Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: I get that you have two committees, so you're missing one of them.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I am absolutely, positively happy to be here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: We've already taken some testimony with three twenty three, and we did have a Leg Council walk through, so we but got an we also wanted to give you

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I'll just give you the 30,000 foot and give you some of our thoughts as far as when we go. So I won't get right straight into the bill as, you know, really hard unless you want me to. So No. I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: what anything you'd like to Okay. Yeah. And we yeah. We

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Well, I appreciate that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Expect you to dig too deep, but you're welcome to if you want.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: It shouldn't take me very long and I am thankful that you guys have gone through some of that. Yeah, tell me when you're ready.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah, I think we're all set.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Okay. Well, thank you for inviting me. Senator Russ Ingalls, chair of agriculture. I was asked to come and just do a high level walkthrough on S-three 23. I'm very honored to be here. I think it's the first time that I've ever testified in front of house agriculture. So it's always nice. So just going down through the first three sections are really our signature piece of legislation. I think you guys are we're gonna be looking at your bill pretty much too that covers the same thing, and that is that when the Supreme Court made the decision that farming should be regulated or could be regulated by municipalities, I put quite a bit of a juxt into really what people thought of, you know, how farming should be. We looked at the interpretation just to give you our thought process. We looked at the interpretation, not as a death knell to farming, but as the high court saying, Hey, listen, if you think that you have these protections that you're saying that you have, then maybe you ought to put them in language. And that's pretty much what we tried to do with respect to knowing that we now had partners, which was Josh Hanford's group. And so we've, you know, kind of went around with that. So really, we feel that we've brought back about 95% of what the farmers had before the Supreme Court decision. We also were very mindful of making sure that we weren't when we first got this language, it was very kind of critical of the Supreme Court. We didn't like that. We we thought that the supreme court got it right for the way that that it was, is that if you really think that you have those protections, then maybe that you you ought to say it. We also believe senator Caledonia, who is the the longest standing member on the group in senate agriculture, said, you know, he said, I really think that when it's all said and done by the time the senate and the house get done with this legislation, that's probably gonna be a landmark piece of legislation that people are gonna look back on for a lot of years saying, hey. You know, they finally put the language to what they thought that they had and that municipalities did not have the right to regulate farming through zoning. And that's really what we were trying to get to. We were trying to get to this language to what people thought that we had. So happy to answer any questions if you want me to go any deeper than that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Do you have any questions? Obviously, this is not an unfamiliar topic. Exactly right. So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: we're excited to see So

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the league seems to be good.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: With The league was, the league was very good with us, and then at the end of it, on kind of a surprise attack, they kind of come up and wanted an amendment, and it basically was gonna put it right back to the Supreme Court decision as well. And so we had a little discussion about that. The amendment was pulled from the floor and it didn't end up coming, then amendment wasn't put forward. We said, Hey, listen, we've spent a lot of time on this. This is our signature piece of legislation. And if you're gonna trust in committees to do their work, we shouldn't have these floor amendments at the last second of the last day that not only did we not even take testimony on, but we're seeing for the first time. And so they pulled the amendment. So, yeah, so we're, you know, I haven't looked at your signature legislation as well. Excited to look at it. And but from what it sounds like, they they they're kinda similar. So I'm I'm looking forward to seeing with what you guys have as well.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Right? We can go on, I guess. Okay. Another question? No.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I I just would comment that we spent a lot of time on this as the chair pointed out. And one thing that I we were concerned about is opening the wraps legislation.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I think you're going see a very small, right. We didn't really open the wraps. I think you're going to see it really is I'll kind of put it right back to where it was before. I think it was important to kind of say about where things needed to be, you know. We do have an issue that's going to come up in Orleans concerning a pig farm, And it is going to come up. And we are dealing with that in a lot of different ways. And we couldn't deal with it in this bill right here. But yeah, I we kind of sailed through all of the one through three section on our side without a lot of without a lot of objection. But, you know, you guys you guys are the other committee and we'll see with what you guys decided.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You know, we took a testimony from all parties involved such as you did. You can't make everybody happy. Sure. And that issue of New Orleans is a deal. And do you punish the other 6,192 farmers in the state

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: because of one or two. I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: think that's one of the reasons why we didn't address it here in this bill, but I would bet that by the time it's all said and done, by the time we all talk again, that there be some language put forth.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Representative Lipsky.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Senator, welcome. Thank you. Do you wanna share some of the complexities of that particular farm. I wish. So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Not the appropriate. It's probably not the appropriate time, but I'll tell you this. It's a problem, and they're protected in the way that we've done the language as far as in this bill. They have the land mass, have all that stuff, but they're probably protected stronger than, in my opinion, probably stronger than what they need to be. And, but again, you know, we have to be very, very careful as far as if we want to protect all farmers, we have to be very careful about how we do that. But again, I don't address it in this bill. And so it's I'm probably over my skis as far as talking about it right now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Guess we can move on to

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Section four is accessory on farm structure permit. Now we spent some time talking to ANR today. We are really trying to make sure that these farms can diversify as best they can. And that's what they're trying to do. And so we wanted to add a little section on this. We already had that. We already had, I'll just read you my cliff notes here. This section amends the sale threshold for exempting the Act two fifty permit requirement for the construction of improvements to an accessory on farm business to be eligible for an exemption. Currently, than 50% of the businesses annual sales must come from products produced on the farm. This section would add an additional pathway to exemption if not more than $250,000 of total sales adjusted for inflation, which was an important mark for us, came from products not produced on the farm. So we're trying to get these places, not only are the barns in themselves protected, but if they wanted to have it on farm store. But again, to stay within the ANR guidelines, you have to thread that needle. We worked with ANR and they seemed pretty comfortable with that. We will be at some point in time, we did have ANR in there today. We are very concerned as a committee, as far as even the smallest of the small pulling act two fifty into our on farm structures. This bill doesn't address it as far as that we wanted to go, but we thought it was a necessary need to get in there and let them sell products other than the products that they had, but restricted to $250,000 which we have adjusted for inflation.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And then, Nelson?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So if someone had a small structure that they use to store their hay equipment in in the wintertime, and perhaps put hay up in it later in the year. But in the summertime, wanted to use it to help offset their expenses and, like, have a band in there once in a while. Just once in a while.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. That is not that is not part of this bill. That is something like that we'd like to get to, but that is that is something that still still is going to be an act two fifty. I'm talking to ANR today. It's still gonna be an act two fifty requirement. But, yes, I know where you're going. You'll Purpose, if you would. Exactly.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It helps augment the profits of the farm in an inconspicuous way.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Yep. This is more about having sales on a farm and and be able to sell other products besides that as well as long as it doesn't go over $250,000. But they can sell their products and not go through Act two fifty permitting, as long as it's better than 50% of the products that they're selling in there that are produced from their farm. The $250,000 one is like, say, like you sell soap and you have a big business of soap and you want to be able to sell it through your farm at your farm. And 50% of that, of what the product that you're selling is soap and it's sold in that. But you also wanted to sell maple syrup that you don't produce on your farm, but you've got a neighbor that produces it. As long as you don't sell $250,000 of maple syrup there, this structure would still be exempt from Act two fifty. We're trying not to get it to where we get people that you're creating loopholes in there so that they can just go right in there and become the largest Vermont store. We're just really trying to let these farms diversify and not have to go through active 50 doing the same thing. But we don't want to put these people ahead of what other people are doing it in the right way if that's the store, the model that they're trying to do. So we've been, we're kind of threading that needle a little bit. Now we have had talks with ANR about maybe this year, and it might not be this year. We're actually talking about putting a stakeholders group together, which I referenced, you know, your committee as well, saying, hey, we do have we do have Representative Nelson, the example that you've said about having a barn dance or whatever. Do have farms that have come before us that would like to do stuff like that, but they have to go through an Act two fifty review. And we've asked ANR to put a study group together of people, stakeholder groups between this committee, your committee, our committee, and then stakeholders that we could invite in there and see that we couldn't come into some maybe another section, a section of some of the rules that they already have in place so that we could further this. But this one right here is pretty a point and straight to pretty straight to the point with that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just like pizza night at the farm or those sort of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: As long as they're producing 50% as long as 50% of that product is coming from the farm or that they're not selling more than $250,000 of product coming from outside the farm. So yes, it could representative. It could certainly do that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So ingredients, is how they do that?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Ingredients, yeah, ingredients, and they'd have to source and they'd have to show, or if they didn't want to do that, they just can't have more than $250,000 in sales of outside ingredients that would come in. We're trying not to compete with those other businesses that are wanting to do it in another way.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The senator used to have a pizza place, so

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: it might have struck

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: a nerve.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: It was damn good pizza.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yes, it was.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Good? Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Section five, just simply, I don't know if you guys saw this as well. The section would clarify that when a milk producer requests a hearing with the Secretary of Agriculture regarding a dispute with a purchaser, the purchaser's refusal to purchase the product does not become operative until a hearing decision is made. So if a milk company says they don't want to do business with you anymore and they're not going pick your milk up, they can't just decide to do that without first having a hearing through the agency of agriculture. And that buys them some time to figure out whether they still want to do business with them or not. This language obviously came from the agency, and we didn't muck with it very much at all. We just thought it was a fair thing, so we didn't take a ton of testimony on that.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: We just heard testimony.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay, good.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: So you're familiar with that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Steve Collier was this morning.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Oh yeah, good. Section six is the section would permit contracts in addition to grants to support farm to school programs. We're just trying to get more of our farmers products into schools and to be able to do contracts and stuff like that. That's what we're trying to do here. Not very complicated, but it seems to get complicated at some point in time. So that's really what we're trying to do. We're just trying to get local products more into our schools and doing it that way. Section seven, pest control compact repeal. The sector repeals interstate pest control compact is now defunct. Now this isn't the rodenticide bills that you are doing. This is just a compact that has been no longer enforced. And the agency said, Can you strike that from it? So it doesn't do anything other than just to strike out language. And again, we took testimony just enough to understand that it really was defunct and that we weren't doing anything other than just getting unnecessary language out of law. Sections eight is the section where we move the limits to the number of times individuals may retake the pesticide applicator and dealer license exam. This section also removes the fee for the government applicator exam. This again came from the agency, and it isn't anything to do with trying to get somebody to be able to be an applicator that isn't qualified to do it. It just, as you might be aware of, maybe you've taken some testimony on it, If you took the exam three times and failed, you would have to wait a whole year before you get there. Now, I was in that business for a long time. I had some very, very smart people that could tell you more about applying pesticides or fertilizers, but they just weren't very book smart, and they struggled really, really, really hard. So I recognize this, that people that really struggle to do that. So this basically says you can take it as many times as you'd like until, you know, whatever. I mean, they're not going let you pass it unless you exams right. And so this really just says that you can take it as many times as you want without a penalty. So that again, came from the agency, didn't take a whole bunch of testimony on that, but took enough testimony on to make sure that there weren't loopholes in there to make sure that we had unqualified people applying dangerous pesticides and fertilizers. And even if they're not dangerous, applying where they don't belong too close and not paying attention to buffer zones or what have you, or maybe making sure that they're applying the right pesticide on the right and with the right prop and all of that, being aware enough to make sure that you're not doing damage to our environment. So we took enough testimony on that, but that's where we're at with that. Numbers, sections nine through 14, very, very long section. And really, had a couple of good walkthroughs about this. Again, just making sure that we weren't just agreeing to something that we didn't agree with, but it really just, the seed law in the state of Vermont had not been gone through in a lot, a lot of years. And so this just upgraded what the seed laws were in the state. We paid special attention to make sure that there wasn't any language in there that was going to protect farmers moving forward with the treated seeds. None of that's in here. In fact, if anything, it pretty much says that you're not going to use treated seeds without filing all the laws. Again, an agency, a position on it, a lot of sections, but not a whole bunch of testimony on it, but we, the testimony that we took, we felt that nobody was trying to get through anything that they were just modernizing the the seed law as the way that they ought to be.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: But, yeah, we haven't had any testimony, I guess, other than ledge counsel. Yeah. So we're next week we'll have agency come back in. Absolutely, and I think that would

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: be a very wise thing. I think that on something like this that has that many sections on it, we did. Okay, well if all you're trying to do with modernizing the seed law, then why are there so many sections? And so we went down through and found out exactly where it was, but I would think you guys would do it as you would, but I would be very uncomfortable going through nine through 14 of sections and not understanding exactly what it's saying. We did that and we were very comfortable. The next sections fifteen and sixteen and seventeen and through 21. Was VITA came to us and said, Listen, we have a sister organization at one time. It served a very great purpose. At this point in time, it really is duplicative. We have two boards, we have everything. We're all doing it. We're all doing it through VIDA. That's what we're doing. And they're saying that we still want to do all the things that we want to do, but there's no need to have these many people involved for something that we're already doing. So they were basically paring down and modernizing the way that VITA went. I would recommend having them in. We had them in, we chatted with them for a long time to make sure that we totally understood what they were trying to do. We were very comfortable with them, and so we certainly had no problem. We could see and felt that everything that they was telling us was beyond above the board and we understood why they wanted to pare it down and not have two boards and two sets of meeting times and all of that stuff. So I would recommend having those folks in if you haven't already.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Okay, good. No, we haven't. We will.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Now this one, the next one, transition of hemp processing oversight. This came from the cannabis control board. Now I started all summer. Now you and I were, didn't we go together in one place?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: No, I didn't go, but I think that there was a group of legislators that might have

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I went on about five, actually, Nelson went with me on one of them, and I went to about five different farms with hemp and marijuana and stuff. So here's our committee's position on hemp and marijuana. We believe that hemp should be a non toxicant, and that marijuana is. We also believe that there's a cannabis control board for a reason, And that our interest is this. We want to help hemp farmers and marijuana farmers when that's growing in the field. And we want to get them to the point to where they can be treated as farmers, that they can deduct the interest, that they can apply for grants, and that they could do everything, that they, as farmers in Vermont, that they are gonna be treated like regular farmers. We don't care whether you're growing hemp or carrots or they're a farm organization. We want to protect all farmers when they have their hands in the soil. But where our position changes is when that crosses the road and becomes to whatever product that it gets to become, where the cannabis control board then would take jurisdiction. And we're very fine with that. The reason why this hemp was very important is because we had working hand in hand with the cannabis control board. I went to one event across the way, well, it was grocery association, and I had every half farmer over there come running up to me. We need to be regulated. We need to be regulated. What we're running into over and over and over again is that when we're trying to sell when we're trying to sign contracts for people outside the state who wanna do business with us, the first question they're asking us, are you regulated? Because these people do not want to have to do that regulation. They want to be able to buy the product and know darn well that it's a regulated product coming out of the state of Vermont. And so that's what we've tried to get to on this one right here, working hand in hand with the cannabis control board, which I would say that we're excellent, excellent partners with us. And at several different times, I felt that I had to remind them about, listen. No. This is where we want the jurisdiction. We wanna be in the field. Once it crosses over, you wanna guys are the regulatory authority for that. So and let me tell you how. Let me it wasn't contentious in that way. They came to me, they wanted to know about fees. Guys, I don't want to talk about fees, but here's what I'm gonna talk about fees. This is when I talk about fees. When my farmers come to me and they complain that that fee is too high and the cannabis control board is making it impossible to do business, then we're gonna have a discussion. And there and you will see when you bring these folks in that there is your and you're going to hear from people that even the fees that they have set now might be not with what these producers want. But here's what I kept felt felt comfortable with. And it came from the cannabis control board. Russ, by the time we get to that, you guys are already gonna be back in session, and you're gonna be able to have conversations about that. And if we get to it sooner, you guys are going to be back in session, and we can have conversations about that. So I was really just trying to get to the part to where to help the producers, other growers and all of that. So one of the ladies I talked to a drink and had hemp in it. And she said, Russ, I can't sell outside the state. We're not regulated. I have people waiting as soon as we are, I can sell. And I said to her, and I said, well, and we're very nervous about some of this hemp product coming in from outside the state that had too much THC in it. In a sense, they're violating the law by bringing that hemp product in. And so my goal is to get all this hemp grown in the state. So I said to her, I said, What would happen if we get this regulation the way that you want? Are you at this point in time, would you be interested in working with Vermont farmers and saying, like, growing 30 acres and making a deal with Vermont farmers to grow your 30 acres of hemp in state so you don't have to worry about bringing too much THC in the state? In a sense, Violet, she said, Yes, I want that. But let me tell you, it's not 30 acres, Russ. I would need 300 acres. So that's what I'm trying to get to. There are some farmers in this room that made a lot of money on hemp, but we wanna get hemp growing back in and we wanna build the markets within the state and we want that product grown in and we want the regulation so that these producers can sell outside of the state and and and do well. Here's another thing about the fees. There are companies that want to invade our market with hemp product. But if there's a fee, they're not coming. They won't come in and they won't pay a fee. So in a way, we protect our farmers by having a reasonable fee on it. And I will tell you, there is no question, there is room to look at these fees if that's where you guys want to go with it. I felt comfortable enough to know that we're gonna get another look at it. And my main focus was to allow these farmers who overwhelmingly begged us for regulation so that they could sign contracts before other people signed contracts with a lot of these producers. That's where they that's where we went with this bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: You heard that, Nelson? Yeah. So

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you got a product and it's in the distillation process Yep. Separating out the can cannon boonoids, and you're making your tincture or whatever for drink or for drops, and you come up with the byproduct which would make the best toothache medicine

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: in the world.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I understand that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: What becomes of that product? Does that come on strict control of the cannabis cannabis control board?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: The cannabis control board's gonna be very interested in that product. And here's the here's the good thing. This bill kind of protects those people, but that product, if it came from out of state and cross state lines, you're actually in violation of federal law. So the cannabis control board is still working on a lot of that solution, they actually absolutely positively know that distillate is hanging around. And they're not so much concerned about it as long as when that product, as long as when they use that, that it gets dumbed down to the regulations of what the, you know, where that hemp should be as far as in potency.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. You get the hemp down to a legit level, but you have a

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: pretty good I do believe that there's going to be hemp farmers that are gonna be able to sell above the potency levels. But at that point in time, they really are a THC producer and it's a whole different license with a whole bit of regulation. And that's why I've drawn the distinction of hemp is a non intoxicant and marijuana is an intoxicant. And that's kind of where we have drawn the line. And now we don't have marijuana in our committee. If everything stays the same, I do believe that there's two things that are going to happen next year. We will have forestry back in our committee, and I believe that we will have marijuana back in our committee. And so we are we are working towards that right now and trying to trying to develop good farmer policy and let the cannabis control board do on their policy. Several times I was asked by James Pepper, what do you think or what That's you, we're over here. I really want I really don't wanna cross that road. I really wanna just protect the farmers. I want those farmers to be able to grow. I want them to be able to treat be treated like farmers. You are the regulatory part of it, but you'll see us if our farmers start complaining.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Is it government operations? They?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: They have been some, but government operations does handle that. And the chair who is retiring, but she has said, please give it to Senate Agriculture. We too much. So, again, if we're all back in the same positions next year, we would be proud to have that in there. I just wanna get I wanna get you know, it doesn't matter to me. I'm not a marijuana guy. I'm not, but I don't care, I'm not fighting that battle no more. The law's passed, The law's passed. My goal as far as with chairing a center agriculture or if I was just a member of it is to do everything I can do for the Vermont farmer. That's what I'm trying to do with this hemp product. Why let another state make the money when we can do that? And why not pay attention to these growers and these manufacturers when they're begging you for legislation and and not feeling that they're getting it and they're missing out on on expanding their markets. So that's that's where we worked really hard on. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Questions?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No. He just you know, I get better samples in his room

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: next year. Natural resource conservation. This section would permit the natural resource conservation council to take out a mortgage to, to purchase property. Where this has come up, they came to us and they asked us for this. We're working on it. I don't know if we're gonna get across the finish line. I'm very disappointed that we're not. But, it really has gotten out of the hand of of our committee and probably gone into, senate institutions. But we have a conservation district in Orleans that has not a home. They're sharing they're out of the graciousness of pooling grain. They've given them office space in their in their Durfee facility. They have a chance to buy a property from the Orleans County Fair. That's a building that they don't use anymore or they don't need anymore or they don't need the whole building anymore and would like to partnership with the Conservation District who needs a home. And so they would like to buy this property. Again, don't know, Gus Seelig was involved with it and wants to be involved with it would be more than happy to be involved with it. And so we have the capital bill starting probably on Tuesday, and we're gonna put a push on there to have us move some money around that VCHB is getting, Vermont Conservation Housing Board is getting, because they'd like to help them. They'd like to get them. They say, We don't have a problem if you move some of our money around, but you guys need to make that decision. As you guys are probably very well aware of, the capital bill is monies that are determined. If you take $1 here, yeah, I got to move it over here, vice versa, but it needs to balance out at the end of the day. You don't create any more dollars unless you find it from either repossession from other funds that weren't used, but you can't change those dollars. But to get there, there was a rule that the Conservation District could not have a mortgage. And so that's simply all that we've done here so that if they did ever find any of them, found a property that they want, they would have the right to be able to go out and have a mortgage. So that's all that that does there.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Question, was

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: that a Vermont state rule or did that come down from

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: 1930s? Would say it probably come down from the 1930s when the funding was very vast and all of that. I'm guessing. If you found out different, I apologize, but I'm guessing that it came down from the 1930s. I just hung on there for a long time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: So Anybody opposed to changing this language?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Did you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: hear any objection?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: No. None whatsoever. None. No. None. We we we heard none for no nothing. Yep. But, honey,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: we may have chatted about that earlier today just briefly, and it Yeah. It it's gonna be a it'll be great for our district who does a lot. They do a lot for

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I I I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And it'll be great for our fair association. Yeah. Because all our fair association suffer.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I think this, these conservation districts have been around for a long time, and I've told them. You guys don't need to do better better on some things, but you need to do better about bragging about yourselves and how much you do. You've been around since 1930, and you guys don't and and and you do a lot, but really nobody really knows what you do. And so you need to do a better job of promoting yourselves and doing that. So, yeah, we're very thankful for what they do. It's just amazing amount. Every year when I see them, when they come before the committee, it's like, saw my gun, they do a lot of stuff, but nobody knows about

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: it. Shoestring. Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. On a shoestring, you're right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: So, well, good.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: So that's pretty much the bill.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They they just to let you know, you know, we've hired them. We we write them a check to help us mitigate out of situation we're in. Oh. And they're bringing great expertise that makes all parties happy and and great to work with and and understand us and understand Doctor. Straits and also understand the actions that we need to take. And they bring in different people and it's really, really worked well for us.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I want to add to that just a little bit. We took some testimony again from ANR today and we did talk about their bedside manner. I didn't really want to get aggressive as what it did, but a couple of my senators got kind of aggressive about it. I was about ready to step in and about them showing up. And some of these farmers, they get hives when those people show up to do inspections and it can be a little tough or some of these decisions that are made and you shall do this and you have so many days to do that and then try to get ahold of the folks that issued it and they won't return the phone call. So we talked about that a little bit. Back to what Senator Nelson was just saying, this conservation district goes about the, I'll be careful. This Conservation District is always welcomed on farms. When they show up, they are there to help. And they're not being seen as as adversarial. They're they're they are looked they are looked upon as far as to to help farmers, which we like that very much.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think the context of what's happening with the USDA and NRCS, they shared a lot of offices

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: or rented from them. A lot

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of those regional offices closed, they're gonna have a roof over their head.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. Well

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I had to make phone calls so they could get their mail during the forty five day shutdown. They couldn't get their mail, and Wendy Wilson who'd been in here and having her number, rang through Wendy so they could get their mail one day a week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. Good. Yeah. Good constituent service.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I didn't mean to be long winded on it, but I thought it would be good to tell you some of what our thought process was on a lot of Thank what we

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: you for coming upstairs.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I'm honored to be here and I mean that with everything that we have. We look forward to doing your work to let you know what we're doing. We've got a full day tomorrow on the Paraquat bill and just going through it quickly. You know, I don't want to get ahead of my committee, but I think there's a lot of agreements with the hard work that you've done. To be fair, I didn't take the Paraquat bill up because I knew that you guys were tearing it apart and really looking at it. So I just didn't think I had to do the work that you guys were already going to do. So we looked at your miscellaneous bill. We much are, we don't see much going on with that. Very excited to see R1 through three secondtion that you guys have done on your own bill. I've heard, I think that's passed out. Yesterday, yeah. So we're looking forward to seeing that. I think we're probably gonna do a walkthrough of that on Tuesday. So very excited to see that and appreciate the cooperation between both committees. And when you're not sitting there arguing with one another, you know that you are aligning very well. I think that's what the two committees do well. So we appreciate the working relationship.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Oh, good. Well, I look forward to continuing it. Before before you go, Bennington, hang on one second.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Just a comment on that paraquat bill was probably one of the most serious

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

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We've dealt with in years. And it did was a small accommodation for a very unique segment of the ag committees. That was we had unanimous support on that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Sure. I can tell you can tell you where we are with it. I've said it on camera and I've said it to the advocates and I've said it to a lot of the other people is that we are bringing in both sides of it and everybody's gonna have a chance to talk about it. And we're gonna, yeah, we wanna concur with our house counterparts, But we know we're gonna we're gonna make our you know, we're gonna make our determinations about who we what we have and all of that everybody's gonna get a fair shake with it. But we kind of, you know, just going going through the work that you guys did it. We kind of like that work. We thought you guys did a nice job with it.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Oh, yeah, Nelson, did you want to? Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Was this bill thicker at one time? It was. So is there something that we could look at and put back in for you? Oh, I might bring it through on this side.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: I might talk to Chair Durfee. Once all said and done, I got to see if my committee wants to wrestle with it. We did we did come to a great compromise with VPRG on solar siding. It wasn't as extensive, anywhere near extensive as where representative Burtt's bill was, not anywhere near that. Basically, said that before you cite a solar farm, the agency of agriculture was going to be consulted in that and that every effort was going to be not to be in any agricultural fields. My last comment to their lobby lobbyist was, we were really trying to get to a place where we could all say kumbaya on this bill. And he said, kumbaya. That's what he said. Unfortunately, my leadership, because of one committee, made us strike it out. I don't know how you guys do, but when the boss of the boss says, you're not gonna have it in there, you have two choices. You either pull it out or don't do it with what you do. So we pulled it out. But it was a very we put a lot of thoughtful time into that bill and that section of it, and it was very good, and it was agreeable to everyone. The

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Reminds me, was looking at, for an unrelated reason, I was looking at an old minutes of a planning commission meeting from Shaftesbury when they were touring a site that was going to that had a proposed solar installation. And the minute said that it looked like maybe there had once been some dairy there, but they didn't think there was now, but they couldn't tell for sure. And that was sort of the end of that conversation. And I was thinking, somebody knows. That shouldn't be it should be able to get you the answer, and any planning committee or whoever's in charge of that decision. So we can talk more about that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Okay. And we had two other sections, I understand why they came out, but it was really about donated food and about farmers growing food that might be wealthy enough or whatever and being able to, with verified proof from the people they donated the food of, be able to get tax credits on that. And that was a very good bill, and it really, really was. And what had happened is that, what had happened was that one of the well, there was one of the senators in one of the other committees that took very, knew who was had sponsored the bill, and he had run against her and and and he the guy had lost. And so it just it it got killed for all the wrong reasons, but it was really about putting more product into our food systems for no cost. So, you know, going into these very food systems, I mean, we're talking about not hundreds of pounds of food, but millions of pounds of food, putting it into these, into the distribution points and be able to whether they come to the schools or come to wherever it was. So I would have really, we put a lot of time on that as well and we just couldn't get any traction on those are the three sections. I've taken enough of your time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: All right, well, we're done for the day. You.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair, Senate Agriculture Committee)]: Thank you very much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Thank you, Thank you. We are done for the day. We have, what's tomorrow, Friday? It is. We'll be back to the calendar. Go to Friday. All right, so right, so we are on the floor at 09:30. 08:45. There's a caucus of the whole, however, before that at 08:45.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Three in the committee will be down in Senate Ag at nine. What's that? Three in the committee will be in Senate Ag at nine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Oh, right, okay. So you'll be down there and hopefully, well, take as long as that needs, I guess. And the rest of us will, assuming you're done, will convene here whenever we're done on the floor.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We got we're gonna work till noon, you said?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah, and then no later than noon. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Sharon, I have a lot of cats coming tomorrow.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, is that your big day?

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Wow. Okay.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Will They'll be staying down the stairs.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: So

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: if you need a vote or something, let me know. Otherwise, you know, I expect to be here at some point. Okay. I think the governors can be signing a proclamation at some point after.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: What was that? Related to something The Olympians. That's tomorrow? Yeah. Oh, you have a lot of guests coming here. Here. Not to my house. I thought you were No. Not to say I need to leave early or No. I I need to be cooking all day.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You have that sort of

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: One thing that you don't have to find me do is cooking.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: If I'm going to a pig or something else, so I might come early. But I should.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: I cook all day sometimes. We're done for the day. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Patricia, we can log off some fuelers.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Uh-uh. Is he? I don't know.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: He he was from when?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Patricia? You

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: may be.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Forever. Alright. Well, not sure if we maybe Tricia stepped away after anything.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Did people eat up all of the hot cross buns? I

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: don't think so.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Hi again. Hi.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: I hung up with phone calls. Sorry. Just wanted to confirm that we don't have anything yet confirmed for tomorrow morning.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Nothing yet. I still have those inquiries out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: All right. Well, we one answer here.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Yeah. It's Michelle with the the ACD, and I can come in. I can be here at 10:30 and just wait until you guys are free from the house and just whenever you're free.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Okay, great. Great.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: I don't think my meeting with the LG will go past 10:30. So I'll just come here after that and wait for We each

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: might be here before that. Schedule 05:30 to ten within. Okay, right. We'll figure it

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: out. Yeah. Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Alright. So that'll be on section the last section, whatever it is.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Yeah. I'll get the reference. How much time should I allocate for that?

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Shouldn't take more than fifteen minutes. Ten to fifteen minutes will be all.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. Fifteen minutes.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: It's not a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: huge issue. Okay.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: I mean, it's a huge issue for us, but it's not a complicated issue.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. We've heard enough about it. I think it will be so section 26.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: 26. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: That's your 26. Thank you.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Yeah. Thank you. Have a good day. Then

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: who else had we invited for tomorrow morning potentially?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Let's see. Well, we still had something out to Cameron, and he mentioned actually that, I think Ellen is has a couple of sections rather than him, which one's seven to nine I think. Hang on a second. I'll

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: just double Section 9A.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: 9A. Okay. So wanted to check that with you. Shall I also try to get her in?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Well, need just one of them, but it's the one who is familiar enough with 9a too.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. I think it's Ellen, actually.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Okay.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Let me just see. I've got lots of screens here open. Just a moment. Yeah. I think Ellen has seven to nine. So it's Ellen then.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Well, not necessarily. Okay. 9 is a separate section.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: They

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: stuck they stuck in between nine and ten. I don't know why. Strange. Yeah. So you can confirm whoever it is that's got 9a. Who are looking for?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Her husband and Lipsky.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: He hiked the other day out of here like three minutes ago. Okay.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Then I still haven't heard anything from Caroline.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: That's fine.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Let's see who else I sent things to. Sorry. I'm just checking my notes here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yep. Yep.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: So, yeah, for tomorrow, no, because some of them I've moved right to next week, Stephanie Smith. Yep. Let's see. All the seed things. So, yeah, I think for tomorrow, that's really going to be it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Okay. What about Gina Clithero?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Gina Clithero. I haven't written to her yet.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: So that would be through that would be through the agency.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: So but I I think she might be available to come in. I mean, I I don't really know, but she'd be a good person to inquire about

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: On short notice. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Let me

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: try that one then.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: And Betsy Rosenbluth also. Yes.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Alright.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. I mean, in a pinch. I think we could be done pretty early tomorrow. That would be so hard to take. Yeah. But I think the committee can cope with it. Hang on one second here. Yep. Yeah. Why don't why don't we why don't why don't we see whether this one or both of them can come in tomorrow morning? Again, it'd be very brief.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: And I the other thing is, do we know where Cameron is tomorrow morning?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Let's see if I can I don't think I don't know if I have access to his calendar? I so I might not be able to have all the details. I can just see where it says busy. Hang on just a second. Tomorrow morning. So yeah. It's just blocked off as busy. I don't have the details.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: I hang on a second.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: He's got, 08:45 to 09:15, and then nine to eleven, and then 11:20 to twelve, which is the block I was trying to get with him. And it went while I was, you know, waiting for his response.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Okay. So he's not in house general. Must be in the senate, I would think. Let's see. Well, you I guess you could still check and see if it if it turns out that Ellen is the one responsible for nine a, then maybe she's available tomorrow morning.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Nine a. Alright.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Cam Cameron is in the senate.

[Michelle (ACD representative)]: Cameron's in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: the senate until 11:20.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: See, that's what initially I had seen on his calendar that he was free from 11:20 to twelve. And so I sent him an invitation and by the time he answered my invitation, he declined it. I saw that something had come onto his calendar for that time block, but all I could see is busy. So he's either avoiding us or or there's just another commitment that we can't see.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Alright. Well, maybe it'll turn out to be Ellen and Cameron's schedule will be irrelevant anyway.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Let's Okay. Good. I'll I'll find that out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Alright. I will I'll stay I'll stay on the call here, and if there's more to discuss, you can just shout out later. I'm gonna Okay.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Great. I'll get back to the emailing.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Thank you.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Alright. Thanks.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Patricia.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Yes?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair, House Agriculture Committee)]: Yeah. The the the lives button is still illuminated here. I don't know whether Oh my gosh. Broadcasting.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: How did that happen? Uh-oh. Sorry.