when there is regulation that impinges upon that right, it will be minimal to accomplish whatever the legitimate purpose is for impinging on that right. So that you're starting from a place of everybody gets to grow food. And that nobody can take that away from you. And should the state or a municipality be allowed to constrain that in any way, that constraint has to be minimal to accomplish whatever the stated purpose is of the constraint that they're imposing.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And my understanding, and you can correct me if I don't have this quite right, is that the conversation around the right to grow food is the right to grow your own food as opposed to raising food that you might sell or donate. That's also now been up. But that the the court decision surrounds the business side of farming. That's what we're dealing with there. And we don't have any, currently, anything in law that gives someone the right to grow food for their own purposes. So this would be, We're dealing with the court decision, and at the same time, we're saying, Hey, we would like to have Vermonters be able to grow their own food, whether that's chickens, reasonable number of chickens, vegetables.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: And I think that's because the court decision directly impacts the right to grow food by giving municipalities the ability to regulate, or to some extent, should say increasing the ability of municipalities to regulate agricultural activities. So that means that now the town I live in St. Albans City. We tell the city doesn't let you raise roosters, but you can't have a cow. So there you go. It's so towns right now do have some of that ability. But it does leave it gives them I think the concern is that it gives them more authority to impact and what people are able to do on their property around growing food. Particularly because I think a lot of the conflict, while in this case they were the business was a business in Essex Junction, there were a lot of people who do some pretty intensive backyard homesteading that neighbors might object to that could also lead to very similar kinds of conflicts. So it's not the issue from, I think, perspective of the agricultural groups has not been limited to just, am I doing this for a living? Is this a business for me? But also

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let's think about how do we clarify for Vermonters and for municipalities that you couldn't say again, I'm gonna use chickens just as an example, but but a town wouldn't wouldn't be able to say you cannot have chickens.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: Town wouldn't be able to say that. They might be able to say on a quarter acre lot, you cannot have four dozen chickens. You know, they're you but they couldn't say, you can't have any chickens. Similarly, you know, we would I think the issue becomes with other forms of livestock as well, you know, to say that you can't prohibit someone from raising a goat as long as they have a land base sufficient to support it.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah, along those lines, I think Steve Collier was giving testimony last week about, or maybe the week before, that's where, is it really, how are municipalities going to have the capacity to make decisions about how many chickens are sustainable on that land base. I think that's where the mentality is coming from. Well, maybe this is actually something that still needs to fall under the jurisdiction of the

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: And towns don't have that expertise. And they know what's needed. So I think that there is room to say, you know And really, what we've gotten from the towns what I took away from VLCT's testimony was that they were really concerned with things that municipalities regulate as a matter of course, like entrances and egresses from property, setbacks, that kind of thing, less interested in saying, you can't have this many birds on your property. I think that there would be that certainly the discussion that the agricultural groups has had is that we would like to see the agency retain that authority in terms of of number and appropriateness of livestock on a given parcel. That that should because they're the people who who have that experience and expertise. I'm just going to look to see if there was anything else that I really wanted to comment on, and then I can pass it off to other folks. We've talked about how everyone should have the right to grow food. And we've also, I think that this, as we're talking about that, though, we should that should be not just a it should be an affirmative right in the sense that we are also starting to think about that we start to think about if we're going to put in these really dense multiunit housing projects, where we're talking about thirty, forty, 50 units, how do we ensure that the people in those units have access to a community garden, to a rooftop garden, to some place that they can, in fact, raise their own food or raise a portion of their own food. And I think that is something that could potentially be included in whatever gets at gets discussed here as maybe in a little addition to Act 181 to say that this is something that Tier 1A planning needs to take into account is how do we ensure that folks in these dense areas can grow food. And then I think the Land Access Opportunity Board is also up to testify because I was going to recommend that you hear from them.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good. Thank you. Any other questions? Jean, if you're standing by and want to jump in next.

[Jean Hamilton, Director of Program Development, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Hi, thank you. Ornella.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We see you both now.

[Jean Hamilton, Director of Program Development, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: And thank you for inviting us in next. We're we're juggling a number of family matters today. And so unfortunately, my timing is short as I'm about to have to pick up my daughter and really appreciate the committee letting us come in virtually today. We would have, of course, preferred to be with you in person. I'll just start with a quick introduction. I'm Jean Hamilton. I am the director of program development for the Land Access and Opportunity Board. We operate as co directorship. Ornella, would you like to introduce yourself?

[Ornella Matasseegueroa, Director of Community Engagement and Advocacy, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Hello. For the record, Ornella Matasseegueroa. I am Director of Community Engagement and Advocacy for the Land Access and Opportunity Board.

[Jean Hamilton, Director of Program Development, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: And, yeah, we're planning to talk to you a little bit about our understanding of what happens when municipalities have the authority to regulate agriculture and what that means for the communities we serve. We will also give you a little bit of background on the LAOB and what brings us to this issue. And just so you have it in your minds as you're listening to our testimony, I want to share what we are recommending, which is that if towns are going to proceed, if Vermont is going to proceed in giving towns the authority to regulate our agriculture, we must ensure that there is company policy that one, makes a clear and actionable plan to inventory and protect community food land within any areas where there is municipal oversight of farming. Two, we must require that municipal zoning codes do not reinscribe exclusionary policies. Any municipal zoning of agriculture must include equitable access to the right to grow food, which includes appropriate livestock practices and as an explicit and expressed purpose of those zoning codes. And three, policy needs to make a clear and actionable plan for supporting municipal capacity to actually do this regulation, so to enact reasonable, well informed, equitable agricultural land use policies. The plan must include resources to support training for municipalities and robust community engagement. So with that, Ornela, I'd love to pass it over to you.

[Ornella Matasseegueroa, Director of Community Engagement and Advocacy, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Jean. I'm going to speak very fast and do a really brief overview on the Land, Access, and Opportunity Board. We begin everywhere we go with our touch stones as an example of what are our values. And those are three. The first one is that we listen generously and that we speak our truth from our heart and mind. The second one is that we make the way that we work together an example of what is possible. And the third is that we trust that we each hold a piece of the puzzle and that we need each other's pieces to understand the whole picture. The LAOB was established as an act of law in 2022 as an independent state board to address disparities in land and home ownership for Vermont, for people and groups who have been historically and systematically marginalized from land and home ownership. Who are these marginalized populations? They are all poor and low income Vermonters. They are Vermonters with disabilities. They are LGBTQIA Vermonters. They are immigrant people new to Vermont, Vermonters who are people of color, and Vermonters who are psychiatric survivors. Our board is composed of 12 appointing authority. We can have up to 24 board members. Right now we have 19 and we have lots of participations from all of our appointing authorities, except one at this moment in time, the Pride Center. You know, they were going through some transitions. Because we center communities who have been most marginalized and disadvantaged in housing and land access systems, we recognize that the LAOB belongs to all Vermonters, and that the LAOB operates from a foundational belief that when those who are most marginalized do better, we all do better. Improving access to land, housing, and home ownership for marginalized populations improves access for all Vermonters. We do better when we listen to marginalized communities in our lawmaking, in our rulemaking and our program development, and it makes for better informed programs. We see it over and over again. We are a nonpartisan body, and we're dedicated to fostering civic engagement and community led system wide solutions to personal and community poverty. Our statute is unique and potent. It our broad duties are too, and we see them as advisory powers and grant making powers. As a part of what we call our advisory powers, it's how we land to this work. So we advise and work with state of Vermont and affiliated institutions to review, monitor and develop policies, programs to promote racial, economic, social, and climate justice for Vermonters from historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities. So why is this issue important to the LAOB? Because our communities are unanimous. The ability to grow food is central to their sense of health and well-being, to housing security, and their connection to land in Vermont. Vermont is so special. It is special because of its thriving culture of agriculture. We are host to the best cheese in the world, the best honey in the world, and we have highland cows that are the oldest line in The United States in our state. What is organic as a standard was first defined here in our state. And we couldn't have imagined a moment of time like this in so many different ways, and especially at a moment in which we could see our Vermont agriculture under threat. We cannot take for granted in this moment that Vermont has had a culture of agriculture. We need to make sure that we ensure that all of our communities have access to growing food. Consolidation of agriculture and food sectors has led to a steady and precipitous decline in the number of people who are able to center agriculture and growing food in their lives as their livelihood. And even as people value growing food for food security and for cultural practice and mental health, their ability to do so is threatened because of lack of access to land and resources. And because the generational knowledge is being lost because parents are having to sell their farms, because we're not able to keep farms in our families in the ways that we were able to before. In Vermont, if Vermont is to allow municipal regulation over agriculture, we must do so carefully to ensure that all Vermonters have the right and ability to grow food, even if they live in downtowns and dense neighborhoods. Caution that municipal zoning and land use regulation has been used intentional and inadvertently to disadvantage marginalized communities from pursuing their economic and cultural well-being. Jean, can I pass it on to you?

[Jean Hamilton, Director of Program Development, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: Absolutely, thank you Arnela. I think that last point Arnela you made is really important that land use regulation and municipal authority is of course an important tool, but we cannot move forward with this tool agriculture without acknowledging both the ways that land use zoning has been intentionally weaponized and also inadvertently accidentally create a tool of marginalization because of lack of capacity and lack of know how of how to do it best. So in terms of moving forward, we're seeing this momentum developing around focusing municipal regulatory authority on downtown districts. And while we absolutely support the limited impact on our rural working lands, we do want to really underscore a lot of caution of just, oh, well these are just downtown districts and there's not a lot of impact. If we move forward without caution and care, this focused authority on downtown areas will have an outsized and discriminatory impact on low income Vermonters' right to grow food. As we know, the majority of our affordable housing and with the intentions of tier one, more and more affordable housing will be consolidated into downtown areas. That's where the overlap happens of the outsized impact on low income Vermonters. So we are recommending that, you know, I appreciate and we appreciate that this is evolving and there's lots of conversations there about RAPs and what's the best approach, but as we move forward, whatever we do that allows for municipal authority to regulate agriculture, we really must make sure that there is affirmative policy, like Michelle said, that makes a clear and actionable plan to inventory and protect community food land. This is something that LEOB is advocating for every place we can. We noticed that agricultural and community food lands were not prioritized in Act 181, and we have worked with some of our RPC partners to advise this language, which is that Act 181 could be amended to intentionally incorporate community food lands into the future land use map categories that include downtown centers, village centers, planned growth areas, village areas, transition areas, enterprise areas, and hamlets, so communities know urban agriculture is an allowable and intended use in those areas. Regional plans could and should be required to show agricultural soil and also community food sources like community food hubs and food shelves on their community facilities maps. There is a land access and opportunity bill that is about to be introduced by lead co sponsors, Representative Cina and Carys Duncan, that calls for a land security working group to actually provide an assessment and recommendations regarding the identification and protection of ag land for community food security purposes. As I said at the top, our further recommendations are we must ensure and require that any municipal zoning codes do not reinscribe exclusionary policies, and we need to make a clear and actionable plan for how we will actually resource and support municipalities in knowing how to regulate agriculture without creating exclusionary practices. We will submit our written testimony that has links to a couple of great resources on policy recommendations Center for Agriculture and Food Systems at Vermont Law School. Both are excellent resources, and as your committee continues to pursue this issue, we really recommend referencing those. And we look forward to this ongoing discussion. We've enjoyed working with our fellow testifiers here today in coalition and really appreciate you taking up this very, very important matter. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, Gene. And Bernella, are you all set with your comments as well?

[Ornella Matasseegueroa, Director of Community Engagement and Advocacy, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: We're happy to receive your questions if they're

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, we're gonna ask if you have questions. And we know that you may have to leave the meeting, but you're welcome to stay on and hear the rest of our conversation. And then, okay, I think I'll ask Jake if he wants to come up from Sustainable Jobs Act. Thank you. Just gonna get set up here real quick. Alright.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: All right. Okay. So for the record, Jake Claro, the Farm to Plate Director at the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. It is nice to be back here. So, yeah, I'm going to give just a little bit of a little bit of history of how Farm to Plate came to this issue. And also, I think it has helped kind of how all of us have come to this issue in some respects and how that's informed some of the proposed language that's been submitted to the committee. And I do wanna just look at some comparisons between language that we've provided and that of the agency of agriculture just to outline. I think there's really a lot of agreement, and there are some specific areas that we think we should be we that we should focus on that that still needs some work, but that are certainly the gaps aren't aren't too large to overcome. And I think also, representative Nelson, it might help clarify a question that you had as well around the our position on the the RIPs. So I can kind of cross this issue first in a process to update what was a 1994 planning guide, in essence, the Sustaining Agriculture Handbook for Local Action. So the AIDS of Agriculture put this out in 'ninety four. From everything I understand, it was very popular, but kind of a limited print run. So it was hard to get your hands on it once you did or once you didn't. And so we went through a process of updating this and modernizing it, essentially, to address new state regulatory issues, new local regulatory issues, and other ways in which communities could plan for and support agriculture in their communities. So there was five modules, and there was specifically one dedicated to local regulations. That was the fourth module. And what's interesting in looking at the 1994 document is we're in a lot of ways still dealing with the uncertainties that folks back in 1994 felt like they were dealing with. So they indicated in this document, in the regulatory section, that there's a great deal of confusion and controversy over the extent to which a town, plan, or ordinance can regulate agriculture or agricultural practices. But they stated that within the planning and development law, that no plan or bylaw adopted under this chapter shall restrict. At that time, the language accepted agriculture or silvicultural practices. And I think you've seen some of this language and the history from Michael Grady. And still this idea that there are no, unfortunately, no records documenting the legislature's intent, but the common belief that it was there to protect farms from unreasonable local regulations that threatened the viability of agriculture. And at that time as well, the AAPs had yet to actually be formally adopted. So that was a year later in '95. So this guide was still acting under what were the accepted agricultural practices, which were voluntary and first proposed in 1987. So we're certainly dealing with something that has been, in many ways, an issue going back as far as 'ninety four and perhaps even before. And just another thing that this document points out is that there was actually Lamoille Superior Court case that did determine that Section 4,495 preempts any municipal zoning regulation which combines or keeps within limits accepted agricultural practices. And that decision was not appealed to the Supreme Court, but it was pretty total in its interpretation to say that this exemption is broad and not just pertaining to water quality related issues. So I'm I'm not presenting this to, like, relitigate or or propose anything around the Supreme Court decision, but rather to say, like, these decisions were being made, and people were interpreting this as, the norms and practices of the time. So generally, from that point on, people accepted that these exemptions were fairly broad and meant that municipalities did not have the authority to regulate or limit accepted agricultural practices in a broad sense not just for water quality. And I think this was reflected in our process when we were updating the document. There was really no discussion or deeper analysis around the extent to which the exemptions existed for agricultural practices. And it was more the focus was more on what was called agripprenearial activities at the time, which is now what we understand to be accessory on farm businesses. So the the gray areas that we were trying to address in the update was more to do to do with municipal regulations over those activities, because it was generally understood that agricultural practices weren't there wasn't that uncertainty and that it was pretty clear that the Agency of Agriculture had regulatory authority and that municipalities did not. And I think just another reason for that interpretation is that the AAPs, which then became the RAPs, have activities like on-site storage preparation and sale of agricultural products principally produced on the farm. That is not something that is speaking to water quality sort of regulation, or activity. That is about sort of what is how a farm is, you know, man managing storage, doing preparation, sale of products. So so that was the kind of the the paradigm, if you will, that we were operating under, And of course, why the Supreme Court decision, when it came through, was, I think, a pretty big shock and surprise to people, because that felt like it was settled and that there was these other accessory on farm activities that may still need further clarification. So that's kind of then coming into this process of how do we address this? What's the right language if still there are enough ambiguities in the way that the Title 24 exemption is written, how do we actually address this to make it clear? And I think also resolve I think we are concerned, or we do want to work with municipalities and elite cities and towns on resolving some of these tensions that may exist in communities. I think, as someone said earlier, farms don't want to be intentionally causing harm or impacting their neighbors. And so we're equally in this in trying to find resolution. So this is let me see.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Just take that out of the way.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: Just a table comparing the agency's language with what the ag the the farmer coalition members have created. And and what you'll see here is that there's actually a lot of identical language. So both the agency and the farm coalition proposed that a bylaw under this chapter shall not regulate the cultivation or other use of land for growing plants, including for food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, etcetera. Our one difference there is we're couching this under this notion of the right to grow food. In order to be really comprehensive in covering what could be activities that fall outside of what's defined in the RIPs. And then also in the coalition's proposal is that we extend that exemption to include the raising of livestock. And the agency is a little more narrow in this, of defining it around raising, feeding, or managing small backyard poultry flock, including roosters. So there's some alignment here. And I think probably, from my perspective, is where a lot of the tension is is coming from, is how do we, you know, how do we construct the right language that allows for people to,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: you know,

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: have livestock, but perhaps addresses instances where it might be happening in a place or in a way, you know, that has undue impacts on on neighbors in high in high density areas. So that's two areas there. And then we both virtually identical here, and this, I think, gets to one of your questions, representative Nelson, around including this language that farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria of the RIP rules and is therefore required to comply with the RIPs and is not protected by the right to grow food would also be exempt. So the language is a little different, but in essence, the agency and the farm coalition are both proposing the same thing here, which is to very clearly exempt farms that fall under the REP regulations to be exempt from municipal regulation. So in that sense, they're virtually identical. And then there are some smaller elements here. So both our proposal, the agency are using the same definitions here to define farming. The agency has additional language around defining poultry, which we just don't think is necessary if you have a broad livestock exemption and you're not exclusively focused on backyard poultry. So you don't need to specifically define that. And then both have the construction of of farm structures included in what what is exempt. And this is all within the the title 24, section forty four thirteen. So a lot of similarities here, and actually what's being proposed. What what has been mentioned is where the differences start to emerge is making changes to the actual RIPs. So our position is that those changes aren't necessary in order to both address some of these tensions with municipal regulation issues and also to provide clear exemption to farms in a broad and comprehensive way. So, you know, the the RAPs in changing those were changing who is regulated for for water quality purposes, knowing that that is not the only thing that they are concerned with or or impact, but that changing them does impact potentially farms that do or do not fall under water quality regulations. And so, you know, that that may be an entirely different issue to discuss as to, like, how can how should the RAPs be changed? Do they need to be changed and updated? It's just one that we don't feel actually is germane to addressing this issue at this time and, yeah, introduces a lot of additional complexity and change for farms and may open up the IRPs in a way to to additional input outside of this committee. So we have concerns about that. And so all of the proposed changes that the agency has suggested for the RIPs are ones that the coalition's position is not to do not change. So the income threshold, for instance and I think this gets to as well with the say, income threshold is could it be more than 2,000? Sure. But why is it five? There isn't necessarily right now you know, is that how is that being formed by data? Do we know sort of who that leaves out, who that now includes? And so, again, just for the purpose of this process of addressing municipal exemptions, we we wanna avoid sort of digging into the RIPs and keep keep our focus and attention on on the language of title 24. And it just continues. And this and this is one that is an example of where the proposed changes we feel are just confusing and is an example of how, in making these changes, there may be unintended consequences or just uncertainty and clarity for farms as to how does this actually impact my operation. So I won't go through the full language here, but potentially even the way that this was written in that section that's highlighted is that less than one or between one and four would mean that a farm of exactly one would not actually be impacted by the language and how this is written. So there's there's things like that that we're just concerned about and the technicalities that, especially in light of the Supreme Court decision and how the legal system will interpret these things, that unless they are precise and absolutely correct, it just causes us concern. And in retaining the language that's there, this would still allow for the agency to have jurisdiction over water quality regulation in cases where farms of less than four acres are in a municipality that does not have ordinances that are addressing water quality impacts. So it still kind of keeps the agency's regulatory authority intact over those kinds of issues. Sorry, Jay, can you go back?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm just looking at it, and it's a little hard to see on the screen there. But the farmer coalition finds the full implications of the agency's proposed changes to E into two parts difficult to interpret. What you So see here, e and f, that's currently there's something that's e that is being

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: Yeah, so this e here, which is what is currently in the RIPs That's that's got be would be separated into e and f. And this this language that's here, the secretary has the discretion to determine whether the land base is adequate to properly manage is part of would be in our proposal in chapter 24 around this right to raise livestock. So that right would be conditioned on the ability of the secretary to make a determination as to whether that land base is adequate to manage those animals. And that that starts that starts to get towards this issue of less than an acre. You've got far too many animals in a highly dense downtown area. The secretary would have the discretion to say, that's that's too many for that location, and, you know, and and change would would occur from that. So that's you know, we're taking a different tact here of integrating that language and that discretion into Chapter 24 rather than trying to make changes to the RIPs. And just another, the agency has proposed eliminating in the RIPs the Schedule F filing with the Internal Revenue Service. And again, just in not wanting to make these changes, but also, I don't think people are filing as farms serve lightly. And so it seems like another thing as to why exactly would we be eliminating this from the REPs and potentially farms that then in turn would be if they didn't fulfill other criteria, but they did file a Schedule F, would be regulated by the agency under the REPs. We want to keep that as is.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Is but if someone grows food for donation, they wouldn't necessarily file a ten forty f, would they? Yeah. And so I think by striking that language, it gives them protection to grow food for donation free of sowing, I think is what he I think that's the intent of. And

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: and that's where I think where if where we where both the agency and and we have proposed this, the right for cultivation of land for growing plants, food, fiber, etcetera, as exempt from municipal regulation, that would cover some of So you

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: don't necessarily need the other language.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: Exactly. Yeah. We feel like all bases are covered. That farm any farm that, for whatever reason, doesn't meet the $2,000 threshold, schedule F, for contiguous acres, blah blah blah, right these right to grow provisions cover activities beneath that from a municipal yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah? Representative O'Brien? Jake, do you

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: know what jurisdiction municipalities have over farming, I mean, this small scale farming as far as health officers go. Like, can I raise chickens in my basement or the attic? Like at what point can a health officer come in and say,

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: the municipality doesn't think this is safe? Right. I can't answer that with authority. I think given some of the conversations we were having with league today is that towns have ordinances or animal husbandry ordinances. Some of them already have that. They can institute those. And it potentially could address circumstances like that, where there's neglect or something like that that's occurring. Yeah, so I don't think that's necessarily theoretically or now outside the scope of what some municipalities can or already do. I would say.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You had reached the last slides.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: Yeah, that's it. Yeah, that's it. And so I think there's a lot here that we absolutely agree on with both the agency and based on our conversations with the league. And I think moving forward, it feels like the devil's in the details around some of these livestock questions and the question of where. And let's say, if we were to agree that the concern is 1A, how can that language be written in a way that still does not prohibit having livestock or raising food or whatever it may be? And there are no agreements around that yet. So this is what we have and kind of our starting

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: point and the framework that we're currently operating under. So just thinking a little more about that than what you thought like here, I think it's very helpful in this format to help us understand where your proposals and the agency's proposals line up or are different. But then in addition, there is the league's perspective and you've been talking to them. And it sounds like to be frank, you are closer to being in alignment with their position than you are with the agencies or theirs to the agencies, since I'm thinking about three different, a triangle here. So I just want to maybe take another minute, if you have it, not another minute, to understand where you might still be, dig in a little bit more to where you might still be not entirely lined up with a league and vice versa. And it sounds like, okay, 1A or something might be a designated area, but then within that, what rights do people have to grow their own food? Is that Yeah.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: I mean, think you've you've hit upon it pretty well in summarizing in that way. Again, we have not and we haven't seen formal language. We're speculating that we're close. But as we see specifics, it might reveal things that we had different assumptions about.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: I think in total, between all three major players here, the Farm Coalition, the L. C. T. And the agency, I don't think there's a lot of distance between our positions. It becomes a matter of whatever term you want to use, like elegance, simplicity, clarity. And I think with the agency, probably our difference here is that we think this approach is more clear and involves less, maybe unintended consequences if you're not opening up the RIPs. And then with the league, I think it's still there's still a bit of an unknown of we haven't seen formal language. And so we need to kind of compare and contrast and see how they respond. Because we also have not we have just shared our language with them as well. So, you know, seeing how they respond to that. But based on conversations, I think there's a lot of agreement and alignment and willingness to work out what the differences might be.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that we often do, but we don't always see all of our different types of farmers and farmer groups speaking with one voice collectively. So I want to note that. And I'm sure that the agency is, that everyone is working with best intent here to try and solve a problem. But I also want to point out that this is not as much of a problem today as it will be tomorrow and as it will be the next day and then the week after that. We all, I feel like, have heard consistently from everybody who's testified and maybe all feel ourselves that the court might not have gotten this right, but we don't have any say in that. And now we're in a new situation. And the status quo is not what it was before. And if we don't do something fairly soon, the status quo, the new status quo will begin to be felt more strongly. So all of which is to say, the sooner we address this, the better.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: Yeah, I'm glad you are saying that. And I think there's definitely an urgency on our part to compare and contrast the language and get to an agreement. And I think as I was listening back on Michael O'Grady's testimony and just hearing that the fact that it's difficult right now to even interpret what stands within the REPs and what you can and cannot say as to how they may or may not apply beyond water quality is troubling. And that's the patchwork scenario and uncertainty that we strongly want to avoid. And I think there's a lot of alignment and agreement amongst the parties on that. Well, I appreciate that,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and again, putting this together. John, yeah, thank

[Unidentified committee member]: you. Do have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: any other questions, and we can continue to talk about this. Sometimes it's helpful to have our witnesses here while we're talking in case we have questions, but

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien. So you're saying that the coalition would prefer the right to grow your food. That's just a different conversation, different legislation if we measure it up here, than fixing that at the same time as we fix this municipal regulation.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: No, I think so we're using that terminology to include in Title 24, which is the municipal exemptions. That's our chosen language. And what that means is that it would exempt not only farms covered by the REPs, which is more clearly stated, would be more clearly stated, but also just the active cultivation of plants and the raising of livestock. So it's, I think, to really make the point that Vermonters have this right to do this without presuming infringement or prohibition to do it. But yeah, the language we're proposing around this right to grow food is directly tied into the title that deals with municipal exemptions and this issue.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Because it made me think of these weird oddball instances where when we're talking about the food, like raising food, there are certain invasives that are food that ANR already does not let us do. And they're Africanized honeybees that probably the agency in bag doesn't let us raise. So there's livestock that's already regulated. I wonder if municipalities could, if they wanted to, move in that direction too.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: I don't know. But what you're bringing up is regulations covered by state agencies, which is not. I think in some sense, we do want to prevent municipalities acting sort of, again, like this patchwork manner that may apply in some places and not others. And also keeping those decisions with people who have really the technical expertise, the agricultural expertise to make that kind of determination as to whether or not something is invasive or should it be prohibited.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Municipal regulation would be patchwork just by definition, right? Right, yeah. Yeah. Any other questions for anybody who spoke and who's still here anyway? Thoughts?

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: I just wanted to speak, if that's all right, to the question of consistency across municipalities. I think there could be a solution there of saying that they're required to, if they want to regulate, for example, the number of livestock, that they would be required to consult with the agency of ag, and the agency could be responsible for saying, look, this is what we consider a reasonable number of goats on a half acre. You could have this many to this many, that's a reasonable number. So that then towns would have some guidance And if they went outside of that agency guidance, then they might have to provide some sort of justification for it as a way of creating some consistency amongst those, if it were to be one municipalities, those municipalities regulating livestock within their 1A areas.

[Jake Claro, Farm to Plate Director, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund]: And I do have, I have to go get my daughter self.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Is the language we had lodge council draw, have they they seen that, or is that out for public yet? Or

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We have not had lodge council draw up any language. We had the agency draw down some language, and the legislature may have helped format that, I can't recall, but we haven't given out We're any direction not very sure. Oh, I'm sorry, I apologize. Yes, you're right. We did ask Legislature Counsel. And that language was like how to get back to the status quo without changing anything else.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Without getting into rap. I kind of like that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, think everybody probably has seen that, And maybe we get asked you Have you seen that? And would you like to comment on that? I think when

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: you said it, only over the shoulder my Farm Bureau colleagues. So I haven't read it carefully, and so I can't really comment to that. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it should not address a right to grow food. It would do anything other than say, if we were living in a world where we had the ability to do so and wanted to just go back to the previous understanding, it would codify with a few words it would clarify with a few words the intent that we thought was there all along and made a little clearer. So it didn't address that, it didn't exclude 1As or anything.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: I don't want to speak for all of us because we haven't had that conversation. I certainly think there would be a lot of welcome for just returning things to the status quo. But I think that you would then find that maybe that those of us who've been having these conversations around the right to grow food might come back to you and say, we would still like to codify this piece of it. Not to be speaking out of term, but I think there has definitely become a lot of interest in that, looking at my colleagues around the room, because of that wanting to protect that right of all Vermonters to have access to food, even if they aren't a farm to be able to grow. But other than objective.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: No, I mean, it's just becoming increasingly clear that this is speed of triangles. We've got in a Taft Street decision here. We've got this right to grow food discussion and then also 181. And so do we want to have one solution there? Or do we break it down into? The

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: more we try and tackle,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: the more complexity. Exactly, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Mean, in the same way that there may be some concern about opening the wraps, because that could evolve into a conversation that escapes our control. That could happen with statutory changes too in other parts of other titles, maybe just in this title.

[Caroline Gordon, Policy/Advocacy (likely Rural Vermont)]: Caroline. For the record, Caroline is currently born with Mollie Graham. Really appreciate the testimony taken today. Just as a member led organization, I also wanna mention that we have a person in our network reach out to us. I'm not sure if they are willing to speak in testimony, but I want to stress that the right to grow food also becomes important as people below the regulatory threshold of the RIPs. In the moment where they start farming, they might not be determined to be a farm yet. And in that moment, this member, specifically years ago, had in the town of Shelburne the experience that they received the cease and desist order as they just started their farming business where they might have not officially been a farm here. So, and this farm did involve also livestock. Just in rear of the member testimony provided, just wanted to shed another light of the avoidance of creating the grey zones that we were not to put in food, also for livestock.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What kind of

[Caroline Gordon, Policy/Advocacy (likely Rural Vermont)]: livestock? The diversified farms, all the types.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just to follow-up with

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Caroline, what was the cease and desist? Was it in violation of municipal regulation?

[Caroline Gordon, Policy/Advocacy (likely Rural Vermont)]: From what I heard, I can't speak to them, but they started operating, and as they started operating they received the cease and desist order to farm in their particular location. They had them to educate the town of Shelburne about the farming exemption, apparently since then have on and off conflictual situations with their town, them imposing their jurisdiction over their balance. Sure, one needs to be fully covered with food.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I didn't say that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No worries, Mark.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You said. Do have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: good number on large that operation is? I think

[Caroline Gordon, Policy/Advocacy (likely Rural Vermont)]: it was, we're not talking about less than one acre. I don't know the exact acreage, I think they had like 30 acres in one location at a larger farming parcel outside of the town center or something like that. I stress to them that they should reach out to you and provide at least a written testimony, and I'm not sure if

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: they did that or cannot do more.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'd love to reach out to the Sisters of Anarchy that are in Shelburne, in their prairie farm. Ice cream. Yeah, the ice cream farm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Know that we've been presented with we've already heard quite a bit of testimony from farmers, I suspect that if we put out a call for more, we would get as much as we wanted with the importance of this issue. So I don't want to sort of take that as read, that if we invited every farmer to come in, I doubt we would have very many who said, I I think that we should change the rules and allow them to figure out what is.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. You're right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Anybody have any other thoughts at the moment? Yeah, go ahead, Greg.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I do want to continue the discussion on tier one A. Tier one B, I don't think, I think that, you we need to make sure municipalities don't govern you know, the full scope of agricultural activity and what tier one would be, but there's too much much in that area that would affect. But tier one adage, you just have more conversation to I think, you know, who that would affect right now. I mean, obviously, Burlington area, Portland, it sounds like, and then what does that look like on the ground, you know, in more detail. And going forward, obviously, over time that might migrate to other downtown. Anyway, I think I need more.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Think Yeah, that the process is unfolding out there in the world, and we saw a map from Lutland County the other day. And I think that whatever stage that's in, and I'm not gonna be able to say where it is in the process, but it is at a certain step in the process. There are also, I think, Chittenden County and another county that are likewise at that same step. Those maps that, in a preliminary way, are showing what could in theory be 1A. Somebody asked the other day, maybe it was you Greg, do we know how much ag land is in that? So we heard it's like 2% of the state land could be in that category. But how much of that is actually ag land? Think that's an important question. And maybe, were you able to speak

[Ornella Matasseegueroa, Director of Community Engagement and Advocacy, Land Access and Opportunity Board]: to that?

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: We employ a GIS specialist and I have asked him to try and answer that question. So he's trying to get the various files that he needs. I don't know what they are, but tells them shape files. I've never used DIS in my life, but he's attempting to get all of his files and put that together to try to answer that question, both for the purposes of just, it would be good to know, but also because of concerns about these areas become exempt from Act two fifty and they have prime ag soils, that means that the current offset that you have to provide under Act two fifty for developing the prime ag soil would also go away in these areas. And that's a concern that the conservation districts have because we would like to see maximum funding for conservation baglands. And so that loss, I also wanted to see if we could calculate that loss as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So getting that information has several differences. There's a gentleman that works over the agency of agriculture, and I'm escaping his name, but very passionate about our primag soils. If he can give us those numbers of

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Gotcha.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Brian Cina. Yeah. Very quick Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We've we've asked the agency to come in and talk about that. To talk about soil, but not about this specific question. So let's reach out, see if they have that information.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: Yeah, I just had a thought on a totally different tangent. Michelle, you said you were from St. Albans, is that right? Yes. You realize that we're waiting for somebody from St. Albans to come and fill Casey Toof to sit in this seat to be on this committee. Seriously, we we need somebody from St. Albans to step forward. So either you or talk to your friends. We need another committee member.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They're interviewing him this week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Are they?

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: Okay. And he doesn't You should have somebody from Franklin County. Okay. Well, we're waiting.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thanks for logging.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Would there ever be a way

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: of the way of municipal health officers have jurisdiction over certain things in the town, But I assume they're almost consistently following state rules. And so if there was a way for municipality to regulate farming, but they would have to go through the agency of ag, essentially, as their guide. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I don't know. I'm not sure how many towns have a health officer, how many small towns, I'm thinking in mind. You have to. Everybody sure does. Statutory. Okay, did not know that.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: But I don't know if any municipalities have their own specific health rules that aren't state rules. I think so, but maybe.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We've touched on some

[Unidentified committee member]: things that would create more work for the agency. So it would be interesting if any of them wanted to move forward and what they would have to say about that. I'm guessing they wouldn't embrace having to coordinate with many towns on Minutia.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: At least there might be statewide consistency though of the terms. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But but still Enforcement. Don't know. A lot of work.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Well, I mean, when Steve Collier was here, I think I asked him about whether or not they were

[Unidentified committee member]: preparing for

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that workload and

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: sounds like they were willing to take it on, at least with what they were suggesting for the jurisdiction they were hoping get paid in line with.

[Michelle Monroe, Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts]: I would just suggest that one of the things that we've been talking about is the need for clarity in whatever regulations get adopted, both at the state level and by towns. If there's really good consistency and clarity, that might alleviate some of the burden on the agency, because if the agency leaves it really gray, then they get called every time. But if they can provide really clear guidance that says this amount of land base is the minimum you need for this number of animals to be safe and healthy, then some of those calls go away.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: One thing I've been talking, I think Caroline and I talked about, I mentioned the idea of having a town based, sort of like, trying to think of one thing compared to offhand, maybe you have a tree worm, right? We have a tree worm in Cabot. We have the livestock worm or farm work, in this case forks, for when you get below, if the ATC bag is at a point where we don't want to get all this done to the salt nitpicky detail. Whether it's an individual or you have a group of folks that are elected in the town, do that, but make sure that it was so good. They're actually part of

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: the farming community and not Yeah. Was gonna say it'd be alright if you had rural Vermont handling that or or no fight handling that just because they're kind to agriculture, but you get the wrong person in charge of that. You think of that going wrong in so many ways. Yeah. And and in the tier one a aspect of it, they weren't so much the Vermont leagues, the cities, and towns weren't so much against growing your own food. It was if you were gonna have, like, farm stand. Well, you couldn't have it right on the corner where you're beating traffic. You'd have to have it as a way where someone could you know, where the ingress and egress was gonna be, you know, your normal traffic pattern worries, you know, that's how they presented to us.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Which accessory on farm business Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And and are they? Right?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And, you know, I I can understand that, I guess, but, you know, maybe other people in this room would say no, you know, but I don't you know, I we probably have to worry about what is reasonable on their end as well. I think I think that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the to the extent that there are I mean, there are different interests here. We we are We tend to have, and this conversation is a good example, think we're hearing mostly from one perspective, and we need to bear in mind that out there in the rest of the building and the rest of the world, there's another perspective that may be louder or will become louder.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Mean, a lot of us represent municipalities too, to some extent. I'm on platforms.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right, yep,

[Unidentified committee member]: yep. It just seems to be that it's a little too simplistic to look at acreage equals, now x acres means y animals, and that's because there's so many factors that could be involved, like what else is in there, what's the grade, is there a well, runoff, where's the runoff going to go? There's so many factors that I don't know that the agency could easily do what you were suggesting.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's why they wanna raise, you know, the wraps in the farm, then they can speak to that. You could be on lesser of a scale, you know, as opposed to somebody with 25 chickens. Not that 25 chickens aren't affordable. If there was some sort

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: of community based volunteer effort to help with that, I mean, how much, how many you've earned. I don't know. Depends on how much you want to grow besides the partner mag for its jurisdiction on farming.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: That could get a lot of backyard operations?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So right now we don't have any other, don't think we have any other scheduled testimony on this issue. And that doesn't mean that we can't be continuing the conversations outside of the room with anybody and everybody, and that other people will be having those conversations without us. But I think it would be helpful to say, it'd be nice by the end of the week to be closer to solving this problem. Apparently just because again, I think there is some urgency to moving ahead. And we also have other things that we want to be taking up. The longer any conversation drags out, the more likely we are to say, let's just finish this and not have our best product there. So I think for a number of For those reasons, we can maybe think about, let's see what we can have by Friday, either from an external source or that we come up with ourselves as a committee, but that would be good. I'll leave my counsel on and say that who may be needing them to help us scrap something. Anybody have anything else? I wanted to say two things. I didn't know this until I came in this morning, and I'm not sure whether other people knew too, but Appropriations Committee has done its work, I think it's signed off and voted on the BAA, and there is money in there for Bridges to Health, the full funding that we requested. And there is money for Vermonters getting Vermonters for $100,000 So that was, again, that's for the rest of the year, and beyond what was in the budget last year. So I'm sure that it helped to have our committee speaking to that. And the Bridges to Health got there? Yes, yep. Dollars 167,000. Yeah, but I think it was that exact amount. So it'll be I think I heard correctly that it was voted out with appropriations maybe yesterday, and that that would then be coming to the floor of the house at some point soon Thursday. Of course, the Senate would still have to sign off on it or be a part of the conference. But anyway, that's where we are with that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And the Land Access Opportunity Board, there's a million dollars in there, but what it was, I asked the question, it was there. We appropriated it last spring, and for some reason I got swept, so they just made sure it was swept back.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Back in, okay. Yeah. Good. Alright. Well, thanks everybody. We are here tomorrow morning at 09:30. We've got several bills that we're going to get intros and walkthroughs on tomorrow. Champlain Valley Pharma Coalition is coming in as well to just introduce themselves. We haven't had that. I don't know, but they haven't asked, but they usually like to come in and just share their I understand that to be here in person. Yes. Well, don't know if they'll be in person. But he is listed as the witness. And maybe there'll be others too. I wouldn't be surprised. Then the house floor doesn't take off until 03:30 tomorrow. We're moving till 03:30 start, which does mean I know that we'll be ending the day a little bit later. But when we get to a point where the floor schedule is busier, we'll go back to an earlier start. All right, thank you everybody.