Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Thanks for that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I see we're good.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Bradley Sheldon, office of legislative council. I'm walking through draft 1.3 of an amendment to house bill seven fifty eight. And the one change to findings was and finding number three, it's actually 20 out of 29 carcasses tested instead of 21 out of 29 carcasses tested for finding of of exposure to rodenticides. So this bill previously prohibited the use of any rodenticides. And so this definition section, there's actually two places in title six that deals with our rodenticides. So we're in this chapter here, and we have some definitions of second generation anticoagulant rodenticide, which is already in the statute. First generation non anticoagulant rodenticide, Those are added. And that has been the version of the bill that we've had so far. We've also added a definition of distribute. There's been some concern that distributes that Internet sales would not be prohibited under these bills. It's our opinion that Internet sales are prohibited, and it might be an enforcement issue. But we just to add for the sake of clarity, we add a definition saying that distribute means to offer for sale, sell exchange, barter through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, the telephone, the Internet, or any electronic means, just to remove any ambiguity. It is likely an enforcement issue. If individuals are purchasing these rodenticides on the Internet and having them delivered. But that would be a violation. Because what we're doing is in this section here, unless the sale use or sale of rodenticides is otherwise prohibited, the secretary shall register as a restricted use pesticide any first generation anticoagulant rodenticide, which we're adding, second generation is already there, and then non anticoagulant rodenticide we're adding in. This was also in the previous version of the bill, but this is the crux of this bill. Because this bill stops short of banning rodenticides, and it makes everything restricted use. So you have to be certified in order to use it. And you're only able to purchase it at a certified seller. And they as we heard in testimony, the certified sellers have specific ways and and means that they have to actually be able to advertise and show those things. And so then the control of pesticides jumps a couple of chapters. So now we're in section eleven oh one. And we're on page five of this bill. We're defining significant public health risks, environmentally sensitive areas, and second generation, first generation and non anticoagulant rodenticides. In this piece Because in this chapter, rodenticides are this chapter talks about prohibiting the uses of rodenticides. So this bill does prohibit the use of rodenticides in any environmentally sensitive area, within 500 feet of any environmentally sensitive area unless there exists valid environmental emergency, agricultural emergency, or significant public health risk, or a determination by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that use of a rodenticide is required to control or eradicate an invasive rodent population to protect threatened or endangered species or threatened or endangered species habitat. There also has to be a finding that the pesticide would be effective in addressing an environmental emergency, agricultural emergency, a significant public health risk. Again, as a reminder, we're just talking within 500 feet of an environmentally sensitive area. No other less harmful pesticide or management practices would be effective in addressing the emergency. Any significant adverse effects to non target wildlife are mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. So that is the only ban, would be in within 500 feet of an environmentally sensitive area. So that is a change from the the previous version of this bill. And and then we go into rule making. And so this has changed a little bit from the previous version of the bill. But basically, the secretary of agriculture, food and markets shall ensure that any use of any rodenticide shall not result in significant adverse effects to non target wildlife or environmentally sensitive areas. These rules shall include limits on application of any rodenticide in proximity to waters of the state. These rules shall also plan for the agency of agriculture to provide educational materials to certified pest control applicators regarding rodenticide alternatives and practices for minimizing use of rodenticides. And as I use in this subsection, significant adverse effect means direct or indirect activity that negatively affects the health and viability of wildlife population or the damages of threatened wildlife habitat. As part of the rulemaking process, this bill would require stakeholder input, social convene a stakeholder group to include at least one representative from Fish and Wildlife, one wildlife advocate, a veterinarian, a pediatrician, and one representative from the pesticide industry to provide the secretary input on the rule. The secretary shall identify the required practices for use of any rodenticide and shall adopt by rule that any person that is authorized to use any rodenticide comply with these required practices, and then the secretary shall adopt rules on appropriate 01/01/2027. And this act shall take effect on 07/01/2026. And before I forget to mention But this deadline for adopting the rules might be a little tight given the effective date. So you might want to make the rule making a different effective date as a suggestion now that we're just looking at this. But that's the bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Brian?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Do we define rodenticides anywhere? My concern is just that what happens with, say, this infertility technology that's coming or, say, a next generation rodenticide. Will those get caught up in these?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So these rodenticides are specifically defined in the statute and they are on the screen here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If somebody were to develop a third generation or something that's not an anticoagulant that isn't listed here, then that would be not covered. Correct.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Representative Lipsky. Thank you. On this stakeholder group, before that, John, we did we did a very thirty minute worthy presentation on me as recommend. But on the stakeholder group, because we've still not heard from the Vermont Department of Health, why wouldn't it be cheating to have someone from the Department of Health on a stakeholder group that gets?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, checked with Patricia again yesterday, and they had indeed said they were interested in testifying. But I yes. Let's add them in. There's so much terminology about public health here

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yep. That I think it's a problem. Representative Nelson.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Also, someone on there from the Vermont Department of Agriculture. Someone from pesticide division should be on that stakeholder group. We can spell that out. Yep. So the plant industry I I think we just say AF. It's gonna be fabulous. It's gonna be yep. Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: First of why would we have to do that since they're the one doing the rule making? They can put on whoever they they want. But in terms of the stakeholder, one thing I think is really valuable is it says at least, so they can bring in whatever stakeholders they think would make sense in their rulemaking process. So you're

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: looking at page seven here, stakeholder input. Right. On Yeah. Line seven. A shall convene a stakeholder group to include at least

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: so they can include others as they seem appropriate to help them with the rule making process.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. And if the secretary here is the secretary of agriculture? Yes. Okay. So by default, they're represented.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then, mean, potentially, unless they don't want themselves represented for whatever reason.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: They can't exclude themselves. Well, that's that's being a stakeholder,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: but they can't exclude themselves from the process.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. No. That that is correct. I'm being a little facetious in that in that. But they would be running the rulemaking. You know, it is a policy choice to specify whether a representative from the agency should be on the stakeholder group or not. That that is the policy choice. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: let's just go back to what the difference between this version, this draft is in front of us, and the bill is introduced. And if there may have been I'm not sure that we've seen anything in committee that was a different version. Think we saw it's introduced, and then we're looking at this. So just to highlight again what's different here, you mentioned something in the findings, that's fine. But then the original bill is introduced, essentially banned the use of all, right? And this bill bans them in some cases. Yeah,

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and I can explain. So the original bill did two things. One, it made any use of rodenticide restricted use. And this bill does that same thing. And the original bill also banned the use of rodenticides unless there was an emergency, an environmental, agriculture, or public health emergency. And so you could apply for a permit to use a rodenticide in that instance. And if you were granted a permit to use a rodenticide, it had to be used as restricted use. And so this bill essentially keeps that piece where it makes everything restricted use that is kept here, And but only limits the band to using a rodenticide in environmentally sensitive within 500 feet of an environmentally sensitive area unless and then there's some exceptions there. So, the band is much more narrow

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: than it was in previous version. Questions

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: about the impact of this. There's still eight pages of legalese there, so I wanna be sure that we're clear on what we're talking about before we Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm not worried about the legalese. I'm worried about the impact and the impact agriculture, and and not every firm has a licensed member of the farm that can use it. As it is now, just so everyone's clear, because this this is a licensed EPA registered product, I'm pretty sure, has an EPA number.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. They they all do.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So I can't Michelle can't call me up and say, Richard, I have a problem with rodents at my house, and I can't stand the thought of putting out bait myself, but would you come down and put out rodenticides for me? I can't do that. I even on my and Jed can't do it for you. Nobody you can't legally do it.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But I can hire somebody. Right?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You could hire somebody. Yeah. That's licensed commercially. Yeah. But, you know, John can't go down to your house and book date out

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

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Today, because that's how it is.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: How many farmers would be stuck without a licensed applicator if they had an infestation or something like

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: that?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Most farmers are

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: certified applicators.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: They're not, they're not.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No. They they don't they're not licensed. And I don't know if you have had or had a rat run up your hand when you're grabbing a tire to go throw on the bump. I had. I'm not afraid of them, but not warm and fuzzy with them. And farms and I believe in California, farms are excluded from their their ban using rodenticides. I believe farms can still agriculture can still use rodenticides. As far as the food hubs, I'm I'm not concerned about it as much because they use licensed applicators.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Commercial. Commercial. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And, you know, and then, you know, and I'm as a homeowner, I have had a rodent infestation that cost my insurance company a lot of money and that's a thousand dollars for your deductible to rewire my wife's car, and there have been other people that have had that as well. And so I've worked a lot harder on our exclude food exclusion. All bird seed is in metal tubs sealed, and use snap traps, and I do have bait out. Nothing's hit the bait. So I just precaution. My bait's on the inside with the garage not on the outside. Appreciate and if I'm taking too much time, I'll stop. We do this in discussion. Maybe we yeah. We've done more. We will

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and we'll move right to discussion with Brad and Steve. But thank you. Other questions for Bradley about this? Just interpreting what does the language mean. I think it sounds like general idea. Alright. Then why don't we good. Why don't we we've got a couple extra minutes. Let's pull up what you've drafted for July. Now this is the Paraquat bill, and this was a short form bill. We did look at a draft a few weeks ago that was basically the senate's version of this bill with a couple of modifications. The Senate has a long form bill that was introduced there. I haven't looked at this. I gave Bradley some input based on the conversations that he had in committee earlier in the week, and some other things that had come up over the course of the discussions that we've had. So this is for discussion purposes. Have we've got Bradley for twenty minutes, he can walk through what's here, and then we can continue the conversation after he has to go downstairs.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is draft 2.1, and I didn't change the date here, but it was submit that to us yesterday. I'm at the hospital seven thirty nine, the Paraquat bill. And I have in the findings, have Kills highlighted because that was a topic of discussion, in the committee before. And and I think I I don't have instruction on what language to use there. So I just wanted to flag that, so your conversation later. And but the findings have not changed otherwise. So we're scrolling all the way down to section two. So this is a ban of paraquat. And we added some additional reporting information and also put an exception to the ban. And so, the definitions of paraproc haven't changed. No person shall use, sell, or apply paraprocities except when authorized by secretary of agriculture under subsection c. And subsection c is when where where the change has come in. So secretary may issue a written permit for the sale, use, or application of paraquat upon fruit producing trees only on or before, and then the committee can choose a date of when they want to stop the secretary from issuing permits. So, essentially, this would phase in a ban of paraquat, but allow it to be used on fruit producing trees up until a certain date. The secretary shall ensure that any authorized certified applicator of Paraquat has received all training required by the EPA and the agency of agriculture food and markets not more than one year prior to receiving a permit for the authorized use. And then this adds some reporting requirements. The secretary shall report annually on all data reporting any use of paraquat in the state. Report shall include the amount of paraquat use and location where it was used. The secretary shall submit the report to the agriculture committees. I I believe the secretary only currently reports on commercial use of paraquat, and I think and I believe the committee wanted to capture any use of paraquat, and so that's what its reporting requirement would do. And then it adds, a study. So the agriculture innovation board shall study and report on recommendations for alternatives to the use of paraquat for farmers. The report shall include pesticide alternatives to Paraquat recommendations for practices that reduce the use and exposure to Paraquat and methods and standards for transitioning farmers to practices that reduce Paraquat usage. The report shall also include recommendations for alternative pesticides to paraquat and alternative farming practices to reduce the usage of paraquat in the event paraquat becomes unavailable due to regulatory or commercial action prior to date. And so this would be the same date as the ban above. But the idea would be to ask the Agriculture Innovation Board to prepare farmers for para crop just to become unavailable more quickly than the ban in the statute might come into effect, or the ban for fruit trees would come into effect. The ban for everyone else would be effective upon the effective date in this bill. But for fruit trees, farmers will be able to use it if they get a permit from the agency of agriculture. Now before January 2027, the agriculture innovation board shall submit a report to the agriculture committees. And the effective date is the standard effective date, and that can change.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, good. That's That's the end the bill. Okay, great. Representative O'Brien. Bradley, so

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: is it just the user that has to get the permit from the secretary? So it would still potentially be for sale and that seller just has to wait until somebody comes in with a permit?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not sure

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: if they needed a permit too,

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: when it says Yeah, anyone who is selling, using, or applying the Peripot would need a permit. All those. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What page is that currently?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is page four. So for any of these purposes, you would need a permit. The prohibition is on the sale, use, or application of Paraquat unless authorized. And so this bill would ban the sale of Paraquat in the state unless you get permission, and and it would be for those purposes only.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And this so it says there on line 13, the secretary may issue a permit. So I'm just flagging it. It says may rather than shall. So that's something we might want to have a conversation about. Yeah. Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Check into that kills because I'm not sure paraquat. It doesn't get into the root system. And I think they call it chemical moan, I think. And I I if I mean, is it it prudent for you to reach out to to director over there?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm sure we can do that.

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

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Because I because I don't I agree. I don't think it kills.

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

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I feel like that's the wrong word, but I'm not I'm not 100% confident.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Then we have nothing in here strictly banning its use as a desiccant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So is that implied? Yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's implied. Okay. So it's banned, which would mean for anything Other than

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: we're making the orchard exception. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We're making the orchard and viticulture exception. Alright? If that if that's implied because I'm

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's great.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And then down here, we we say you have to get the training not more than one year prior to receiving a permit. I think director going out all those yesterday that you have to renew that permit every three years. Is that our intention to be stricter? You know, to take you have to take a a course, online course. Right. That's submitted. That's being done by Syngenta and your as a common knowledge well, uncommon knowledge. We believe that's the only people that are offering that course, and we don't know if they're gonna offer that course after December because they're pulling their license in the country.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What line are you on? What page

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That is on page four, line 17. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So is this a one time permit?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No. It's something you you do have to renew it. You have to renew it to use paraquat. But I think I think we heard yesterday it was every three years. So so is the language that we've got here envisioning something beyond what we currently require?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that's based off the instructions I received. But that is correct. Yesterday, the agency of agriculture said that paraquat training is once every three years. And so this would be more restrictive, but that policy choice.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And is this the way that this is drafted? Would somebody who is receiving the authorization need to get a permit annually?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They would, need to get a permit. No. That is correct. It doesn't, specify the length of the permit. So it could be, we can add a section that says that a permit is good for six months or one year once you receive

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it. Well, yeah. That so that's a policy choice. I I was just looking for a clarification, and I see that there's two different things in the Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm thinking of the certification the training that's every three years, not the permit. Yeah. I I can go along with it. You have to renew your permit every year. So to use it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How often do you need a permit is one question. And then I think your question originally was if the training's only available now or The certification. Now, if the certification is every three years, are we we want to change that? Is it possible to change that? So that's a separate, maybe a

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: separate question. And one other thing to just point out that the only controlling factors for the secretary to determine whether or not to issue a permit is whether you're going to use it upon a fruit producing tree. And so, there's no other kind of findings they have to make, anything of sort. So, that would be the only restriction that the secretary would use to determine issuing a permit. And that and that that's a policy choice. I just want to flag that there aren't those other criteria that you might see floating around in the other, pesticide bills.

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

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: With requiring to get a special permit, that will give them a lot tighter control on who, what, where. And that's what would the that's our intent.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Ruth, I think Michelle Yeah,

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: two things.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Richard mentioned about viticulture, and I think in what I see is only fruit producing trees. So if it is our intention to include the winemakers in the exception, then we might want to add that language because I think those are the two that we heard about that were significant. Then the other thing I was just going to say was in terms of the the mystery date that is highlighted in yellow, it might make sense to make that three years because if the training is going away and people can get trained the next year, three years would would three years be a reasonable phase out anyway? And then they would have, their certification would run out when there's no more training anyway.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. So that's one possibility, certainly. Okay. I saw a couple of other candidates that represented Bartholomew. Was going say the same thing. Vine is not a tree. A vine is not a tree. And I don't remember whether we heard how, if any, how much pirouette is actually used in Vermont for that purpose. I think we saw that it's on the label or it's used somewhere, but we can maybe hear and we'll find out, John.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And along those same lines, where it says they should report, it's the amount used in location. Can we potentially add like, even though we know it's a pretty small subset of agriculture, can we know what it was used on, certain things like it was used on nursery trees or it was used on young grapes or whatever, because we're still unclear of this whole soybean thing. It's like, was it used? Was it not used as a recipe?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that that should be reasonable. So we can add that to the reporting.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The whole the whole part of the special permit is so that the agency knows who, what, why. Do we need to put blank?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: When it was applied?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So if you're gonna be getting a permit, if deputy director Hubert wants to send his team in to observe and make sure all rules are being followed. Like, under my license, because I'm a private applicator, not a commercial. You know, I have to record what I use, where, when, break my gates down. And they try to get an inspector out every year. And and I'll tell you that, Dan, dang, Jessica. I need to put a iPad, I iTag, Apple tag on her truck. So now I know when she's showing up, she scares the hell out of me. She shows up out of nowhere. And but anyway, you know, and they do that, so they make sure you're wearing your PPE and you're doing things correctly. Should we put a when? You know?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Give her a heads up on when you're doing it?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. You know, if you get a special permit for something, you know, a a range of times, like, I'm gonna be using it. You know, they get to have weather. They gather right weather. No wind. No rain. They gotta have the proper weather to use it, and that's all part of the label. But we should maybe wanna put a when, you know, in that date, you know. As part of the permit. What, where, when?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: A window. Why?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would it be, is the committee envisioning something like when someone receives a permit before they use it, they have to inform the agency or when they're applying for the permit, have to say when we're going to apply it?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, that might be hard because,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: yeah, they're asking for that permit and. So if we are interested or if we feel it's important to have that information, then not when they apply for the permit, but when they're actually planning to then. Is that Richard what you

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: would envision? So they have a heads up. Without being too restrictive on them, but they're gonna be watching, you know, they want to observe, they gotta know when.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If they want Yeah.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And how much of an advanced notice should an applicator or user give the agency before, like the day before, week before?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Again, it's all weather dependent.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Could there be reporting requirements that come with the permits? You get the permit, but you have certain follow-up questions. Yeah,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: perhaps that's the way to do it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So as a permit condition, you need to inform the agency. I I don't know what's reasonable this way the dependent, if you said twenty four hours in advance, is that overly Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We Yeah. Could query the agency to take

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that because

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: they do have a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: special Put something in there if you wanna just make a note, and then we can nail that down if we wanna, you know, add that Good thought. Representative Lipsky?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Just on that, when you invite, don't wanna call them spectator, but they're gonna be suspecting, you know, they also should arrive with respirator PPE. Yeah. And now, you know, it's just very serious for the applicator, very serious for anybody.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Close to that. And I don't think I've heard anybody suggesting, but if this is the thought, can say so, I don't think I've heard anybody suggesting that we're going to be requiring somebody from the agency to show up, but that they would, if they knew ahead of time, they might, and presumably they would want to be properly attired.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Before we continue, because I see it on my screen, it doesn't look like it's showing up there, but Representative Burtt has his hand raised.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, yes,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: thank you.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah. Can you hear me okay?

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I'm in a very loud sugar house right now. But, yeah, I just wanted to say that we're already required, I don't know, it's probably by rulemaking, I'm guessing, to record when, where, what was applied, what rate in in our records. So I don't know if it's necessary to stipulate that in this bill, because it's already required. Just wanted to point that out. And then I would probably check with the agency of ag or Steve Gwinnell about how long the permit might wanna be for if if it wants to align with the three year training, the three year permit that's allowed already with Paraquat by taking the necessary training. If we wanna just make the permit three years as to align with that, or if we wanna, you know, just stick with an annual permit. But I definitely in terms of the permit to me need to last at least through the growing season And when and where you apply, you can't really say ahead of time because it's all based on weather. So that's just wanted to mention those things. Thank you, Greg.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I'm sorry we didn't see your hand earlier. If you wanna just jump in again if you have other thoughts while we're screen sharing.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: it. Representative Bartholomew. Well, just in response to that, the users might be reporting their use where when but when we talked to the agency and specifically asked, they couldn't tell us anything more than what what was sold in the state. They couldn't even tell us if stuff was coming from out of state, and they certainly didn't know where when and where it was used.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The idea of the special permit.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Well, and that's also part of why you're saying here that they need to, report.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think if we're requiring the agency to report, then they'll have to turn around and get it, and we can let them figure how they were here.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I just wondered whether it's on the label or if it's agency, say, rules as far as application goes, but as the agricultural and environmental community learns more about, say, volatilization of paraquat, can they update the rules? So you couldn't spray, like at the horticultural farm, couldn't spray it within certain population, schools, or housing communities within a certain distance?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, so I don't know what we might say, somehow direct the agency to stay on top of evolving research and as necessary. I don't know if that's a thing that can be done. In

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: terms of updating their requirements for being certified? That the It change. I mean, are already under law required to do that. And so if the EPA changed, if the EPA all of a sudden issued a ban on the use of paraquad, the agency would be responsible for implementing that. And so if there is something missing specifically that the committee wants, like in reporting or wants to have happen, you can certainly spell that out in statute here. I do need to go. Okay. So I'm going to sign off.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And just this is my stock question to lunch counselors who are leaving. What's the rest of your week look like?

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have some time this afternoon, and I think tomorrow I currently don't have there's only a handful of appointments on my calendar tomorrow. I I can't recall when, but Okay. Good. Some flexibility tomorrow.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Or so tomorrow.

[Bradley Sheldon (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Thank you very much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, and good luck downstairs. Thank you. Just so as I said, we can continue this discussion on this draft. Happy to hear any other thoughts that people might have. We've got the rest of the day and tomorrow to come to any decisions. Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Well, I I chairman, I really appreciate the public dialogue and the input. And I appreciated Greg being in. Fairly comfortable with sit, and we only have thirty some hours left before we could take some action or something. I I get a sense of certain consensus.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. We should be talking hours, not days at this point.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. That's what I'm No.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's great. Okay, thank you for that. I

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: also feel pretty comfortable with this. I think the one uncertainty that's left is what's the date that's showing up in the phase out exemption that we're providing for the farmers, because that is not clear yet.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, yeah. So other thoughts on that or on anything?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: My thought is do we need a date? Is it if if we restrict its use to special really, I mean, really, permit, special permit to use it. And with one made the major, you know, Sagenta is one

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: of the big the big three.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And that them pulling their license. I'd imagine it might be long before. I don't I don't see it. I just think it's gonna go the way of the big gun sheep farm in the state of Vermont. You know? I I just think it's gonna naturally happen, but There's 6,500.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: What's that? There's 6,500 lawsuits Yeah. Out there right now.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And and and those it it would so tender goes and these other companies are not gonna wanna deal with that. And I think it's just gonna phase itself out. But, again, I an awful a mouthful has been yanking pools out of Greg's or Bill Shore's toolbox until they find till they find a replacement.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: That's just where I Representative Bartholomew and then representative Burke. Just in response to that, I I hope that I can share your optimism that it's on its way out, but I'm I'm all for helping it on its way out as quickly as possible. And I would I would propose that we don't allow it for Houston, Vermont beyond three years, three more years. If there's a problem, if there are no alternatives and it's a huge problem, then the future legislature can figure out how to extend that. But let's just tell them, the writing's in the wall, don't plan on keeping using it in Vermont forever. That's where I am with this. Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thanks, chair. I just wanted to say that I would just be mindful that it takes a long time to realize what works and what doesn't without orchard. So if you change practices, you know, say that we started studying next year what what works better or an alternative to paraquat, it's gonna take like ten years to actually know whether or not it's a method that can work. You know, trunk cankers and different things like that, they don't show up that year necessarily. So when you when you switch up methods with orcharding, it it takes it literally takes ten years to see whether or not it's something sustainable. So I think if we're gonna do a phase out, we really need to consider that. And it it's I think it's really important for sustainability of our orchards that that we give a give a good buffer there. I I would I would recommend something around ten years myself. It might be worth asking Terry Bradshaw what he thinks. Thanks.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other questions or comments, Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: On that same thought about new science coming, about its dangers, not just to the applicator, but to surrounding communities. I don't really trust the EPA to be at the forefront of safety on that. So if there's anything we can do, would be that a link might be the agency and its permitting. They would have to, maybe, if we knew where it was going to be used, you would say, Okay, yeah, you're not going get a permit on the Hort farm even if you wanted to use it because you're too close to the population. I don't know if we can put something in there about that for the agency to keep up to date on all this new data coming out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So would that be in the section on the permit? So we would direct the agency to consider, this goes back to your earlier kind

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Because of involving when we first took up this and started learning about it, it was really just like you don't want to drink from a bottle of it. But now we're hearing that it does spread and it's so toxic that if it gets in your any of your mucous membranes, it can have Yeah, how many studies showed that, though? Well, those mega studies they were doing seem pretty definitive that they were now tying Parkinson's to all these sort of hot spots for caribels. Representative Lipsky?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I don't know if this affects our timeline, but I think our committee members all received a memo on apple crops alternatives. I think there are 10. I can't pronounce them all. Michigan State University provided that that's just for apples but there's also for Christmas tree and the culture. There are alternatives that have been undergoing testing, so, and I don't believe that's gonna stop. I don't know how that affects the termination date. There are at least 10 that are scientifically currently being used as alternatives and are under tested by, you know, legitimate major state universities and maybe many others.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Like, we've all gotten that. Thank you, Gregory Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You know, Greg saying ten years, Ruth Hardy and I'm saying five, three. And and and, you know, and and and and it's true to your point, we can always go back and and revisit it, future legislations legislators could. Could we compromise somewhere in there and maybe go five years with a with a report back from the agency of agriculture about the viability or the importance of of this herbicide to to the orchard industry? So we've got the agency doing a what do we have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: them doing here? Alternatives. They're doing a study, right? It's the Ag Innovation Board, which would report to the agency, report to us on alternatives. And we Yeah, I mean, I think regardless of the timing, we could ask them to also include how many of our orchard, what percentage of our orchard crop is actually using this particular herbicide. I'm not sure that we got that information, and that feels like that would be part of the wider discussion. Yeah, I think that even three years might seem like if you're trying to have an impact a long time from now, we have done, as Representative Nelson knows acutely, in the case of Neonix, we had, in that case, a five year implementation date. That was based on what another state was doing. So it wasn't arbitrary. It was tied to what New York State had already passed in their legislation. So here, I don't think that anybody else has done something that we can point to and say, we'll match them. Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And I appreciate what Greg said about the ten years, but I also think if paraquat is pulled by the people who make it in two years, the orchard industry is going to have to improvise and come up with new ways to solve their whole problem, whether it's other herbicides. Mean, it could just be thrown at them that, no, you can't use this anymore. You've got to figure out something else. They're pretty adaptable, I think.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And none of us have a crystal ball, but it does feel like if that were to happen, we wouldn't want people to suddenly have no alternative. So having some urgency here, I think, might be helpful too in directing the agency to, we really want you to look at this, not just add it to your list of reports that you have to submit to us in every January. Thoughts?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: What's next?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What's next? Well, I think we should take a short break. And then when we come back, we've got I did say we would talk more about the other bill. We've got several bills that we've heard about today or yesterday that we have just might be helpful to have here where the committee is on them. Let's take a short break now. Let's take