Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: I'd like that. That sounds great. See if I can share my screen here tomorrow

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Just to share that with whomever doesn't have it. So good afternoon, And thank you for inviting me to the community members. Just as a

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Be sure. Be

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: And what I won't be doing is sharing a whole pile of slides, promise that. It's just a couple of

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: pointed visuals, which I wanted to share.

[Speaker 0]: Absolutely.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: So thanks again. Jim Boyd, I'm a neurologist from the University of Vermont, professor of neurology. I've been with the university now for twenty two years as a Parkinson's specialist, a trained neurologist, especially and for pain and movement disorders, which are collectively Parkinson's related conditions. So I have really made a twenty two year career out of treating Parkinson's disease here in Vermont. I've been here my entire career. I'm the director of the Parkinson's Center at UVM, which we founded in 2013, director of, and have been the lead researcher there in a variety of different capacities of research, including disease modifying therapies, condition slowing, treatments which we were exploring, ways to treat early Parkinson's disease, ways to treat advanced Parkinson's disease, which would slip up and beyond what we could go with standard medications. And so dozens of studies later and lots of hours of work. Unfortunately, we're in a situation where we don't have any cure for Parkinson's disease. For those who aren't familiar with it, and I hope that many of you are, sadly it's a common condition. That's the second most common neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease. It creates a combination of symptoms, which I think the ones that are most recognizable, people think of tremor as Parkinson's disease, but it causes progressive loss of mobility, balance, stiffness, slowness, and generally a gradual move toward incapacity physically. We have medicines which can help with symptoms, particularly in the early stages, but as it gets more advanced, it really becomes challenging to maintain someone's physical function. What many people aren't familiar with is what we consider the non movement or non motor symptoms of Parkinson's, which seventy five percent will become demented. And at least forty up to fifty percent will develop hallucinations and other psychosis, mostly visual hallucinations. Again, these are relatively treatable, but with limitations to the ability to control those symptoms and maintain control of movement. We're trying to control movement symptoms without fuelling hallucinations, without fuelling confusion. A large proportion of them will develop dysautonomia. It's the autonomic functions of the body. So blood pressure regulation, heart rate, bladder control, bowel control, all become malfunctioned as part of the condition. So people are unable to stand because their blood pressure becomes low. They're unable to regulate and control their bladder. Become profoundly constant in the condition. So that's what we're often dealing with over the course of a very long condition. So from the time of diagnosis to death, average twelve to fifteen years, The older one gets it, the shorter your lifespan is. It is a condition that many people just live many, many decades with, rather than die immediately from. And that sort of leads to more disability than it does death, but there's a proportion of life expectancy change when someone gets it at a young age. So if you get Parkinson's in your 40s, which is a less common situation, then your life will be short by it. If you get it in your 80s, you will live with it, but it will disable you over your five years of life. And we don't have a way to stop that progression. When the condition starts, it will continue to get worse over each year, over that timeframe. We really are just trying to contain symptoms and maintain people's level of function. One of the things that's important is that it is an age related condition. It is in a higher prevalence, as far as we can understand, in rural states. We have epidemiologically linked that to agricultural proximity. And Vermont is well within what we expect for a rural state in terms of the prevalence of the condition. We have an overwhelming number of people with Parkinson's in the state, enough so that, again, I've been here since working since 2005, and every few years we're adding another Parkinson's specialist because we can't keep up with the number of referrals. We have well over a year wait list to see people with Parkinson's disease for a new diagnosis and can barely get them in for their follow ups as we've seen. So we're really as a health system are overwhelmed with the amount of Parkinson's we have already.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, for

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: your question, Representative Nelson. Thank you. Doctor. Boyd, have you tracked are these lifelong Vermonters that they have they lived here many years or have they just moved here from other states? You know, I've looked at your maps and as it pertains to Paraquat, Paraquat's used a lot as a desiccant in cotton and peanuts. And, you know, I was surprised to see from Vermont being dark, dark blue as is Minnesota and Iowa. But when I look down at those states where they grow peanuts and cotton, the incidence isn't as high and and so I, and maybe your talk isn't related to Paraquat, but I just, I had that question.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah, it's a good question. So I think what we don't have is we lack a state registries. We do not have a good understanding of even how many people with residents in Vermont have Parkinson's disease. It's part of a separate effort that we need to put forward to understand where they are, where they have come from, what their exposures have been, and to understand what our relative need in terms of care delivery will be over time. In terms of the maps which I provided from some of the literature, this is really just looking to make an argument that this is not a non Vermont problem. These maps are not intended to justify that there's a paraquat reason in play. We'll talk a little more about that. But what I just wanted to emphasize is that we have one of the highest all risk mortality rate for Parkinson's disease of anywhere in the country.

[Speaker 0]: All of us?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All of us. Excuse me, I'm sorry, we can't have Who's speaking? Yeah, no, we have to kick the questions from the committee.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: After the conversation, you can drop chat outside. Yeah, so mortality is related to Parkinson's disease, as high as anywhere else in the country. When we look at what we call disability adjusted years of life, this is the number of years that you are disabled from said condition, and the years of life lost because you have died earlier than expected. And when you add those together and you look at where the map distributions are, Vermont is the second highest in the country, only after Maine and Hawaii. And again, we're not explaining pause here. Emphasis is this is a global problem. It's just, this is very much a Vermont problem as much as it is anywhere else, if not more. When we look at this disability adjusted life years- I'm sorry,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we had another question here, Representative Brian. Yeah, just, you

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: may even get into it, but

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: my brother-in-law was just diagnosed with Parkinson's, just turned 70 last week, and he got a call last week for a Parkinson's study, but it was related to genetic Parkinson's, which he doesn't have it in his family. So I wondered, does that also relate to rural areas where maybe there's less movement and it's passed on from generation to generation?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, that's a good question.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: And I think as a collective, can say that roughly on average, somewhere around twenty five to thirty percent of cause of Parkinson's is contributed to by genetics. And of all the genetic disorders, which we're aware of, yes, there are some which are what we consider dominantly inherited, where it's like one to two percent of all Parkinson's. I get it, my siblings, fifty percent of them will have it. One of my parents had it, half of their siblings had it, and it follows a living agent. But more importantly, it's most of the genes are what we call susceptibility genes. They increase your likelihood of getting it. But I can carry the gene and my brother can carry it, I will get it, he doesn't. And I think when we look at the evidence for twin studies, where we have identical twins, which shared immediate shared genetics, there's a thirty percent relative identified genetic risk. That's the highest that we can find. Most of the time we quote somewhere around twenty to twenty five percent can be genetically underpinned. But I think the tough part is that of those, we think it's an interplay between genetic risk and environmental cause. And there's very good evidence to suggest that carrying a certain gene and then being exposed to said environmental exposure is going to increase your risk.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So Representative Bartholomew. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I really understand what these numbers mean. The one before that numbers on the right, I guess it relates to the next slide.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Sure, so these are the number of years of disability plus the years of life lost per 10,000 people. So we're looking at essentially how many years of lost function or life have people had related to Parkinson's disease in those distributions. Ten thousand

[Speaker 0]: people. And

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: so in terms of the overall prevalence of Parkinson's in the population, the incidences is one in a hundred. As it's an age related condition, one in one hundred over a lifetime. If we looked at people who make it to the age of 80, it then goes to two in one hundred. So it doubles just based on pure successful aging. What we're looking here is this is the same exact reference that I'm providing. And what we're looking at is just different conditions. So I could have shown you a map of all of those different nice colors for each of these conditions here stroke, migraine, Alzheimer's, all different neurological conditions. What we see with all of the other ones is they're either reducing over time or they're staying neutral. And it's not what we're seeing for Parkinson's disease between 1990 and 2015. It's actually accelerating over time. So we're having an increased incidence of these conditions. And in terms of the age adjusted life years, it's not necessarily life shortening, but people are potentially just living longer with the condition. But the overall burden of the disease state on people and collectively on the society is increasing over time. So this isn't saying that necessarily this image is not saying the incidence is increasing so much as it is people are living a long time and are just living in a disabled state for a longer So in terms of the discussions of Paraquat, what I am not gonna try to portray myself as some type of an herbicide chemist or somebody who understands volatility. I'm someone who's treated Parkinson's disease for twenty two years and have had to see how devastating it is for people to have to live with it and what the negative effect is on their livelihood, their well-being, the burdens on their families and their spouses, what the overall stress on the system is relative to the number of people with Parkinson's. So I have to guesstimate, I've probably seen thousands of people with Parkinson's disease at this point. Having And done this in the state of Vermont as long as I have, I think I have met more people with Parkinson's disease in the state of Vermont than probably anybody. So there's my bias that I know a lot of people who have had Parkinson's since past or that have it currently. In terms of the paraquad story, I think the basic science of it is very logical. So the dopamine cells, which are responsible for the cause of physical symptoms of Parkinson's disease, are highly susceptible to anything that's an oxidative stress. So anything that's a mitochondrial toxin, so negatively affects the energy expenditure, immediately affects those cells. So there's a story of something called MPTP, which back in the '80s, there was something called, they called the frozen addicts. So people who were using synthetic heroin that had a byproduct that had a mitochondrial toxin effect, very similar to what paraquat does. And with multiple administrations of it, this is kind of a high dose exposure, they develop the end stage equivalent of Parkinson's because of death of those dopamine cells. And Paraquat, it's a similar mechanism. Clearly, the sort of dose response is nowhere near what we're talking about. But what we know from using MPTP as a chemical is that you can create a slowly progressive Parkinson's syndrome or the development of Parkinson's by an exposure now, and then the increase doesn't go away. Or you're killing off some of those dopamine producing cells, and there's no way to regain them. So that's one of the negative things about the brain is that it doesn't have a very good healing process. When you lose a type of a brain cell, whether it's trauma or it's toxic exposure, a stroke, there's no way to regain it. We can't grow back brain cells the way we do, say, muscle. Even heart is more forgiving with respect to an injury. So we understand that exposures to something which is neurotoxic can have an accumulated effect that we may not even see the results of until there's then the superimposed aging process. So you lose a certain portion of your dopamine cells and you're not gonna feel any different, But now you have made those more susceptible to cell death over time and the normal aging process. We all lose dopamine cells as we get older, but unfortunately, some people's reserve might not be as good and they'll lose them quicker. I know that there's been a lot of discussion about the different studies suggesting a support of a paraquat association and what the relative proximities are and exposures are like. I just wanted to touch upon sort of my personal interpretation of these, because I know that a lot of people have talked about them already. So there is the agricultural health study, which is the one that often people will cite as being negative or null where it does not show an association. So this is one of the largest cohort studies where agricultural individuals were followed over time and health outcomes were measured. And I think one of the challenges with interpreting it is it does show an absence of some type of a negative effect of Peripod and increasing risk of Parkinson's. But the study itself had less than fifty percent of the people who participated finish and tell us where they were in their health status afterwards. So there was lots of attrition over the time of study. And that always questions whether or not there's some relative degree of a bias in terms of what the results are. So you have to be really careful interpreting it, even though it's a large study. And that said, the people who were most likely to not follow through with it were the people who were younger at the entry of the study, so it would have been the longest of exposed, and somehow they just never made it to the point where they actually had a result that we could reference. So as important as cohort studies are, when they don't show an association, you have to look to see what's the validity of the result. Taking that same exact study, the same exact population, but then looking at people who were then confirmed to have Parkinson's disease, so a study called the FAME study, which was the farmers movement study. So they were looking at individuals. So they pulled people out of that study who got Parkinson's disease, and then they matched them to people who were the same age and did not have the same exposures. And when they did that, what they saw is that there was actually an odds ratio that went up to two and a half. So, the benefit of that is you have confirmation of an accurate diagnosis. When have cohort study, it's very hard to know, does the person actually have what they say they have if you don't have medical records? When you have a Parkinson's specialist measuring someone's exam and saying, yes, you have Parkinson's disease, and then being able to link that in an accurate way. The other is that the way that they looked over the relative exposures, they then sorted out gloved versus ungloved and other ways in which there was a greater amount of exposure. Overall, two and a half times the drayst, so 250% increase. When they were ungloved, it went to actually 300, 400% increase. So the assumption is that everybody's gonna do this in a protective way, but this is the immediate effects of people who are using parapod themselves. California PEG study, which was a geolocation. So they just, as you know, California follows where their pesticides and herbicides are spread very carefully. And then they geolocated people who were diagnosed with Parkinson's. They took 400 of them and said, Where were you located over time relative to the distribution of various herbicides and pesticides being distributed? That study, again, agnostic of whether or not the person knew they were exposed, just looked to see were they exposed, did they work in a farming occupation, Were they just in near proximity? And the more they were in it as an occupation, the higher the risk. The closer they were in proximity, the higher the risk. And so, there's actually a very measured distribution that even in rural nearby, people were at higher risk of Parkinson's disease. So as we talk about the volatility questions and the like, it kind of argues that maybe there's some inaccuracy and that there is a contribution to it. So you have your nearby neighborhoods and you have your schools that are nearby or whatever it might be that those people don't have any protective equipment on. And even if that's a small measured dose on a regular basis, it may be increasing their risk. That's what the data would suggest. And then the meta analyses, I think, again, they're taking the pros and cons of all those studies, but they're putting them together. And it's done by a statistician, they're doing it in a meaningful way that they're looking to say, what of these studies actually are performed in a valid way and be pulled together as having the same outcomes? When they do that, that's the reference that people will use to say there's at least a 60 increase, potentially up to a doubling. So it's a twofold increase. The way I was thinking about it is the way we think about something like secondhand smoke exposure. So it increased, it's someone who doesn't have the choice of whether they're smoking or not. They're in their proximity. We've banned indoor smoking in a variety of different places. Yes, smoking is more common than paraproitides. That's absolutely true. But the relative risk of secondhand smoke for developing lung cancer is like a thirty percent increase, not one hundred percent or two hundred percent, but thirty percent. And even if you added cardiac disease in, if you added risk of stroke in, you're still a greater likelihood increase from paraquat exposure in proximity than you are from secondhand smoke. But we came to a conclusion that secondhand smoke inside is unsafe for people. Yeah, perhaps anything thanks.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Usually, I like to ask questions that I have an idea of what the answer might be from from the person I'm asking the question, and I have no idea. So I'm gonna ask you. You work with a majority of the patient that practices in the state of Vermont?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Well, I certainly have colleagues there that are seeing them as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Has there been a draw? Are these people from near orchards or have they been exposed to paraquat? Do we know that? I mean, if you don't, that's fair too.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah, think it's fair. So we don't have a registry. I have this conversation frequently where someone says, I grew up on a farm. And they say, we use herbicides, pesticides. I may remember what was used, what wasn't used. Or I live next to a farm. And they ask me the question and they say, do you think that that's part of the contribution to this? And I say, Based on what I can understand from the literature, maybe, most likely it had some contribution. What we can do differently about it, nothing. You have Parkinson's already. So there's no way to turn back when you have it. So it's something that you really need to stay ahead of. We can't keep people from getting older. We can't change their genetics. What we can change is what negative environmental effects we might have. Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah, Doctor. I just wondered, besides Paraquat, talking about environmental exposures, are there other things in our rural lives that also could contribute?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah, and I think so the things that are out there as considerations, naturally occurring manganese might be a potential contributor. There hasn't been a sort of map distribution of whether or not that's something which can linked up with Parkinson's disease in any given state. Parapot certainly not the only herbicide or pesticide being used. There are other ones that have been associated with it. In terms of the one with the strongest evidence, this is the one. And I think if you look into the PEG study, which came out of California, it's clear that there's probably some additive effect of multiple exposures. And when you look at those maps, they overlap quite a bit. And the people who are at greatest risk had the greatest exposure to collective herbicides and pesticides. Teasing out which ones are creating the most increase in risk is still under consideration, but it looks like Paraquat so far isn't

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Bos-

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, I just wanted to let you know, I don't know if you're aware, but just within the last two weeks, there was a bill that went in about setting up a Parkinson's registry in Vermont. I was correct, yes. Okay, all right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And representative Berger. Thank you, chair.

[Speaker 0]: My questions along with the same lines, I'm just curious if you have to know any studies that might have been looking at glyphosate versus paraproclin in regard to Parkinson's. Sure. That one's up first in

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: my mind just because it's Other than particulars. Correct, yeah. So there is some less convincing but signal of evidence that glyphosate could also be a contributing factor.

[Speaker 0]: But you're saying that they've actually done the studies that have been done specifically to try to target and isolate out Peripheron versus all of these other potential chemicals?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah. And I think the one that did it most cleanly is that it's by the author, Ritz is the senior author on it from California Valley. Ritz, you said RITC. And I can share that reference with you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just because you mentioned it, and I didn't realize there had been a bill introduced, so we can let somebody else have an in-depth conversation. Are there registries of the one that you're suggesting doesn't exist in Vermont for other other diseases or in other states,

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: are there registries for Parkinson's patients? There are registries in other states. There are registries in Vermont for other neurological diseases. The one I'm most familiar with is ALS and more neuronal disease.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Burtt.

[Speaker 0]: I had someone ask this question to me about parapods. Usually we come on the coattails of California and their laws, but oftentimes it would not. Are you aware of any work that's been done in California since it is such a large agricultural state and has high use of venement studies here. Are they looking at Bennington, Paracua?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: So I think there's seven or eight states, and I can't recall if California is one of them at this moment.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Anything else that you wanted to add?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: No, I think probably the most important thing is that there is an opportunity to identify something that carries a potential genetic risk or environmental risk. And I think the evidence is strong enough in my mind. And again, I am clear about my own biases about the potential to wanna eliminate any and all increased risk of Parkinson's disease, even if an increase of one percent or two percent in one hundred. So it increases one more person to one hundred. What's one more person in one hundred, right? Well, that's a decade plus of disability for someone, that one person. So one hundred percent for them. The amount of time and effort, I understand, again, I've never spread an herbicide or pesticide myself, and I understand the inconveniences of it, not having that opportunity to have what you want at your disposal. We deal with this in medicine all the time, where I know this is the right medicine for someone, but CMS doesn't cover that medicine. So we're gonna have to go with something else in our toolbox if they become restricted. So I feel that type of a sense on a day to day basis. But I think the really challenging thing is the people who are at the greatest risk are the people who are using it and the people who are their family members and their neighbors. And so it's not really me necessarily that's at risk for my family, it's the person who's choosing to use it. And I think that's a really tough situation where you don't wanna tell people they're making a bad decision, but at the same time, they're making a bad decision potentially for themselves and also for their neighbors and for the community. If indeed the volatility risk is right, you're theoretically putting your friend's kids at risk of having Parkinson's in the future, and you're putting your kids at risk and your grandkids if they're nearby. And so, magnitude of the effect, even if it's small, if it's preventable, it's hard to argue. And mind, again, obviously, I have my biases here. I understand this. I'm not an agriculture, but I understand Parkinson's really well. And I feel like there's a real opportunity here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's an economic cost to prohibiting the use of an herbicide or a pesticide to the agriculture part of our economy. I think what you're getting at is there's also an economic cost. There are personal costs, health costs, but also an economic cost to having to treat the population for any illness or disease.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah, so it's the estimates in terms of relative lost wages, understanding that most people who are getting Parkinson's, they're just about in the end stage of their career or they're retired already. So not a lot in the way of lost wages. So most of it is healthcare costs. The estimate is $50,000 a year. If you extrapolate that over ten years, it's $500,000 The end stages of the disease where you need long term care goes up to about 90 to $100,000 a year in terms of the total cost of care. So you can very comfortably get to a million dollars per person in terms of their overall life cost for Parkinson's.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I saw one other hand up, Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I just wondered, since you've been studying Parkinson's so long, if you could speak to both laboratory tests, but also in the field exposure to things like mammals that are exposed to it, songbirds, pollinators, there's studies being done on the non human.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Yeah, that's good question that don't want me to to. And it's interesting because in the absence of some type of a toxin, Parkinson's disease is a human condition. Other animals do not get Parkinson's disease.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Doctor. Roy, thank you very much. We appreciate your testifying and coming in to speak to us. We've got ledge counsel here now and taking the liberty of switching agenda items. So we're going to have Bradley come up and walk us through some language for this bill. And while he's making his way over, you're welcome to say, of course, I think. I will say that most of the language that he's gonna present to us comes straight from a bill introduced in the Senate this year or this biennium anyway. With the same or more or less the same intent, with a few modifications. And when we get to those modifications, Bradley will tell us. And this was at my direction. It's for the purposes of starting a conversation. Get to a point where we need to see language, and I think they probably got that point. It doesn't mean that this is language that we need to collectively decide on, but it will give us, each of us an opportunity to say, I like this or what could we do differently?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Bradley Sherman, office of legislative council. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen for an amendment to h seven thirty nine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So on our web page.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is up. I'm seeing the Screen in order. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Bradley, sorry. I'm gonna just say there's a lot of findings here. I think we can not spend a whole lot of time on each of them, but we will definitely wanna come back to them if we proceed with conversations about the bill. John. Dave, what's the

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: companion senate bill with the language that we're using here?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you remember?

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I just clicked off of it.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Let's have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: somebody else look that up. Okay. Do it. About that. Yeah.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And but this is an amendment to house bill seven thirty nine, and there are a few pages of findings here. I'll skim through these very quickly. And paraquat essentially is a, herbicide that kills all vegetation. First introduced in 1964, regulated in, by the EPA in 1978. And it is classified as restricted use pesticide, so a class a pesticide to fit in our, regulatory framework. 70 about 72 countries have banned the use of paraquat, including the countries that are listed here. The European Union banned it in 2007. Some studies showed a link to Parkinson's, non Hodgkin's lymphoma.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Just a second, brother. Does Paraguat kill, or is it just burned back? I'm just I'm asking for technicality purposes. So if this goes forward, it's it's correct.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Which one are we talking about?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The back in his findings up near the backup higher. European. Bear bought kills

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: all vegetation that it touches.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Touches. Yeah. So let's flag that. So I'm not sure if it kills it or if it just burns it back because it doesn't get into the roofs.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: It doesn't go through bark

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: like apples. Yeah, it doesn't go through bark and, you know, like representative Burtt, you have to spray multiple times to control the vegetation around those nursery trees. If it was glyphosate, I would feel you wouldn't have to spray near as much because it terminates the crop. Like you wouldn't use Paraquat to terminate winter rye because it'll just burn it back and it will re sprout and grow.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I think we've heard testimony to confirm that. It's called chemical mowing. So let's flag that and we can figure out a better way to say that. What line? Line ten and eleven.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I think page one, broadleaf. Yes. It shows broadleaf thing. So like bark wouldn't be that. Right? And roots aren't that either. It might Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's from bird, back grasses.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I'm speeding through these,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: but Sorry, another question here. Oh, go ahead.

[Speaker 0]: It's slowing down speeding through these zones.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I was gonna talk on that actually, so yes.

[Speaker 0]: 72 countries, you said, was it the entire European Union? Yes. As a change, I would like to see that somehow incorporated in European Union in that number four.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Number four, okay. Yes. Would be

[Speaker 0]: country you'd have to work in.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It would be yeah. It would be 72 countries, including the countries in the European Union.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Is Turkey part of the EU?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Number and and like I

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: said, I'm speeding through these, but that doesn't mean you can't That's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: my request. Please do. Don't don't apologize. Yes.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In 2021, as part of a product registration review of Paraguay required under FIFRA, the EPA issued an interim decision approving the continued registration of Paraquat for use in United States. Despite multiple public comments objecting to approval and significant scientific evidence regarding the potential health effects of Paraquat exposure, Multiple parties subsequently moved to challenge the EPA's interim decision authority and continued registration of paraquat. In particular, the challenging parties contested the EPA's assessment of the increased risk of Parkinson's due to exposure from paraquat from volatilization during use. So when you use it, it turns into a mist. In January 2025, after a petition from the EPA, court allowed the EPA to withdraw its interim excuse me, the interim registration approval for Paraquat so the EPA may reconsider its initial conclusion concerning the potential for Paraquat to volatize and to determine whether Paraquat continues to meet FIFRA's registration standard. This is the one I was asked to add add, by a chair Durfee. And, so in October 2025, the EPA issued a memorandum titled Paraquat Review of the Volatization Potential for Paraquat from field uses and determined that there is a greater uncertainty regarding the potential for Paraquat to volatilize than previously understood. The EPA concluded that more data is needed to understand the pericot poses to bind bystanders. So that that report did not say that the increased volatilization means increased risk. It just found that there's increased volatilization when used, and therefore more data is needed to understand the risk. The EPA's reevaluation of the risk of Paraquat may take many years instead of waiting. The state of Vermont should ban Paraquat in order to protect Vermonters. So those are the findings. You're on page four.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry, just another comment. A couple in six and seven references to studies by the National Institutes of Health. Do we know, are those actually done by the NIH or are they research that's granted to other institutions? Just wanted to make sure that we're accurate because NIH does its own research, but most of it's through grants. So that wouldn't be by the NIH. It would be funded by. And we Just wanna make sure we're accurate, we're gonna put

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, think, as we talked about before, findings ought to be easily defensible. So if somebody were to stand up on the floor and say, what studies are you talking about? Whoever's presenting the bill should be able to say, these are the studies. Right? So thank you for pointing We that want to know what the studies were and how the funding Yeah, who did them.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So with findings, the last one seems like a change then, and that it's not factual, but it's saying we should ban it. So you can start editorializing and findings?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think people can write any kind of a delay. I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: just caution with the lawsuit to bear in glyphosate and over labeling and whatnot. We're gonna be careful what we put down is finding it back and wanna make sure that it's true and and and undisputable. Right.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I agree.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I will say and I so I think everyone's clear where this came from. Let's flag those two and and try and stick with facts here.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I would just say 13 sounds more like something that should be included in the floor report.

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

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Excellent.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The bill itself is short and sweet. We define paraquat, and so we use the chemical name. There's two chemical names here And the chemical abstract service registry numbers for both of them. Those are the chemicals commonly referred to as paraquat. And we're amending statutes, title six, section 11 o five d. We're adding the statute. I can show you where it is where it would live in the, in title six in a

[Speaker 0]: moment. But

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it lives with our neonicotinoid, would live with our neonicotinoid bands and the DDT ban. The prohibition, no person shall sell, use, or apply paraquat except when authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food, and Markets under subsection c. Subsection c is authorized use. Secretary of Agriculture, food and markets may authorize the sale, use, or application of paraquat upon a determination that a threat to Vermont crops exist that requires the use of paraquat and no other herbicide or class of herbicides would be effective in addressing threat. So this is a little bit different from the neonicotinoid exceptions, and I'm sure the committee might want to discuss that. This doesn't give as much instruction to the agency on how to authorize and how to make those exceptions. So it's it's it's a gives them more authority in that way. And then the reporting is a piece that I added at the request of representative Durfee or chair Durfee, and the secretary of agriculture food and market shall report annually on all data regarding regarding any use of Paraquat authorized by the section. The report shall include the name of the person or entity authorized to use Paraquat, the amount of Paraquat used, and the location where the Paraquat was used. The secretary shall submit the reports of the house committee on agriculture, food, resiliency, and forestry, and the senate committee on agriculture on or before December 15 of each year. Act, shall take place on 07/01/2026.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just to summarize, we've got all the findings, then we've got there's the definition of what are we talking about, and then there's a ban, then there's a very general exception, and then there's the reporting. And I already have some thoughts on how we might change that reporting section. But let's see what other thoughts people have. Representative Nelson?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: When primers buy herbicide, they buy herbicide and they may not use it all up the year they buy it. Matter of fact, a lot of times they have carryover for one year. The next is perfectly legal and allowed as long as they store it in a safe manner under walking key. If this ban were to go in effect 07/01/2026, there's a pretty good chance to be a lot of paraquat across the bay from my house. So what kind of you So you you need to get you know, maybe you start with and and I don't know where I lay on this yet, and I'm not gonna hide that for anybody. But while we're talking language, let's talk language, and then we can argue about the other stuff later or not argue, debate the other stuff later. Right? I'm not an I'm not we can debate the other merits later, but you could start with a a ban on the sale of 07/01/2026, but allow people to use up their stock that they have.

[Unidentified Committee Member (from Caledonia, likely)]: Thoughts, Greg?

[Speaker 0]: I'd certainly be I'd I'd rather see that than just throw it in up by your house.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: something you might wanna look at is safe disposal methods, and that's probably on the label. I mean, I don't know if

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, there's rules. If if If people dare to follow rules, there's rules. Absolutely. Absolutely. All that stuff has rules. They're very well laid out in our licensing requirement.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Burke. So what exactly I'm trying to understand what this might be probably in line 16, last word being threat, Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, many all stars, sale of use, stratification, paraponic, determination of the threat to the crop exists that requires the What would be a threat in that case?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It would be up to the Secretary of Agriculture to determine. So this section does not use language like such as agriculture emergency or environmental emergency. It gives the secretary of agriculture discretion to determine that. And so it's probably the broadest answer to your question there.

[Speaker 0]: The structure, I know if would be able to properly maintain the vegetation underneath such young Navajo trees be considered like a threat to that operation. I guess

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the way that this is written then, the secretary would have fairly broad leeway and the authority to make a determination based on their discretion, more or less.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yes. And and one other thing I would point out is that there's no currently no rulemaking requirement in this in this bill to, you know, require that the the agency explain those terms or or do a process to define those terms or define the use that's currently not in the bill. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and that would be not unusual to have that in the bill, to have

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: some That sort of is correct. And that happened with neonics. Could have just as well happened here too.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I just wonder along those lines, what's the appeal process for a farmer or orchardist to go to the agency of ag and say, this crop is threatened, I need to use power cloth. Does that come up in the bill or is that just handled on a

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: case by case? So it should In this bill, it's not to pop. With neonicotinoids, the secretary, I don't believe has actually done rulemaking on that appeal process just yet. But broadly speaking, what happens when you have an appeal process is that any administrative agency determination is subject to the Administrative Procedures Act. And so an individual has a right to notice, a right to a hearing, and a right to appeal that hearing to a court if they, disagree with the outcome of that hearing at the administrative level. So broadly speaking, an individual does have protections, under the law. Those aren't necessarily spelled out here, and we can, as a matter of this bill, spell out those protections in particular. But broadly speaking, those would be the appeal rights without further rulemaking from the agency of what have you. It

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: would come up from the farmer orchardist, not in this case, it's not like the agency of ag is gonna be like, oh, there's some very long grass around trees and chamfered.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that's exactly right. So the farmer would submit a request, to the agency of agriculture to use Paraquat, and the agency of agriculture would either approve or deny that request. And if they deny that request, they would appeal. If they want it or they might not want it to appeal.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Need to put a mechanism in the bill for an appeal to be allowed or allowable.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not necessarily. Yeah. That that that is correct. That is correct. It would perhaps some rulemaking for the agency to define the process might be helpful or define a form, but that is also up

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: to the discretion of the committee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson, but before I talk to you, I just wanted

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to flag and maybe have you explain a little bit. Bradley, you mentioned economic emergency and agriculture. Yes. So agricultural emergency and environmental emergency are currently in the statute, And they're also broadly defined, but those were added to the statute for the neonicotinoids ban. And those exemptions require a finding that there is an agriculture or an environmental emergency, and I can pull those definitions up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's okay. We can save that for

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's great.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I just wanted to say that those two things that we have used before. They are much more specific or less broad than what we have here. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And this may not be the time share. And if it isn't, could discuss this later. But I have two other options that we could put in there sometime, but if if there's Yeah.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: No. Let's let's hear.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: One would be to use per per quat by permit only. An ex extra permit, you'd have to file with the secretary of agriculture to receive a permit specifying the place, the reason the place, you know, a range of dates. I mean, try to pick one day because of weather, but a range of dates where you would use it. That's one option. The other option would be to ban it for use on agronomic crops for the use as a desiccant, you know, to dry soybean, dry down potatoes, or or other crops. In the world of in my world of terminating cover crops, it adds up no value. I mean, there may be there's some, but I'm not aware of it. And, you know, this would this would stop it being used on a wider scale. This would restrict its use basically down to orchards and and viticulture. And and I'm not I you know, the only thing I've learned about accusers is what we've taken as testimony, so I can understand why it works in those situations. And it's, you know Tony, that's what I got. Just something to consider.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Bradley, did you note both of those? Yes. I did. Okay. Thank you. Somebody else, representative Bos- Sorry.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I mean, another thing you could do is a phase out too. I mean, to give orchardist and Bennington

[Speaker 0]: culturalist a couple of years, a year.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Need to be done by this point, just so in the IPM toolbox, they can find start testing alternatives that might work.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, there's some of that. And we can ask them what are the tools that they have in their box. I I am really leery of taking more stuff out of the toolbox. Agriculture's had enough. Profitability is struggle. And even with these high dense orchards are going where they're they're going to them to try to survive and feed America

[Speaker 0]: and the world. I I personally looked at the permanent idea because in that process, there could be maybe a handout of some sort that was given by the when you get the permit you apply for it or before you receive it, you made aware of, like, here are the potential risks with this is we do not normally recommend this chemical to be used and here's why. And then that will make it sort of more informed decision as to whether or to use it in the first place. Maybe to suggest alternatives, but then say, after all that information, if you feel like this is the tool that you still need to use, you just wanna know how much of it you used, where it went. That to me seems like a way of getting around some situations instead of having to go through the Secretary of Agriculture do that, would be a little bit, it would be a process for somebody to have to go through. They'd have to know the risks that they're taking to do it. And then inherently would be more careful in using it. It would limit the amount that it's used, but it's still allowed to use without having to go through it. Almost an act of congress to do it.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The yeah. Go ahead. The the agency permits special uses for what they do for right away. That's a permitted use. They have to apply for a permit to do For the mosquitoes work.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: That's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Or or mosquitoes. Exactly. I don't know long have gone into mosquito wars. Been a while, but we they don't do it up where I live. They make us suffer.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we wouldn't be creating a

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: brand new

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: procedure here. It's already

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Done in other Yeah. And and maybe you wanna tie the two together, but use by permit only, but stopping its use as an on agronomic crops as a test again. Because I there are other things to use, and I can't believe anyone uses a lot of potatoes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just I wanna note here and then we can see if there's any concluding thoughts. But in d, the reporting section actually, it wasn't my intent to have the the legislature see everyone's name Okay. Rather that the agency collect that usage data from everyone. And that could be accomplished in conjunction easily with determining process if we were to go that route.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so take up the name, just the amount used and location where it was used, or do we want what it was used for?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The agency shared data with us last week on a county basis, and it was useful on use, used by county, but it did not include all users. It was just commercial applicators essentially and municipal. So expanding that so that they're collecting all that information was my intent there. Reverend Caledonia.

[Unidentified Committee Member (from Caledonia, likely)]: Thank you, John. You know, of all the we've heard a lot of concerns and a lot of people handling transfer application. But the newest that's my more recent, we heard it referred to vapor drift or volatile. The vapor drift factor. Obviously, the licensed applicator is taking care of of their immediate selves and. But so when it comes to rules of counselor, you know, like, you don't launch a space shuttle if the you're across winds of x. Well, you can apply it if it's a windy day or and I know with apple orchids when we're talking about the the nicotinamide spray, it had to not be in bloom, but also had to be when it was still, relatively still. I don't know if that goes to the rules or what, you know, that's a factor that I think Yeah. We should consider. I think that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sounds like good starting point for the conversation, not we need to have, but about rule making, what the agency could consider.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: And it's not on the label because they didn't consider that, and that's why their EPAs went back to study it.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We have a general rule.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: There are general rules It's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: already covered. Windham, yeah. But not specific to that's for sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, think also we heard the testimony the other day that you're supposed to be suited up and that those suits get hot quickly and maybe that needs to be part of the thought too. I'm gonna suggest in the interest of keeping things moving here, unless somebody has anything else you wanted to say now that Represent Brigham.

[Speaker 0]: All the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: power companies and road that sprayed guardrails and sprayed in the interstates. They publish in paper when they're gonna do it and what they're using. You could go along with

[Speaker 0]: something like that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, We actually took some testimony about that a couple weeks ago and partly because we wanted to be sure that Paracat wasn't being used in that particular application, and they we now know that it's not. But, yeah, that's an interesting thought. I mean, at some point, you might say, Peripod's gonna be sprayed here. Let the public know. Let's let's wrap up here for now. We will Bradley, we'll be in touch about any I know you've taken good notes, and we can be in touch about where we might wanna go from here. And you don't even need to get up because unless you wanna slide over and make room for We no longer have that extra seat to offer witnesses.

[Speaker 0]: I pay for notes.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: And now this is municipal regulation. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just to update you while Bradley is pulling up the next presentation, the conversation about municipal regulation of agriculture has been proceeding in the background and in the senate agriculture committee.

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: You

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: know that they took testimony Friday on a proposal that's similar to what we're gonna look at here that I've asked Bradley to draft. And they may have taken more testimony today. I'm not sure if they got back into it this morning or not. Just because we've got other committees that are very interested in seeing where we are, and we've only got now ten working days before the crossover date, we would need to actually pass something. I think there's some interest in having us get at least something out of the table, even if it's not the last word. So Bradley and I talked about it yesterday, a little bit end of last week, and then again yesterday. And again, what we're looking at is not intended to be my position, but I think the committee's position is, but is a position that is pretty close, I think, maybe to being one that all parties would agree to at the end of the day if they had to compromise somewhere. So, Bradley, if you wanna bring that up and

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: turn it over to you.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I'm Bradley Schulman with the Office of Legislative Council. Here with

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Helen Cikowski, Office of Legislative Council.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And today we will do a walk through House committee bill regarding municipal regulation of agriculture. So broadly speaking, this bill does propose to prohibit municipal regulation of agriculture activities that are subject to the required cultural practices rule and the construction of farm structures, except for farming and farm structures in tier 1A and 1B areas. That's the biggest change here. And we'll jump into going over the bill as such. So we have the findings and intent that hasn't changed very much except to bring in the exceptions that we'll be talking about farming and the construction of farm structures in tier 1A and 1B areas. And now here's the big changes. So the statute that we've been discussing since the beginning of this year has been 24 BSA 4,413. We've been discussing 4,413 D as in dog. And I will scroll down. So, four thousand four and thirteen D, a bylaw under this chapter shall not regulate. And that is what we've been discussing up until this point. Now, scrolling back up to make it confusing for everyone, but just scroll back up to page two, line 10. We're discussing forty four thirteen a. This is a section of the same statute that permits the following uses may be regulated only with respect to location, size, height, building bulk yards, court setbacks, density of buildings, off street parking, loading facilities, traffic, noise, lighting, landscaping, and screening requirements. And this is the important caveat here. And only to the extent that the regulations do not have the effect of interfering with the intended functional use. So we are putting some of the regulation of farming and farm structures into this piece. There will be a remainder that is prohibited indeed below.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And this this is existing language. So just partly for representative bring them who's looking at maybe for the first time, marked up bill, anything that is underlined is new language that we're being that we're proposing, and anything that's crossed out is to delete. Anything else is what's already there in the law.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: That's correct.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Three asterisk means that there's something there that they can put in that's existing law. Yeah. There's there's text there in existing law. That you've skipped over because might not be readability purposes to skip it over because we're

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: not changing it and it's not relevant to understanding what we're doing here. Thank

[Unidentified Committee Member (from Caledonia, likely)]: you. Good mic.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the first thing that we are adding is what we have colloquially referred to as the right to grow food. It's not the right to grow food, but it is growing plants for food. So the cultivation or use of land for growing plants for food, for personal use, donation, or sale, including orchard crops, agricultural crops, and for maple sap, or the raising, feeding, or management of poultry, excluding roosters for personal use, donation, or sale. And then so this would permit municipalities to regulate these activities. And just to the extent that the regulations do not have the effect of interfering with the intended functional use. Are the pieces that are big changes to how municipal regulation of farming and farm structures has worked in the past. So what we're looking at is J, farming that meets the minimum threshold, and this is page three, line three. Farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria and the required agricultural practices rule and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices rule and the construction of farm structures provided that the regulations pursuant to the subdivision A of this section. And so what this says is that a municipality may regulate by bylaw these activities subject to the following caveats here. So that these regulations only apply in a municipalities tier one a and one b areas established in accordance with 10 BSA sixty thirty four. That these regulations do not apply to farming that took place prior to 07/01/2026, or farm structures built prior to 07/01/2026. Do not apply to noise, smell, lighting, or hours of operation, So it's And are limited to ensuring the safe ingress and egress of vehicular traffic and ensuring pedestrian safety, including regulated parking, signage, pavement markings, functional enclosure of livestock adjacent to roads, and if required, regulations related to train personnel to manage vehicle traffic or excuse me, vehicle movement on and immediately surrounding premises. Siding and setback requirements for newly created infrastructure, including farm structures in a manner that does not create public safety concerns, including fire safety concerns to neighboring buildings. Or number three, requiring that buildings open to the public be developed in compliance with Vermont building a safety code. The last piece that I changed here is I moved the definitions that were down and d up because they're referred to a little bit earlier. And then so you'll see those definitions moved up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Got a question here.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So this is granting the municipalities the opportunity to have a say in tiers one a and one b. Scratch. Okay. One b to me, one a is well defined one b is growing out. One bee is encompassing farms that are on the edges of town. Find one bee problematic because of its growth. And I worry about agriculture in Hinesburg, in Addison, in Derby. I don't know what y'all have down there in Tunbridge. You have zoning or planning or anything if you're or or or, you know, or, you know, in other communities. I don't Right. Royalty. Royalty, you know, and the how far. They of course, that's on the river at floods, so they're not gonna wanna build anything on it anyway. You you know what I'm saying, though. I I, you know, I work you know, so even though that land's all been sold, the Bursey Franklin sold, the development rights, that's probably in a one b, maybe they carried it out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So so

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that we definitely need to ultimately decide one way or the other. And we have added a couple of things here that are relevant to this discussion that I'll just flag, and then we can come back to it. But I think this will yes. This will be a big question, ultimately. But you just, I think, walked us through, Bradley, what I'm gonna call the grandfather clause.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is page three, lines nine and ten. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: so if there's farming happening today in an area that's tier B, how is that going to be? So I'm asking you that question well, because I understand that question. But if somebody has a farm today and it ends up in tier b, we've talked about the scenario where they sell the farm, or they die and their kids take over the farm, or they change the kind of farming they do. How would those instances be covered down the road? Would a municipality be able to regulate them?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is a good question. And this statute does not contemplate farm succession. And that would potentially be an open question, whether the exemption would apply to a successor in interest when selling the farm. And so I don't have an answer to that question. I think changing the type of farming, the statute does not necessarily limit you soybeans and you change to corn or what have you. This statute does not say limited that to a specific type of farming to give you that grandfathering piece. That's it. Happy to take more questions from the committee, this might be a good time to draw on Ellen's expertise in terms of when someone is in a situation, when you're regulated under subsection A, what kind of process that you need to go through to get permission to actually take on those activities and what

[Speaker 0]: that process might look like.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Or any kind of feedback or thoughts you may have here.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure. 4,413 is has multiple types of regulation that municipalities are required to use. A and D are very different. So currently under 443A, including the rest of the list, the things that are covered by the three star ellipses, these are largely thought of as community land uses. And so currently municipalities have the authority to regulate those community uses through what is a modified conditional use review. So it sets up that the municipality can only look at these specific types of parameters on the development, but most of them do that through conditional use review, which requires the person who is going to be doing that use either for the first time or change of use, they're gonna need to get a permit from the municipality, specifically, usually specifically from the appropriate municipal panel, like the development review board. So they do have authority over that list of things specifically for those uses. Whereas with D, D is saying to the town, you do not have a role here or you have a very limited role because these listed uses are protected from your oversight to a large extent. So for the things in A, those people would need to make an application to the town addressing those things listed on page two lines 10 through 12 and to 13. So that process usually involves them applying to the municipality. Usually they will work with the zoning administrator to determine if the application is complete. The administrator will then pass it on to the board or the panel, whichever structure they have. The panel has to schedule a warn a hearing and schedule a hearing on it within one hundred and twenty days. The Development Review Panel would then take up the permit and they can hold a public hearing on it, which includes notice provisions, and people come and have the permit presented to the panel. The panel reviews what the bylaws say in regards to these aspects. The panel will take evidence from other people who have relevant information, and then they will deliberate. Once they have deliberated, they need to issue a decision in writing on it within twenty days, but that process can also stretch out over multiple meeting cycles with the appropriate municipal panel. So that's quite a bit more procedure for those types of uses. One of the concerns I had is that this list in 40 four-13A is pretty narrow compared to the other authority towns generally have under zoning. That's quite a bit more broad. But the list of things that you that are included in this draft, at least. Aren't necessarily contemplated under that existing list of criteria. There's some other things that currently the town does not have oversight. So it does seem like you're creating a pretty, specific individual type of review process for the municipality to go through with, growing food and farming. So I do just want to make sure that it's clear exactly what the municipality can do under what you're proposing, because it is not like what they were doing before for farming, but it's also not really like what they're already doing for other things under 4413.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And to give some context to the committee about why it's written in that way, the testimony and advocates about this issue have asserted that they want, in some ways, more protections to say that, okay, you're going in A, but still a municipality cannot regulate, didn't apply to noise, smell, lighting, hours of operation. And then other advocates are considering things like, Okay, well, you're in A, but we really want to limit it to these things. And so the bill in its current form is, as Chair Durfee said, a draft. And it is meant to bring those ideas to the table and to balance those two things. But as Ellen pointed out, that is really unusual for this piece. And as we're saying that, we mentioned the ellipses. You'll see in G and H and I as well, there aren't these caveats. And so that doesn't mean they can't have caveats. But we get into J, it's a complete it's a different regulatory scheme that we're talking about that is unique to farming that meets agricultural practices and farm structures. And so it is a little bit of an uncomfortable fit here, but it is what

[Speaker 0]: we have.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'll just say that I don't think we're married to the place and statute where this sits at all. And so if it's an uncomfortable fit in the sense that it's in a place where it's clunky or might be confusing in any way to interpret, yeah, let's figure out a better way to do it. I also don't think that we want to create even in, and I'm gonna say tier one, whatever it turns out to be, whatever geographic areas where we understand that we're granting the municipality authority that it hasn't had before, that we don't need, I don't think, to go out of our way to make it harder for farmers to farm by asking them to have to apply for anything or go through any permitting process. If the town says you can't put your driveway here, can we do that in a way that doesn't require the farmer to do a permit? I don't know. I'm not sure because this is not our area of expertise. But we don't want to add an extra layer of complication here. I think we do acknowledge that ultimately we're going to have some areas, not sure which, but they're going to be, municipalities do have some control that they don't currently or didn't have before the Taft Street decision. Yeah. Representative Bos-

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. So if I'm understanding correctly what we said today, one of my colleagues mentioned about both about this current draft doesn't ensure that succession would be protected if I passed on my farm to my children. It also doesn't necessarily protect if my children, if I'm running a chicken farm and then my kids decide they want to grow flowers or whatever. So, it feels to me like maybe we should add language for that because I think our intention is we want to protect as much as we can. So, is it possible to name those two things specifically? Mean, it seems to me maybe like around nine or 10 or something, might make sense to fit

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: in Change of agriculture abuse.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Right. We don't want it. We want to protect even if they have a change of agriculture. If there's a farm in an existing-

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They go from dairy to chickens or-

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that's They, not. They can they can keep that that farming opportunity. In line nine, could we solve this issue by saying do not apply to land where farming took place prior to?

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: Partials. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: That would work. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. I think that might cover all of the different scenarios we were thinking about. Representative Burtt?

[Speaker 0]: Is there any way to ensure that there's kind of two ways to go about it. The municipality can be on the I think it was alluded to, but I mean, this valley could use this as an opportunity to be restrictive in its relation to farming, or it could use it as an opportunity to promote agriculture. So is there a way to have language in there that the intention is that the municipality do all it can to work with farms to promote agriculture versus restrict it?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Is that advice?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You want to take a stab at that question?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. I would need to think about that. I think one of the things I had also flagged that I didn't necessarily mention is that some, 4413 A does have some ambiguity in it, has been interpreted differently by towns and specifically with how they go about regulating locations. And so the way currently, not talking about farming, but about existing things under the statute, some towns have interpreted that that means that they only need to provide one location in their zoning where these uses are permissible. And so some towns have done that where they have been very limited and restrictive based on the statute. So there is language in this statute that does allow towns to be less restrictive if they want to be. That authority does already exist. If you, again, want to be more specific for farming, you may want to consider just crafting a specific statute as opposed to trying to further narrow it here for one of the subdivisions.

[Speaker 0]: It does say further in this learnings we have here about the, you know, the municipality has thought it's mainly regulated and it's a problem only to the extent that regulations do not have the effect of interfering with the intended functional use. So that to me is similar language to, you know, to what I'm suggesting, but obviously different where we say, with intent of promoting higher filter versus over restricting?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think you could It consider

[Speaker 0]: would be in a different So

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this line is a One of those caveats was added specifically for emergency shelters, that a municipality restricting their hours of operation would constitute interfering with their intended functional use. And so in that instance, it was very specific because that was the legislature had an intention of how do we protect shelters. So I think you could, you already have been fairly specific, but I guess I would need to think a little bit more about it. But did you have?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't have anything to add.

[Speaker 0]: We could put it up

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: in legislative intent, at the beginning of the bill. Could we have a statement that doesn't undermine everything else we're trying to do?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I guess one of the questions is, do you want the municipality to have authority to fully deny a permit?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No, I think that the idea is that we're Yeah, I mean, we like the concept of you can put restrictions on it, but you can't functionally prevent it from the method.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so currently this 4four 13 does allow the town to deny permit application. They do have to spell out, though, how they have not interfered with the functional use.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: That's like an accessory on farm business, right? Has that you can't ban it, but there are restrictions. Right?

[Speaker 0]: Restricted.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. So if we were to have a new section of statute then as as an as a solution to couple of these problems, would that be forty four thirteen e, or would it be a whole new number? Maybe that doesn't matter.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would take I would probably give it its own number. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But do you feel like you have enough information from us at this point to go back and do that? Or are there still too many unanswered questions about our intent? I'm not sure

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: we got through all of the bill either.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So one thing. I struggle with Representative Burtt's question about intent to promote, right? Because I think by its nature, a bylaw is going to restrict. And I might be wrong about that. But I would imagine, at least in practice, a property owner is going to chafe at any bylaw that says you can only use your property in this way in this circumstance, even if those circumstances are quite broad. And so I struggle with that not because it's impossible, but because it feels like those are too often conflicting ideas. And then so I think Ellen's suggestion of a new statute that has some different parameters than what we've been working with might be the better way to get around that. We would just have to kick that around and need some time to do that.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, because there are some other ways that towns go about permitting development. I mean, the not going through a conditional use review, when towns have permitted uses which don't have to go through the full panel review, they can go just to the zoning administrator, which is a significantly quicker review process than going before the whole panel and having to have public hearings. So that is an option to have it be a more streamlined permitting process. But I do think you also could consider building in a requirement that they can't deny but are allowed to attach conditions to fit within their bylaws. Is

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: some of this complicating because we moved it up to a if we just put it back in d for the for one part or the other? The two parts being farming and growing food.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think a level of complexity has been introduced by moving the farm structures up to A. And that's why I kind of, as I'm drafting this and then confirm with Ellen earlier this morning, kind of feel like it's picking up some sand. And maybe there's some things that we're not quite seeing. And that's why I'm wondering, Ellen, with her expertise, to help give us a more full picture of what it means to put this up here. I can move to D, So that might be a good transition to the rest of the bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Let's let's I I know we're we've been sitting still for a while. So I wanna just sure. So that everyone knows that we're not gonna sit here forever, and we've got our next witness already, I think, trained us on a different topic. Why don't we let Bradley show us the rest of the bill, and then we can sort of have a conversation about what might happen next.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this is section B that we're more familiar with. So farming that meets the wraps and is required to comply with the wraps. Our bylaw cannot regulate that activity except as set forth in subsection A of this section. Construction of farm structures as authorized under the wraps except as set forth under subsection A of this section. And then we have silvicultural practices and forestry operations as we ordinarily do. I mentioned before I moved the definitions up because that's where they're first used. Forestry operations was the only definition that it didn't move up. So, I just kind of piggybacked it off of the list here. And then we have a study. And so the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Market shall convene a stakeholder group to study and report on how to address municipal regulation of agriculture to better support farmers and their role in the agriculture economy. This group shall examine current and prospective municipal regulations of agriculture to identify how the regulations are currently working and whether there are shortcomings or challenges. The group shall also address how municipal regulations have affected or could affect existing farms, statewide and regional food security, farm succession, and the establishment of new farming operations, including whether municipal regulations have significantly restricted or functionally prohibited or could significantly restrict or functionally prohibit farming. The group shall examine whether municipalities should be prohibited or restricted from regulating the raising, feeding or managing of livestock, including providing model ordinance that would permit the necessary functions in raising, feeding or managing livestock. And that report is due to the relevant committees on December 15. And then this bill shall take effect on passage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So allegedly, all the parties involved in this larger discussion support the idea of the study group. In addition to solving the problem, just we can't at the moment. And this would set up that study feed and ask it to report back to us. So that's there as a placeholder. Whether we actually end up needing that, I think, is to be determined. So I'll just say one thing here, and then maybe we should take a quick break. Although, John, can get your question in too. I to have us think about all of the sort of exceptions that we've built in here with grandfathering, a limit, a list of what towns actually could regulate. Think about that when we're thinking about 1A1B and whether there's enough protection to consider 1B. So it's something just to think about. And then, John, what was your thought? I just

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: had a thought about the succession language in that you might know when you have a farm succession in current use that's agricultural. What's need to apply for a new I know in farming, but I don't know what happens in agriculture. But I was thinking we all support unanimously working lands in here. And it seems like current use is pretty seamless. If there's a

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, you've to change names on it. You've to re file.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yes. But it's not if they don't say, Oh, you can't do that. You can't go from a dairy to a Christmas tree farm. So if we could say use that, some of that

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: language, maybe it would Oh, That's what you're saying. You gotta go from a dairy to Christmas tree. Right. Like I said, yeah.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: You don't have to go through a huge process.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If I may, the distinction would be there's a grandfathering provision here. And so that's what we're talking about with change in use. So with current use, you could just reapply because that program is still applicable. But there's certain rights and protections that people under this bill would get if they are farming or have farm structures that are built on or before 07/01/2026 that are no longer available after that date. And then so if the change in use happens after that date, it's not a matter of just applying again. I think there would need to be language saying that, specific language saying that a succession and interest refers back to when the farming first took place or something more artful than that. So I just want to make sure that that's clear on that distinction.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: And I would like it if there was a way to put in, if this is a working lands and going forward, it's still working lands, then it doesn't have to go through this permitting process or restricted permitting process, the DRB.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: In other words, farming is farming. Doesn't matter if it's goats, chickens, cows, carrots. Right. Exactly. Or who is farming it. Exactly. Or who is farming it. If Michelle wants to go down and come up Durfee and grow mushrooms.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: There you go.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: John. I've

[Speaker 0]: been sitting in this question for a while. Going back on the bottom of page two, the sentence about cultivation of land for growing plants for food. Would this language allow any regulation of that at all? Like, municipalities say, yeah, you can grow food, but not in the front yard, or it can't be visible from the street? Would they be able to do that with this language? So they could impose significant restrictions with the language as written.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is correct. So long as it doesn't have the effect of interfering with the intended functional.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And they can compose those restrictions today?

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Under Tapestry, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Isn't

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: that of back to

[Speaker 0]: the thing where if you wanna have a garden, the only sun is in your front yard. Well, Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: no, but I think this is So this isn't necessarily I'm thinking this isn't farming. So this is a tapestry. This is Exactly. Yeah. This is I have Yeah.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You know, you're right. Right. I just spoke. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Today, there's nothing in the law that prevents a town from saying you can't have a garden, period.

[Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is correct. That is correct. So the law today says that towns say that it could be possible that town could completely prohibit a backyard garden.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. So this is moving against that, whether it's moving far enough or not, just

[Dr. James (Jim) Boyd, Director, UVM Parkinson’s Center]: So I'm a putting out that it

[Speaker 0]: could impose restrictions that would be very problematic to a lot of people.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. We should stop. We need to stand up at the very least for five minutes. Bradley, while we're standing up, I'll just consult with you. Sounds good. Sounds good. And Ellen. Yeah. We'll take a break.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sorry. I'm worried about how much I should So

[Speaker 0]: Okay. This is the turn your mic off. This is being livestreamed.