Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: About the old schoolhouse, if you've never been

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: on

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: that big, Olivia Lane. It's Neil Tasnow. Sorry to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, no. Interrupt this, but just wanted to be sure they knew. Fantastic. So welcome, commissioner. Thank you for joining us. Good morning. We're here to have you weigh in on the proposed amendment to S-three 23 on the KFO stakeholder group. Thank you for joining us.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Thank you for having me. And for the record, Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation. Thank you for having me in. I did provide some written testimony last week that I think you have all seen and read. And so I wanted to, I appreciate the invite coming in to kind of speak to a few more points on the amendments that were offered. Hopefully also that I'm going put the plug in that you've had a chance to read the CAFO report. We're going to look to come in hopefully in the next couple of weeks and kind of give you a rundown of the report and answer any questions on that going forward. Yeah, that would be So a little time, a lot of effort by all parties involved for

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: that report. So I'm really thank you

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: to the farmers and to the staff, and everybody that has been involved in that. So to discuss the two amendments, as proposed, the the first one that I would like to touch on would be the third party contractor. I think one of the main points that I want to hit is that we are currently and have been doing inspections and that we are out in the field doing those inspections. We, as well as ag, have been out doing inspections for a long time. With this CAFO program that we have and also our charge from EPA, last year, we did 10 inspections. This year, I think we have, EPA is coming into town next week, and conducting their own inspections with our staff and ag staff joining them. I think there are four inspections scheduled that they will do. And then we have been working to schedule another at least 10 inspections. And under our charge with EPA and what we agreed upon, we are set to do at least 10 inspections a year. So I want to be clear that we're not starting from scratch, right? So we have been doing inspections. We will continue to do inspections. I'm looking at the third party contract language. It's important to note that we were not paused and waiting, that we're still doing what we need to do to meet our regulatory charge with Act 67, as well as what we are required to do for EPA under our cap, our corrective action plan. And it's important to note that having a third party entity come in to assist with the framework for training, potentially for inspections, undoubtedly would be a good thing. And we stated that during our stakeholder process with folks that having someone in to look at what we're doing and help us build and continue to build, I would say, plane as we're flying it is a welcome piece. But we, now, at

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: this

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: time, do not have the additional funds to pay for that. So if there is that charge, we welcome it. We welcome this language as long as there are funds attached to it for us to implement it. I'll speak quickly to the funding that was given to us last year. There were specific pieces or specific items for that money that needed to be accomplished. So the stakeholder group and the hiring of the facilitator for that, as well as the building of kind of IT system for our KFO program, which we have not yet done. We are in the process, so we do not know what that cost will be, as well as a few additional pieces. And so I really wanna say that without the additional money assigned to this, it would not be able to we would not be able to do it. So I know representative Nelson.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson, Neil.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So so you haven't spent all the 850,000 that we gave you last year. And you don't know how much would be left over with that. Right. And, you know, I'm gonna say it. The clean water fund broke. We can't rob little money out of the clean water fund and wait for the BAA to come back, augment backpack, fill into the clean water fund. I would think that if there was a will, there would be a way. And I'll just say that. The reason why the stakeholders of Ash was third party consultant, contractor, auditor, whatever term we wanna come up with, Misty, is so we have consistency and clarity of rules, and that's what the farmers have asked for, and that's what the advocates have asked for. It's for clarity of rules so that we all understand what we're coming with. You know, I I've likened it to the committee that if I tell Jed, I want an egg salad sandwich, and then he tells Jack, and Jack tells Michelle and it comes around, and then the chair hands me a ham and ham and cheese on the rod. So

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: this is

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: what we're looking for. And the training, the continued training to us is very important that, you know, as technology changes, we've we've heard in other sectors of agriculture or businesses where technologies change, and DEC has said, well, that's we don't know about this or we don't understand this. We're not gonna approve this. Technology changes in the agricultural world. I mean, we're driving line manure now. That's something you didn't hear about fifteen years ago except for a little farmer in Saint Albans Town, man started at first. And and no no one knew about it. And so we we we want your folks to be fluid, but also in the stakeholders report, and I haven't read the last one, but I read the the version before that. There's still confusion about is risk is risk a reason for a KFO permit? Now I can tell you that if a farmer has risk, he ought to be thinking if he should ask for a KFO permit. But should the agency be able to say, you have risk, you need to get a cable permit. Well, if you own one cow, one cow, that's a risk. One cow is a risk. And then the definition of intermittent and then what's a discharge? Well, according to the EPA, a discharge is where pollutants leave the farm, the production area, and reach the waters of Vermont because we codified it to the waters

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: of Vermont, not waters of

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The United States. So that's a discharge. And and there's been questions about and I don't think I'm wrong when I bring these points up. So this is why we're looking for this third party person to to answer those questions instead of fighting with the the farmer about it out in the field or arguing. I shouldn't say fight, arguing. And and that's where we're coming from. And farmers, we wanna be able to understand when we go around our farm, we look and we say, you gotta get ahead of that. So, anyway, that that's where we're coming from, and that's why it's so important to the stakeholders on both side. They this may come as a shock to you, commissioner. There is not a lot of trust in my world with your agency. Not a lot of and we need to build that trust. We started building that trust with the advocates, with the petitioners. We're starting to have dialogue, and I'm hoping we can keep fostering that dialogue to build cleaner, more consistent Vermont. It's all we want. We all want that. But there's not a lot of trust with your agency. And I don't know if that shocks you when I tell you that. I don't think it does. And and and I have enjoyed my time working with you because I think you you bring a different perspective and understanding to it. And I wish we could roll the clock back four or five years for some of my farm my my farm people that are having issues with the agency because perhaps we could have a clear eye how to fix it without litigation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'll give you, Commissioner, an opportunity to respond if you want. And I think maybe there was another question, I also want to be sure that we're giving you the opportunity to tell us what your perspective is, Doctor.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Sure. No, and thank you. I mean, as always, we have no problem talking about where we are and how we got here. One of the differing points is that I don't ever like, rolling back the clock would be great in a perfect world. But I am of the belief that we are here for a reason. And at this moment in time, in these conversations for a reason, and that the stakeholder group was as successful to me as it was in the conversations that were had, because everybody is at a point where we have to have these conversations. And the legislature agreed with Act 67. We need eyes on this and we need to continue the conversation. Staff at both agencies are working hard to collaborate and to have the conversations and to make sure that as we are moving out into this inspection season, that we are doing it, continuing to communicate. And what I would say is that while I agree that a third party contractor is beneficial for a lot of reasons, The real work and the real proof will be in our actions, right? So while I understand that a third party can be helpful in bringing in another perspective and coordinating and developing framework, The staff are the real people that are going to move forward with the collaboration. And to me, we've done a lot of talking, but the the proof will be in our actions. And I do believe that we are working and moving forward, with the best of intentions and sincerely taking into consideration what has been discussed at the table, at the stakeholder group in the past months, and that giving us an opportunity to put those words into actions will be incredibly helpful, because right now we spent a lot of time talking about things. And I've got an amazing team behind me that is now heads down building that program and working on the program to meet and getting out there to do those inspections and working with the agency of ag. And I think that that will and should be the main focus is to your point, understanding, hearing, continuing to communicate and saying that our actions will speak louder than words in what we are going to do in the future. Just to kind of as a response to

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: your comment.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Commissioner, just to give us some context,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: do you have any idea?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I mean, now, EC has inspectors going to arms. How many inspectors are involved and what's the budget number that's committed to them, the governor's recommended? I don't know if you know the agency of Ag side, but

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: I can't speak to the agency of Ag side. I don't know the numbers. I know that we have my understanding, I believe, is five staff members in our CAFO program total. Those are not just for inspectors. Those folks do it all. So as we are talking about moving forward, and we're talking about building our our cable program, going through rulemaking, they're all a part of that, as well as going out on inspections and doing all of the program work that needs to be done. So I'll double check my numbers when I get back to you. But it will be five people, including the director or the program manager. And they have, I believe, 11 inspections scheduled so far this year, which to us is manageable right now with it's still it is still a lot, but it is manageable. And then there are the inspections that are going be done by EPA, and then the agency of AG has their own. But I know we are in constant communication with the Agency of Ag to kind of full speed understanding of who's going where and when, the communication between the agencies and the farmers to make sure that folks are aware of when we're coming out. But I can get those numbers for you also in terms of what are the numbers for those staff.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And going forward, do you see the streamlining of this process potentially as a place even to save money? Because there won't maybe be the redundancy with both agencies doing these inspections.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Mean, streamlining in what sense of We have our KFO program right now, and the report speaks to it. We are moving forward, creating our program. We have our folks who are doing what they're doing, and then the agency of ACT still has theirs. So I think there are efficiencies to be gained by better communication and collaboration. I will say that that collaboration and communication has been there in the past. So it is just improving as time moves on. And so if that's, I don't know that I'd call it streamlining, but I would say there's efficiencies to be gained in the future.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Do you see then the same amount of inspectors with both agency going forward?

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I don't know. That's a

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: great question. I think that we've mapped out and committed to potentially looking at what makes the most sense for Vermonters, what makes the most sense for farmers, for our programs. And I know for us, for Agency of Natural Resources are committed to building our program, coming into compliance with EPA, and working with the Agency of Ag to continue to be consistent and transparent about how that will look. I can't speak to what the future holds, but

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we will see that. Gregory Lipsky. Yes. Thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Misty, you've talked about doing a lot of inspections, been going out a lot. You have ten or twelve hour schedule. Mhmm. So my question has to do with how frequently or if any of those inspection you've done, have you done jointly with the agency or or or how frequently are you on the ground together?

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yeah, that's a great question. And I can come back with more details also from our program staff who are working with the agency bag to come together on what inspections they will go out together. I know that in the past, I believe we have, I'm not going say with 100% certainty, but last year with the 10 inspections that we did, there may have been some collaboration with the agency of ag. I know that this year, there is the conversation of going out with the agency of ag. Like on the EPA inspections next week, I believe that we will both be accompanying EPA will be the lead for those inspections. We'll both be accompanying them as well. And I do believe there is the discussion around us accompanying Agency of Ag on certain inspections and vice versa, as well as looking at it as a potential training opportunity for us all to

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: be out there together.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Now that's what strikes me Mhmm. Is that you have agencies with somewhat different skills and knowledge Yep. And transmitted communicated by email versus you on the ground to get a They of seem to be redundant, but quality of communication is Correct. Right then.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: And we agree. Yes. Thank

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: She would speak to other comments you may have.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Certainly. So that was the third party. The working group, I think the only thing that I would say to the working group is we have all along said we really would like to continue. We really feel there is a value in continuing the stakeholder group, having us all together to continue the collaboration and communication. We do feel that we would like to be members in the language. But we will be there regardless at the table to provide the support that is needed. We see the value in us being at the table, talking openly together to understand concerns that may be there to talk through as we're building the program, as the program is moving forward, whether it be inspection season or in the wintertime, walking through any questions or concerns that could be had. What is the art of the possible in terms of what we regulatory wise can do versus what would be kind of just a wish. I think we went through some of that in the stakeholder group of there were some things that folks would have liked us to do, but we do not potentially have the framework to do it. But having those conversations at all of us at the table is incredibly important. I understand and hear the want for potentially farmers and other groups to be able to have conversations without agencies in the room. I think I hear that. I can understand that. I think there's nothing preventing that. And at the end of the day, we just feel like all of us being at the table in that group together as equal concerned parties or looking to solve problems is an important piece. So other than that, for the working group, I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: don't believe I need to add any more to my testimony that I've already provided. Thank you. Yeah, I'll say that we've been hearing fairly regularly, informally, but sometimes I think during formal testimony too about the work that's taken place to date. And it's been encouraging as somebody who doesn't have a long history with this subject matter, but knowing that there is a long history between the two agencies and challenges, I also wanted to say, you were addressed right up front in the report, and I think in a very positive way. Appreciate that. That it's been very encouraging to hear the spirit of collaboration that seems to have emerged just in the past, since we were here last year or a year ago. Thank

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: you, chair, even more so. I'm very new to these discussions, but generally speaking, do you feel like has there been a what has been the culture in terms of whether your department or agency bag try to be more customer oriented, customer focused, and is there a shift toward more of that orientation do you find with these collaborations and these conversations? Because there's always two sides of it, regulatory process. You either use that to make life hard for somebody or try to work with that person to solve the problem. Just wondering if is there a shift toward that, is that just something that's potentially becoming a priority for you with all this collaboration and discussion?

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Sure. That's a great question. Think not just speaking around this, but more broadly, because my job as commissioner is to look at my entire department. Customers, customer focus is a big part of what we are focusing and continue to focus on for the department. Being part of the conversation, listening, and then saying, how can we get to where we need to go together? And look at potentially having the conversation of compliance versus enforcement. So looking at, I mean, there are times when enforcement is needed and we have our regulations in place for a reason.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: But

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: for us moving forward, we really are looking at the opportunity to say, we are out in an inspection and see things that need to be worked on or need to be done on a farm to say, how can we work together to get to where we need to be? There may be situations where that is a a KFO permit. It may be a situation where you have the ability to we've identified certain things and you have committed to a timeline and will come into compliance at a certain date. But really taking a step back and saying we need to be customer focused and as we have been, I'm not going to say that we haven't been, but this process has allowed us to hear kind of more upfront interface where we are and hear all of the different folks involved in their perspective of potentially what we could do differently. And we really have, I think, the letter in our report, but also just how, as we talk across our program areas, really taken that to heart and said, we hear it and we understand it. And we're working internally to make sure that we have processes in place that do look at that and looking at the compliance and customer first to ensure that we're working together. Because at the end of the day, our goal is not necessarily to go to enforcement. Our goal is to come into compliance and protect those resources, whether it be the waters or the land that we are charged with protecting. So I look forward to, as we move forward, like I said, our actions speaking louder than our words and continuing to show folks that we are committed to doing what we always have done, but listening and maybe doing it differently in the future. Doctor. Lipsky has it.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Ms. Steve, I read your whole presentation, and this is a fiscal question. We know it's a third party inspector. Yep. There's a gap in fund. Right? Yeah. Make that clear. But now among the work your final three paragraphs about the working group.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We as a committee have had a second row seat to all of your proceed with rep Nelson on one side and Jared as also an intervener. And it's really been exciting to see all the parties working so well together. And this work and the last set of paragraphs focus on how important you keep this stakeholder group Yeah. Intact and engaged. Yes. And I think is there a daily stipend if they attend meetings or have to travel? Was that ever just is there any dollar amount attached to keeping that coordination group?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did you want to speak to that?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The stakeholders on the farmer side aren't doing it for the retirement benefit.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I understand.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They're doing it for the industry and they all kind of agreed that the $50 a day is just I don't even know how many farmers filled out the paperwork to get paid for the free. I I never did.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yeah. I don't I

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: think most of them just said it's part of doing business and a part of the we care. And I believe it's kind of the same on the other side, but I'm speaking. I don't wanna speak to the other side.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: It's part it's part of our jobs.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So Yeah. I think that we always want to be very careful about setting up a group and then not compensating people for their time. Yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: But that's my overall the tone of the board and the progress made was very encouraging.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, and just one other question. You mentioned that the IT work is still in progress. Any sense of the timeline for that?

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: I don't have the exact timeline. I can come back with it, though. I mean, when we come back and I can provide that in writing before we come back as well. But I can get you I know that we have had I will say in the last year, especially after 67 was passed, really, Abby Paycheck, my program manager, as well as the director, I mean, had not only working on the stakeholder group and organizing that, but hiring up, getting staffed up, as well as starting to work on the program and rules. So I'm looking forward to, now that the report is done, allowing them to move into field season inspection season and start on those other pieces to what I call the bigger puzzle. So I can get that information to you as to where we are and where we expect to be in the next six months to a year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So just for the committee's sake, may be a little confusing, but we're talking about this amendment continues the stakeholder group. The stakeholder group, I think, did issue some kind of a write up to the agency. The agency in turn has incorporated that into the report that we asked them to do for us, and not just for our committee, but for probably four committees. So we'll have you in and maybe we'll try and find a time where we can meet with the other committees. It's hard to do this time of year, but we'll appreciate hearing from you anyway.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: We would love the opportunity to watch Before the May. Have that conversation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, good. Thank you very much.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Oh, thank you

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: all very much for all. Thank you. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, so the committee is amenable and ready to switch gears to an entirely different subject. You can bring our next Zoom guest in, Patricia.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Here already. Let's check Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Eugene? Yeah. Thank you. Eugenie, can you hear us?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Yes.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Okay.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Great.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. So we will return to the subject of this amendment before lunch. I don't know where we'll be, but So committee, we have invited two strawberry farmers to join us this morning. And we we won't be spending too much time though, but wanted to get a better understanding from folks out in the field on the subject of weed control for strawberries. This may or may not have anything to do with the bill that may be in the Senate at the moment that is not on our wall or at least in our possession. So with that, Eugenie, thank you for joining us. And if you'd like to introduce yourself, tell us where you live and what you do. And then if you're not sure why we asked you here, we can ask you questions, but we're also happy to have you to sort of launch right in.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Okay, great. My name is Eugenie Doyle. I am the co owner with my husband and son of Last Resort Farm in Bunkton in Addison County. I have been growing strawberries since 1983, took the small fruits course at UVM with Doctor. Burtti Boyce, was one of the national experts on strawberries. That was his favorite small fruit. And at that point he said, You cannot grow strawberries organically. And so I've set out during my career to prove him wrong, which we've done actually very successfully. So we've been, we try, we've started out conventional because that was my training and we were conventional dairy farmers and we transitioned, became certified organic in 1996, I believe, for for many reasons, which I can go into at some point if you would like. I I all really I can tell you, I don't know why you've invited me here. I did testify in front of the Senate Ag Committee just to say you can indeed grow strawberries without any herbicide. And I at the time that I was learning about herbicides, I paraquat was not even really discussed. It wasn't kind of on the list for strawberry growers at that time. I think is it Gramoxone that you guys are talking about? I think that's the trade name at this point. So maybe that some growers don't even know that they're using Paraquat because it's not called Paraquat. But I am I wanna make it really clear that I am not interested in telling any other growers how to grow their strawberries. And all I can say is that we've had a very being using, being certified organic has for us been a part of our economic success. I think it's a big selling point, especially in the pick your own aspect, which is a very large part of our operation. Strawberries are on the dirty dozen of pesticide, all kinds, not just herbicide use. And I think consumers are quite aware of that. That's sort of that's become a way that they get their information and they certainly seek out organic strawberries, anything, any grower, any organic grower in the state, and there are a lot now. There were only two of us in the beginning, there are a

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: lot

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: now. But it's a joyful, beautiful crop. And we look at ourselves as food growers. We look at ourselves as part of the healthcare providing team. So our philosophy has always been like other healthcare providers to do no harm. So we certainly, given the choice of using something that has a link to cancer or Parkinson's, I guess in this case, we would elect not to, and you can do that. The only other thing I will say is because I did hear the testimony in the senate ag committee from an apple grower who gave a very convincing reason why it would be difficult for them not to have the use of paraquat. I would hope that any action by the legislature would include some help for growers transitioning to new products or new methods. So, yeah, you asked what else what else do we do? Because we certainly have weeds. Just because you're organic doesn't mean you don't have weeds. And we do a combination of pre plant soil preparation, cover cropping, a lot of cover cropping, and then cultivation. The equipment for cultivation of strawberries has improved a lot in recent years. And then we also do mulching, both with plastic mulch and with straw mulch. And then we do do some hand weeding. But I would bet that even with the use of pesticides, with herbicides, there is still some hand weeding involved. It's just the nature of the weeds. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you very much. We do have a question. Representative Bartholomew? You just alluded to some improved equipment for didn't quite catch what what kind of equipment and what does it do?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: So there's, I mean, different people use different kind. We use finger weeders. Bezaredes is one brand. There are also different basket weeders that can go down the row of a planted strawberry. You plant a bare root strawberry, it looks like sort of nothing. And then the plant, the mother plant that you've planted sends out daughter plants. That's what makes it difficult to weed with other row crop weeding because there are actually several plants. It's not just like a row of carrots. But there are now different, you know, we've figured out ways to use different different baskets that will send soil up onto and bury some of the weeds up onto the plant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can you tell us just about who your customers are? Do you wholesale or pick your own or how do you

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: sell your product?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Yeah. We have a diversified marketing plan. We wholesale to both Healthy Living stores, both city markets in Burlington. We do three farmers markets. We have a farm stand at our place, and we sell out of state through the Farmers To You cooperative distribution trucking system. And we have a free choice CSA program, a farm share program where people prepay and then can use their credit at any of our markets or in our farm stand. And we also for strawberries do pick your own. That's a large part of the strawberry marketing. We don't do other crops, pick your own, but people really love it. It's I mean, I would imagine that in the state, the two areas that bring people onto farms are pick your own strawberries and probably apples as well. Those are the most family friendly, just really, all I can say is that they're really joyous, perhaps. During COVID, it really came out that we were allowed to function with certain restrictions on distancing. And people were ecstatic that they could get outside and actually pick something. I think for some people, the pick your own aspect is the only way that they ever get on a farm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I remember doing exactly that in June 2020. There are a couple other questions. I was just curious to know what your, if you don't mind sharing, what you wholesale strawberries for. Knowing that you're organic, I think we all understand that there's likely to be more labor involved, generally speaking.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Can you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: give us a sense of price points?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Of our price point? Well, we have, you know, we are pre season and our price depends on our supply. So we're hoping to get through the frost, the late frost season without damage to the blossoms. And I can tell you better in about a month. But our price last year, pick your own, was $4.50 a pound. Yeah, when I started growing strawberries, it was 75¢ a pound. That's one way that things have gone up. But this year, I suspect we will be raising prices a bit. And then wholesale, we do them by the pint. And I I believe we had started out as conventional growers doing them by the quart and then realized that that was gonna there was gonna be a lot of sticker shock on a quart of strawberries. We sell a quart. We don't sell many quarts, actually, but that would be in the $9 range retail. I guess people are gonna, you know, have to get used to that because I all all of our costs have gone up, fuel, materials. So there will be some increase in price. However, the pick your own is still the best best bargain. And I don't I'm not really sure what our wholesale price will be to the city market. We haven't told them yet. So I wouldn't want to commit here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You have to divulge any trade secrets here. Yes. Okay, we got time for a couple of questions. Representative Burke. Thank you, sir.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: I'm just curious of the scale of your farm acreage and how many employees, if you don't mind sharing.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: How many what?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Employees.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: How many employees? Okay. Yeah. We have our farm is about the the whole farm is about 265 acres, but a 100 tillable acres of which about three quarters of that is hay. We do organic hay and straw for sale. Was a beautiful dairy farm until we really did have to sell the cows. So in vegetable crops and and, berries, we have about 25 acres, of which 10 to 12 is fruited or grown out each year. So we do a tremendous amount of cover cropping and changing where we where we grow things, which is part of our weed control system and pest control system. So in strawberries, we have my son keeps increasing it, but we have about two acres. And some of that is some of that is now ever bearers, which are, you know, a fruit smaller amount for a longer period of time, and that is on plastic. You know, there so that's a trade off. Plastics don't, as far as we know, plastic agricultural plastic, which I would invite you to address sometime, and I think it is a real problem for us, the disposal of it. I don't believe it causes the use of it doesn't cause cancer or Parkinson's, however, is definitely an environmental problem, which we recognize. So there's a trade off between using herbicides or plastic. And we do use some plastic on our ever bearers. Does that answer your

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: How many employees do you have?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Oh, employees. Yeah. We have one h two a worker, and then we have right now, we have three total. That's sort of our we have two that are year round, and we have the one h two a who's here for six months. And I think we're having two others come later in the year that we're sharing with another farm. And then we have about 10 local employees who are here for the summer. So about about 13 summer part high high school high school kids. And one more question from represent Nelson. Did you have?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. It was the acreage question I wanted to ask him. How many acres do you have in strawberries?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: About about two.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: About two. And then the rest is assorted row crops.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Assorted row crops, we also grow raspberries, blueberries, currants, gooseberries, and then a lot of garlic. We're quite well known for our garlic. We have seven high tunnels and in which we grow various greens and ginger, turmeric. So we we have definitely have diversified and have tried to stay ahead of the stay ahead of the more traditional crops.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. And I was gonna make comment that pick your own blueberries are pretty popular too. You know, besides pick your own flower.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: They they are. Yeah. We have not a large amount of those, and there are some much larger operations quite near us. So we we mostly pick those ourselves and sell them and sell them in in our farm stand. They're easier we're happy to have people come and pick their own strawberries because they are harder to pick. They would take more labor from it's a great I mean, it's a win win situation. You have people coming to pick the hardest crop to pick and they're having fun.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah, just quickly bringing the discussion back to power plot. I just wondered if in your field since you've been this long time, I mean, my observation is I go to a supermarket and in the fruit section, what you said earlier about you can't raise organic strawberries. Well, there are always strawberries for sale and then there are always organic strawberries for sale. Often say Driscoll's does both. And so I wondered if you ever visited those seed farms or know people who have, and they must have totally different management practices, they pull off very with both of those strategies.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Yes. Okay. So Driscoll is, what can I say? Okay. So the thing about Driscoll is they're huge. That's a conglomerate of many, many growers. The Driscoll family maybe started growing strawberries. I don't think they touched berries anymore, but huge. A lot of them are hydroponic. So a lot of them are grown not in soil and are grown in what might be seen as the wave of the future. We see it as organic growers who strongly, strongly believe that the soil is the key to soil, to the to environmental health and to human health. So to us, a Driscoll strawberry is really not a strawberry. I mean, and the taste, thank goodness they taste really not that great. So we will have people I mean, the proof is in the flavor. All we can say and people who come and pick their own or the people who buy local strawberries during in season, they certainly know the difference. You know, it's like the difference between a cardboard tomato and a really delicious heirloom tomato grown in August. So I don't know if that answers your question. So they do a lot of plastic culture. Have never, no, I have never visited one of the Driscoll farms. I'm not sure I would be allowed to. I think that the security is quite high.

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

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Yeah, quickly.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Would we be welcome either as a committee or individuals to visit your farm? And if so, if we come from Tyler Bridge Road, where are you located?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: To do it, I'm sorry, broke up a little bit. Did you ask where are you?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Where are you located? And might we be welcome to visit your farm either as individuals or committee members?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Absolutely, we'd be delighted to host you. It's on it's 2246 Tyler Bridge Road Yeah. In Bunckton. And it's so it's the corner Northeast Corner of Addison County.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I know exactly where you are.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: And actually, if you tour if you came, we also in our town we we are the strawberry capital of Vermont. I didn't know if you know that. Moncton also has a large larger than us strawberry operation, which was the Norris Berry Farm for many, many years. They have she's transitioned to a young couple who bought the farm. They are not they're known as the non organic place. We are the organic place. We get along very well. I know that they also do not use Paraguat because I had a conversation with them the other day and they grow more acreage than we do. So if you came to Moncton, you could visit both places.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Point of order and the many men for asking question, you have the answers.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Describe the geography. I like it. I love Richard. Thank you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: very much for joining us.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You're very welcome.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Very welcome. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We will plan to visit. If we all show up at once, we'll let you know ahead of time. So

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: we'll come when the berries are ready.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Later in May. Yeah. All right. We're gonna see now if Charles is available. Morning, Charles. Morning. Thank you, committee. Come on up and thank you for joining us. Thank you for being patient.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: It's our first sunny day in five, so it's No. It's live.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I got up early this morning

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: and got everything started.

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

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: I'll I'll read my testimony first,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: and then we can go out from there.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Good morning, chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Charles Gray. I'm a strawberry farmer here in Vermont with thirteen years experience farming small fruit. Before returning to agriculture, I served the United States Marine Corps where I earned a degree in petroleum engineering. And in that role and throughout my military service, I received extensive training in the safe handling, risk assessment, and management of hazardous materials. I learned firsthand how to evaluate real world dangers, follow strict protocols, and use powerful substances responsibly while protecting people and the environment. That that background is why I'm here today. I use paraquat such as Gramoxone as a directed, shielded, contact burned down herbicide in my small fruit fields, mainly for quick weed cleanup and row middles, pre plant bed preparation or renovation. It works quickly on emerging green tissue without leaving long lasting soil residues that could harm my plants in Vermont's cool wet conditions. Helps me retain clean fields or protect young plants when timing is tight. Federal requirements already in place for Paraquat. Paraquat is a federally designated restricted use pesticide. Under EPA rules, it can only be mixed, floated, applied, or handled by a certified applicator. Every certified applicator must complete an EPA approved Paraquat specific training program before using it, and that training must be retaken every three years. I keep my training certificate on file and follow all federal and state rules as a licensed applicator. Without paraquat, I would have to switch to other options, such as glyphosate, which is Roundup, gluposacininate, diquat, or carr fentanyl zones or an or to a non chemical method such as cultivation, flaming, hand weeding, mulching. These alternatives are often slower, more expensive, require more labor or equipment, disturb the soil more, risk risk damaging my small fruit plants or a smaller on a smaller Vermont farm growing high value small fruit for direct markets and agritourism, pick your own, that would raise costs, hurt yields or quality, and make it harder to stay in business. One important point on risk and regulations. Even with these strict federal requirements, Paraquat faces more oversight than any other dangerous chemicals. A common example is household bleach, which has a high acute toxicity and can cause severe burns and harm from small accidental ingestion or splashes. Anyone can buy or use bleach without a license permit or specialized training. Many and there are many other household or farm substances that's similar similar to this light regulation. I'm not suggesting we ban bleach. I'm saying we should be consistent and practical. Targeting rules on actual patterns combined with proper licensing and training makes more sense than a full ban on one tool that trained licensed farmers like myself used responsibly in very committed amounts. The bill already gives apple orchards time limited permits until 2030 along with required training and reporting. I respectfully ask the committee to offer similar flexibility for small fruit. At a minimum, please use the study. Please make sure the study on alternatives includes practical, cost effective help for berry growers, including possible cost share assistance. Vermont already has strong pesticide regulations in place. With my background in hazardous materials management, I take safety very seriously and strictly follow all the rules. Losing access to this tool without a good replacement will hurt my farm without meaningful without meaningfully reducing overall risk compared to many unregulated hazardous substances we live with every day. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I'm happy to answer any questions about my use of paraquat and my experience with alternatives, my federal training clients, or how my background in hazardous materials shapes my approach to pharmacy.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, Charles. And just before, so I don't forget to say, if you have that and if you want to submit that testimony, you can post it for the public to see too. Representative Nelson. Thank you, chair.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Charlie, I'm a licensed applicator myself. Matter of fact, upgrading my license to commercial one a so I can cover some corn ground up in the Northeast Kingdom so they don't have to send a truck over to do 80 acres from swamp. I I didn't realize that they use paraquad on other things that either as a desiccant on agriculture crops, which there's other things they can use or, you know, other than orchard crops. So I thank you for coming in and telling us that there's other uses for it as well. And maybe that was an oversight by us, not with Yes,

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: sir. It's it's it's labeled for at least 10 other different

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: crops. Yeah. Yeah. You should have looked at should have looked at the label. You're right. You're exactly right. First thing we do when we get a herbicide, we look at

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: the label. That's the federal law. Federal law on

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: how we use it and where we use it and when we use it. What do you grow, Faith? What do you grow on your farm? Where is your farm?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: We're 4 Corners Farm, we're in South Newbury, Vermont. We were established in 'seventy eight in Hartland, Vermont, then we moved to South Newbury in 'eighty two. We grow about 40 different crops. We're also a dairy, beef and pork operation. So we do the whole our of our motto for our farm stand is always sell is our own. So everything that you can come to our farm stand and everything outside of maybe coffee and some t shirts is is comes comes from our farm and we we stand behind that because we want people to understand.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You're selling vegetables and stuff as well? It's like fruit crop.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Yeah, so we're total we're about 25 acres tillable and then we do another 30 acres of hay and hay and straw for the cows and everything. So we're doing about 10 acres of strawberries. And then we do about 10 acres of sweet corn, about three to five acres of potatoes, lettuce, cucumbers. You know, we have, you know, 16 greenhouses. So we're about five of them are heated with hot house tomatoes and cucumbers and peppers and eggplants and tomatoes. I had my first cherry yesterday. Cucumbers are close behind. Newberry,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Just below Newberry.

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Yeah,

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Bob Gray is my dad. So I don't really say it took over the farm or even inherited it. I just kind of manage the farm that we've created and understand what it takes to run a nine month season and bring, you know, local food to our community.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And he was a guest on State House.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Thank you, sir. He's been a crucial, even at 86, he's been a crucial help for me this season.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other questions? Go ahead. Specifically,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I understand how it's used now in orchards on young nursery stuff. Are you using it? It's a very, very advantage.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Your gene, if she's

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: on the line,

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: but on the organic side, they're more of an annual crop. So they plant, they might get that growing year, then they harvest. Where on the conventional side of it, we're more of a perennial crop where I'm getting on my pasta culture, I'm getting three years and on my matted row, I'm getting up to six years. The record my dad held is nine years in the same field. And this crop really helps because weeds are your biggest problem in strawberries. And if you cannot, if you disturb the soil, you just bring up new weed seeds. And we've been farming the same ground now for forty years. So it's like even with rotation, we're still running into wet summers where things didn't work and weeds went to seed and populated the ground. So paraquat is crucial in the fact that it doesn't translocate back to the plant. So where do you spray it, it stays and it doesn't really harm the plant. So it's like a way you can put it in and you can spray it and we do it in a shielded sprayer. So with a surfactant, so it will stay exactly where we put it. It won't go anywhere else and, it won't harm the plant. I understand that it's extremely dangerous. Like I'm not, as I said, as a Marine, I'm not oblivious to that. I understand that. And but with the new regulations that just came out from the federal government last year that has new labeling on everything, in English and Spanish, and that anything below a 165 gallon container now has to have a closed a closed loop. So I I just purchased a new a new sprayer that now mixes on demand. So the jug plugs in and you set the rate on a dial and it will mix. It will mix with the water and everything out the nozzle. So that's something I'm looking forward to that you don't even have to, you know, you don't even have to hand mix it anymore. So it's I'm I'm using those precautions. And on the label, which is the federal law, it says that if you follow these precautions, all your proper PPE, there's very little risk to the applicator. And then it breaks down with sunlight. So I think it's like thirty six hours of sunlight, and then it's not biological anymore and it doesn't pose any harm.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So how does it I'm thinking like, here's a strawberry, here are some runners, and here's some pigweed or whatever coming up around it, and you wanna target the weed.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Well, I should've sent the video out, but I have a video of runners this year. And I'm talking about like on an acre of strawberries of plastic culture. After we've picked all the runners off the first time, it comes back again. There's probably 100,000 runners out there because we're planting like 20,000 plants in an acre. You're targeting runners? Yeah, just the runners because I can't they've tried and this is this is, you know, in the as someone who's visited a lot of farms across The United States, this is a problem that all strawberry farms, larger scale strawberry farms are dealing with because you just can't afford the labor of going out there and picking off the runners. And if you toss the runners into the aisles, then they're just going to root and grow in the aisle and then you'll have a problem

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: there too. Okay. So

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: it's not even the weeds. You're going

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: out to the runners

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: just Runners or and then we'll use it as it depends on the year. It like, right now, we're we're planting strawberries today. So it's we're really good. We made beds yesterday. We got them prepped, we got them whole. We're planting strawberries today. I can now I probably won't have to use Paraquat because I can get my pre emergent herbicide down before anything starts growing. If we have a weather that I can't get in or we, you know, we're to something like one year, the plants were it was just after COVID, the plants were delayed by a month. So we had all the plastic laid and then that was a year that I had to use paraquat. After we've, like, after we've already entered we've entered the field, we've planted the plants, and the workers have left the field, then I'll come in and use it, and it will be, you know, on the on the Ever Bears, it'll be a month, two months before the guys go back in there. And then on the Mataro, the short day varieties, they won't even go back into the field again until the next picking season. So I'll spray for runners or I'll spray for weeds in September. And they won't I mean, we're all done with any handwork in the field, so no guys will go back into the field. Has a twenty one day post harvest interval, and it has a forty eight hour reentry. So when it can be sprayed, it's after forty eight hours, it is is safe to re up the field without PPE.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: You're using tractors or sometimes you're

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: using just hand? We try to stay away from the backpack as that's an emergency. But with the shielded sprayer, you can set it. To it's called a company called Redfall. I don't think they exist anymore, but they're probably a foot and a half wide by two feet tall by two feet long, and it's got free jets in it. It's got curtains around the whole side, and you can bring it pretty much bring it down to inch off the ground. It even has runners, then it'll put it right there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: A bunch of other questions here, and I want to just mention that the clock and that we have a witness who's joined us online. A couple of witnesses, we know you're there and stand by and if your schedule gets tight, we'll work things out. But I think you were an extra night. Okay. Then representative Basil?

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Yeah. I was just gonna say you mentioned in your sort of description of of how you use Paraquat that, you know, you apply it, it stays where it's where it goes, and then it and then 36 late hours later, it's it's gone or it's soaked in. We actually heard testimony about a study that came out, I think it was in October, very, very large scale study that actually showed that it's not true that it always stays where you put it, that it can actually travel over two miles on the day that it's applied.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Not with a surfactant?

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Well, what we heard is that it can travel. What's the word? Volatilize. It can volatilize.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: No. Not not with surfactant. It stick it balanced through the organic matter, and it and it stays right where it is.

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Okay.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Well The only the only reason that possibly would be for, a and this is where I I stand against paraquat. I'm for paraquat in certain applications, but they use it for to to dry down grains. Right? So they'll they'll broadcast spray it over a field of rye because they need that that grain to dry down faster than letting it go to. And in that case, they're broadcasting, they probably don't want it to stick, they just want it to die. So in that small case where if someone is, and this is talking about out in Oklahoma or somewhere in the Midwest, in the Plains where they're doing like a thousand acre spray. We're talking about where I'm doing two feet on an acre, so it's like I'm probably doing a half an acre per tank load on

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: one on

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: one acre. A very, very small amount. You can always find data that makes you agree with, know, there's always data out there to be like.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: We I mean, actually, we hadn't heard it before that. And then this study apparently was very different. But in any case, that's not my question. So getting to the next part, we heard a lot of testimony about Paraquat before we made our decision. And when we voted, it was a unanimous vote to work towards phasing it out. But we didn't hear testimony from berry growers. And so I appreciate that you're here because, like your suggestion, if there's gonna be a transition, the Agricultural Innovation Board should be looking at what's gonna work for you as well as for apple growers, which we did include in the bill. I think that's really important. But I guess my question would be, what would be the transition time that you feel would be reasonable? Because we have, I think, maybe a four year window is is where the bill is at right now in terms of phasing out to where you are.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Why do we have? Why can't we just stay with the federal government's recommendations?

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Because Paraguay has been outlawed in over 70 countries because it was assessed to be too dangerous.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: But but those are good. Out of those 70 countries, how much of them were first world countries?

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: A lot. It's the whole European Union.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: But do you know that now the whole European Union, they don't even grow on the ground anymore. They they're they're all majority of them, all high tunnels and tabletop stoppers. We didn't talk about because the regulations have the regulations have been put on farmers for so long that we have to we can't grow them how we used to. So we have to grow them in a new route.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: I guess the short answer would be that that I mean, I can't speak for all my colleagues, but in terms of me and when I when I made my vote, I heard enough evidence about the dangers of Paraquat to the farmers, especially and the applicators, especially the people that are the closest to it. And also, honestly, I have loved ones who died from Parkinson's and Parkinson's is increasing at extraordinarily rapid rates. And anything we can do to try and reduce that? I mean, we heard this morning, it's possible to grow strawberries without using any pesticides. So transition is possible. For the apple orchards, it's gonna be more challenging. But for strawberries, there are alternatives. And I'm not trying to talk you into becoming organic.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: No, no. I won't go over that. No, it's not.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: My question was about the transition time.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: So so, Miss Doyle, she's running two acres, right?

[Misty Sinsigale, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation]: Yeah.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: She's probably getting minimal yield. She's she's only planting in pints. So it's it's she's getting minimal yields out of her field. So that's that is the lack of using fungicides and the lack of using these chemicals on our farm. She's getting very minimal yields of having to put in just as much energy and just as much time in these plants.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: So so how long will it take you to transition if if we continue to have a phase out plan as what we pass, how long would how long would you need to transition?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Yeah. Like, years. Yeah. It's it's it's I I haven't I I'm not like I I hear the whispers, and, you know, they're coming.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Yeah.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: You know, there's, As I said, there's probably only five conventional farms in the state. You subtract apples and you do fruit and vegetable farms. There's probably only five of us in the state. You. I know you have time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I want to make sure that everybody has a chance to get a question. If it can be a question that will help the committee with its thinking, we can say a committee discussion. Who was next?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I I got it. Pretty Syngenta is pulling out. They're pulling their license. You're you're aware of that. Gramoxone will not be available after December 31 year. Do you suppose that any of the other I hear there's, like, 20 in the nation, 25, 27 different purveyors of bear crop. I'm not familiar with them. Anyone gonna keep up the the extra training you need? Yeah. Because use and do you and and I'm asking just your opinion. The the EPA has ordered drift study to be done. Do you feel any of these other companies will yeah. It's expensive to do those studies. We know. Do you foresee ParaFlok staying on the market for a long period of time, or do you think it's gonna be one of the ones that they fall back?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: I think it's gonna be I I I wouldn't be surprised if they're working just as fast to create a replacement. Mhmm. And I think it's gonna be kind of a you know, I will see as the conferences say in the next five years I'm sure, just like with all, you know, all our chemistry changed

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: in the last ten years.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Things are getting resistant a lot faster than they used to be, and the chemical companies are working just as fast to replace those. I'm sure with more, the more legislative pressure comes with these chemicals, I'm sure they're going to have to find something new or find an alternative. But it's just, I guess my last thing I would say is just if the state of Vermont decides to go further on this, I mean, we should also think about that any strawberry coming into our grocery stores that is not in Vermont will most likely have been used parafauna or in the so so just it's not it's just hurting Vermont or it's just hurting Vermont farmers is all this bill is doing. Fair. Fair. Thank you. That's my competition is is Texas and California and Florida. Representative Burtt.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. If Innovation Board is unable to find a viable alternative that's comparable economically for your farm? What kind of position is that going be?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Yeah, just like all we've done for farmers have done for generations, we just adapt and move forward, switch products or switch practices and move forward, right? There's too much at stake right now to We'll see how everything goes in the future. But yeah, we'll adapt. Adapt and overcome. It's kind have to be otherwise. I thank you guys so much for inviting me over here. I really appreciate it. Sorry, I've taken more of my time, your time when it needed.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: More question. Yes,

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Yes, we're milking 25.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What's your mom's name?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Kim Gray.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Exactly. Vermont, Jersey.

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Hartdale goes out, we'll be the last dairy farm in Newbury, Vermont.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Are you related to Mollie?

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: Yes, my sister is.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Oh, okay. All right. I didn't know the rest of the family.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Really appreciate you coming in. And as somebody mentioned earlier in the testimony that we took earlier in the session, didn't hear about berries or if we did, it somehow went through in one ear

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: and out the other. Thank you. Yes, thank you guys. Thank you for doing your job so I can do mine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Steve, are you still with us?

[Eugenie Doyle, Co-owner, Last Resort Farm (Monkton)]: Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Hi. Thank

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: you for inviting me to talk.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Are you pressed for time?

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah. Unfortunately, I have a personal commitment. I really have to leave at noon or I will be in trouble.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, that's Oh, dear. Okay. Well, no, we will certainly won't keep any longer than that. And Doctor. Breyer, thank you also.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: Hello, everyone. Pam Breyer, I'm here as backup for Steven.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we, I think, asked you to, or maybe you asked us to come in, and this is not about strawberries or herbicides, but about the amendment that we've been looking at for fluorinated containers. And I know you were in a couple weeks ago and provided some testimony. We have made some changes to the language. I'd love to get a chance to look at that. But we're happy to hear your thoughts and let you decide who's going to speak.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah, I'll start off and Doctor. Breyer here has a lot of information on this topic also. The way, what I understand that you're proposing is to include pesticide containers in the prohibition on the use of fluorinated containers in 2032,

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: effective in 2032.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Frankly, we have some concerns about that language and the possible implications of it and the rationale for doing it, which, you know, we previously tested and Pam previously testified to the fact that PFAS materials in pesticides are prohibited by EPA. They're considered a contaminant. And if they're present, then the pesticide registrant has to take action to remove them or prevent them from being in there. In some sense, the back up a minute, it seems like the whole issue of the fluorine containers is that they could result in PFAS being present in the pesticide. I think that's the rationale for it and for what I understand, and we certainly can look into it more and we probably need to look into it more and get more information about it. It's not automatic that if you use the fluorine container, you're going to get PFAS in whatever you've got in the container. So to some extent, it's sort of over broad to just prohibit the use of fluorine containers without understanding what is actually happening with the materials that are in the containers and then having a broad stroke like that. And then there are issues that follow on from that one being that, the potential exists depending on how this thing is implemented, that there will be impacts or unintended consequences on the availability of products in the state in the future, the materials just won't be available. Vermont's a small market. The chances of us, our market size having an impact on practices for companies nationally, you know, it seems problematic. And it just seems like this is a big, a bigger issue. It's complicated and we need more information and adding it at this time, it just causes us some concern. Pam, you want

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: to, anything you want to add to that?

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: Just to reiterate the point that we need to take action if there's PFAS and pesticide fluid. And so the argument here is that this doesn't add anything to that, but there's potential consequences. And there's a lot of unknowns currently. So yesterday I did a quick literature review to make sure I wasn't missing anything in the field. And I had mentioned that there were industry papers showing that, and this kind of recapitulates what Stephen just said, you can, in some scenarios, the manufacturer can fluorinate a container and you can test that and you don't get PFAS in the fluid that it's holding. There is really well documented evidence in other scenarios where you do get PFAS in that fluid. And what we don't know is like the details in the middle on when it's most likely and when it's not. And there's really, so I kind of confirmed again yesterday that there's really no strong consistent evidence that there's a pattern that we could say these pesticide containers are likely to be fluorinated or these ones were likely to contribute PFAS. Like there's just no knowledge there. But I think that EPA has approved one test method for PFAS in pesticides with an oily constitution. And with that method, people can start testing this in a rigorous kind of way.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson. Yeah. Thank you.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Do we know which containers contain PFAS or or don't? Do all HDPE containers contain PFAS?

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: The short answer that'd be no. But it's really not whether the container contains PFAS, question is do fluorinated containers result in one or more types of PFAS showing up in whatever happens to be in the container. And, like Pam just said, there's evidence it does for some materials and evidence it doesn't for other materials. The other complicating factor here is the issue of the fluorinated container itself. That it's apparently, and again, it's something we just haven't spent a lot of time looking at. It's a complicated technical process and there's different levels of fluorination. There are different ways to do it. The one company that we have learned a little bit about called enhanced technologies, which is one of the, apparently one of the larger manufacturers of fluorinated containers. And it has a lot of technology that they use for a lot of different products, not just pesticides, but they do do pesticides. They have published information saying that they are working on ways to reduce the chances for PFAS forming in their fluorinated containers. They've got different types of technology for fluorinated containers. It's not a simple one type process. It's a complicated issue is all I'm trying to say. And if you're considering doing this, it would probably be useful to have some testimony from the folks who are producing the Florida containers to understand how they're making it and what changes they're making in them. To learn more about the process so that we don't end up having a situation where we have a law that we have to comply with. And we have to enforce that is not necessarily needed to accomplish what we want to accomplish, which is to remove PFAS. We don't want PFAS and pesticides. That's already something that the federal government is responsible for. So adding this condition for registration in Vermont, just there's just so many questions. It's hard to envision how it'll actually play out when it goes into effect. The other thing is, how do you know a container is fluorinated or not? Have to, the other states that are looking at there are Minnesota and Maine, and they're looking at requiring affidavits from manufacturers and they're running into issues of confidential business information and potential lawsuits from folks who want that confidential information and from folks who want to protect that confidential information. I actually had an opportunity to talk to my counterpart in Maine yesterday, and it's a headache for them. They're not quite sure how they're going to handle this at this point. So the question is, how do we know the containers coordinated or not? You know, that becomes an issue because the companies that are producing it are claiming that it's confidential business information.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Steve, to the point you made at the start, think that the EPA already prohibits PFAS in pesticides, and noting that that's using the definition of PFAS that the EPA has chosen to use, which is a narrower definition than Vermont has used in the bill that we passed last year for fluorinated containers. But in any case, guess my question is whether if there were some sort of chemical interaction between the pesticide and the chlorine in the container that resulted in PFAS being formed. Would the EPA know that? Is that what the EPA is preventing or doesn't allow using its definition of PFAS?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Or is it

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: only looking at what goes in rather than what comes out?

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: There was one case where a PFAS, and I'm not sure which one it was, Pam may know which one it was, was found in a mosquito control product and EPA verified it. EPA required the company to change their practices so that it was no longer in the product. That was, I can't remember that was, was it a malathion product? Pam, I can't remember.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: I know the brand name was anvil ten ten.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah. Yeah. So anyway, it was a, it was a mosquito control volume. They did, did document the Phosphate. They required corrective action. There's a process that EPA has for reporting adverse incidents. It's called the six eighty two process, 54,682. And if a company became aware that there was PFAS in their product, they would have to report that to EPA and then EPA would take action.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So in that case, I think if I understand correctly, the answer is yes, EPA is looking at comes out of the container.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: As was after being stored in the packaging. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I think, Tim, you did mention that case or that one instance when you were defining. Yep.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: And also, I should mention that there was a paper that was published a year or two ago that claimed to have PFAS in a whole range of products. EPA was not able to verify it. And then the paper, the author asked that the paper be withdrawn.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There any questions?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, Chad. So, it seems like if we went forward with this, it's that whole issue of chlorinated containers with pesticides. This is really only dealing with those fluorinated containers that certified applicators are using because we're already doing a phase out to a band on consumer products that would include essentially the things you can buy in a hardware store that are considered pesticides. Is that right? That's my understanding. Yeah. So, I just wonder besides the potential issues of leaching in those also compared to say, Rep. Nelson being a certified applicator or Rep. Burke having much stricter controls on what happens with that packaging once they use it. We're talking consumers here who are potentially just throwing these things out and they're ending up in a landfill somewhere. Is there danger in that the disposal is much more unregulated, I guess I could say, than what would happen with this specific legislation dealing with certified applicators.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah, I'm not sure I can answer that question. I can say that there is a process, a separate process for recycling agricultural pesticide containers that's been in place for twenty some odd years and Vermont participates in it and there are several tons of rinsed pesticide containers get taken out of the state every year and sent off for a special recycling process to result in non consumer end products like pallets and construction materials. So that does happen with those containers anyway, but the whole issue of fluorinated containers is not just, there are lots of products that come in fluorinated containers. There's reasons that containers are fluorinated to preserve the product, prevent leaking, different kinds of packaging. And it's just, again, it's a complicated issue, which has a lot of potential unintended consequences and the states that are wrestling with it right now are having a fair amount of problems with it.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I guess my question is what happens to the PFAS in a deep container when it's thrown out and ends up in a landfill? Does it eventually leach into water?

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Okay. The disposal process? So if PFAS formed in the material that was stored in the container, it's not that the container has PFAS in it, whatever happens to be in it, PFAS forms and some amount of it stays in the container, then whatever the environmental fate is of that PFAS would be what happens. And what, you know, whatever happens in the landfill, if it's properly managed, you know, there are going to be a lot of materials in that landfill that could potentially contain PFAS residues.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: I think that it's an interesting question with the consumer products, and I've been trying to figure out what pesticides we consider consumer products, right, because I think the deep container is an interesting one. Another one that came to mind just to think about, and it kind of plays on what Steven just said, is we have registered bleach products and there are also bleach products for whitening and cleaning that are not registered pesticides. So they're probably in the same fluorinated container. One has a label that makes it a registered pesticide. One has a label that makes it a consumer product. And it it's that overlap, right? Like there and I I don't wanna say like there are a lot of consumer products that meet this, but and then what are the other pesticide products? A lot of the ones that we would allow for consumer use are not necessarily in HDPE. They're they're, like, in paper bags or they're in, like aerosol cans. So I think it's actually a really interesting question because we feel like there's in agricultural HDPE waste a pathway for that recycling to be contained. But I haven't sat down to think about all the different consumer products that would fit in the pesticide category.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah. One other thing I'd like to mention quickly too, is I'm aware that, don't know if the committee has heard from Matt Chapman, who's, I'm not like, don't use the exact title, but he handles or manages the solid waste program over at DEC.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We did hear from Matt, yeah.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Okay, okay. Well, he just let me know yesterday that there is language he's proposing regarding unavoidable use in another committee. So there's that complicating factor too, different language. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: He? Matt Chapman, was one of the first witnesses we had. He's with ANR, with DEC, and talked with guilt with drinking water and wastewater. Thank you for mentioning that, Steve, and I gather you're aware that the language we're now looking at also has the unavoidable use of language. And we heard testimony earlier in the week that the version of that bill that we passed last year in the house, I'd forgotten this, originally included that unavoidable use language for consumer products.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah. I haven't been following that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Let's we got a couple more questions, representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. A couple questions. So when I think pesticides and the the whole realm of economic poisons, and it's not just herbicides, but deep was off net little plastic spritzer thing. You know, that could be could be. We don't well, it's not supposed to be. It's not supposed to be leaching into the product. Gas cans. Of course, they're not cans anymore. They're gas jugs. The red jugs, yellow jugs for kerosene, blue jugs for water. Or Would those be fluorinated? Do we know or any guess? Idea.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: What's oh, did you ask me?

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Well, yeah. I I I don't know. You might be aware. Yeah.

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: They were specifically obvious in some of the lawsuit paperwork for when EPA was trying to pursue against Enhance. So we know gas cans, oil can like any oil container for either human consumption or motor oil fluids. I don't have the full list of what is fluorinated and what's not fluorinated in here. Apologize.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Yeah. And that particular company, Enhance, may be worth talking to and get testimony from, find out what the universal products is and what their processes are.

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

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Chairman, I'm gonna ask you the question. My question has to do with consumer. Okay. That's the question. You can ask. Alright. This has to do with human health, and when I was brushing my teeth at 05:45 this morning, just occurred to me how slippery that paste came out of the tube. Is there any chance that toothpaste tubes are fluorinated so that that product at the end of the day will be empty? And that obviously goes into, at least into your mouth and gets rubbed around your

[Dr. Pam Breyer (PFAS/pesticide expert)]: There's, as part of the consumer products ban, one of the things that we, I suggested was added was dental floss. So it's not toothpaste tubes, but it's adjacent. And if it's frictionless in your life, it's probably fluorinated basically. And so there's like hernia meshes, pacemaker parts, like there's a lot of internal medical devices that have a PFAS structure to them. So I don't know is the right answer. I don't know if the toothpaste tube is fluorinated, but it could be.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Unless you need to make a window screen for that.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I got a pair of matches and things.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. Think we can can wrap it up there then. Thank you for coming back, both of you.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: And thank you for the opportunity. I apologize for not being able to spend more time or to be there in person.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, no. Not at all.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Both. Thank you. You. Big help.

[Steven (AAFM Pesticide Program)]: Alright. Thank thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we will so let's stay online here just for the time we have between now and twelve. I think there are at least three outstanding issues on 03/23. One is this question, and we can have a quick discussion on that. One is the CAFO stakeholder study language after hearing the testimony there. And then there is the seed language, which we looked at. There was a question about possibly adding some other language back in there, and we don't have the time now to look at that. So we won't be taking a vote just to cut to the chase here by 04:12 o'clock. I think if the floor goes past four, again, we probably won't meet, but let's see where we are.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: It's EM predicts four point five hours.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and sometimes she's wrong, but usually she breaks.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yesterday it was two and a half, she predicted, so if we use that multiplier, we're gonna be here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So anyway, those are the three things, John.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: No, just a comment on PFAS. Don't know if anybody heard the report this morning that in Northwest Georgia, due to, I guess, rug making factories, their water is contaminated with PFAS. That's just interesting how so many industries, you know, look for your

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And I go back to Doctor. Breyer's comments that there are so many heavier lifts and, you know, upholstery, rugs, Teflon. And and I can appreciate where the chair is coming from that's coming from where he's from down in Bennington County and and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the issues. Yeah. The original problem in Bennington was making, like, the roof for the Astrodome or one of those.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Yeah. I have a request from Kate McCann and her husband to sort of hold the committee and get a sense. Like, I know for me, if the session goes four point five hours, that's going to put us at 05:30. And for me, that's too late to go over there. I have another plan that's following right after that. So I can't do it if if we go that long

[Charles Gray, 4 Corners Farm (South Newbury)]: to field trip.

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

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: So I was so the question I actually posed to her was, what about if we came tomorrow? Because we're actually not scheduled in the afternoon at all. So I don't know how you guys feel, but like for me, I'm driving. Tomorrow you are? Okay. So tomorrow okay. So it might just be that I won't go today.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No. Yeah. Do next Today is probably gonna be a challenge, but maybe next week.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Next week. Yeah. For me

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: Yeah. Alright. Just I tell her

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: we don't want to do it today or or do you want to hold that? Because honestly, to me, it sounds not very likely.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Unfortunately, it goes next week.

[Unidentified committee member (female, possibly Rep. Heather Surprenant)]: Yes. Does anybody anybody have huge con I mean, should I just say next week or should we have it dated next week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's get back to the PFAS question. Okay, sorry. No, that's right. That's important too.

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: For me, Chair, I'm looking at I feel like I need to make a chart for myself, whether it is on paper or in my mind, of direct consequences, potential or unintended consequences, and then kind of divide that up between what we know could come out of this and what we don't know. So I feel like I'm going to create that for myself, but I feel like that's an important part of this question that we have in front of us. I feel like there are some things we can know that come of of a complete ban, and there are things that we don't know. We have to weigh that

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: obviously. For me on chlorinated containers, I I think there's too much we don't know yet, And perhaps this is something to start in January and get a good dig into it and have enhanced technologies come in and talk to us. I've heard that my containers do have it. My containers don't have it. And, of course, the unintended you know, the the the provision is great, but I I think if we're looking at it going out to 2032 anyways, there's no sense to rush it today. There's there's time. There's time. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Benjamin, think your head.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I agree with that. Was late May's start messing with you. We got that much time. Get Bob's testimony on the back end now that maybe we should have got on the front, Amy.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I've heard that too. Okay. Let's just

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I what Steve mentioned about he would recommend some of these packaging producers. He should get some of them in to testify. Yeah. Which the notion of this is clearly important and it's so discouraging that there's nothing that isn't attacking our health. I think doing a really complete word like everything we've tackled here, David, here as I've been with you, you really get a full spectrum of testimony, and this deserves that open depth of

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That seems like an important missing piece of psychic jobs. Anybody have any other thoughts? Is there a parental or or?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Didn't we hear that PFAS, was it PFAS or something else, was both an active ingredient in pesticides and inert ingredient in pesticides. It's also in the containers. So all those three, because it was leaching.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That it may depend on the definition of PFAS.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Right, okay. And where to use, so potentially strawberries in Mexico could have Well, there's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that too. But the EPA uses a definition that is more limited. Conservatively more limited than the EU's definition, and Vermont's definition. Vermont's definition in what we have is the EU's as opposed to this.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, it'd be interesting just going forward, right, what we've talked about is you were looking at that list of, or maybe it was from Doctor. Breyer of where we're exposed to PFAS.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, I think that's a good point, yep. She showed us the chart that Yeah. And it pointed out, I think, that the rug factory. Right. That is unified. Yeah, the Cortex factory, the roofing Right.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Like Bartholomew, on our lives, if it may be out of our jurisdiction for this committee to begin with, mean, we're sort of dealing with what's here culturally, but I have no idea.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And the other things like toothpaste that we're in dental floss that we put directly in our mouths.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And don't ever say it goes to Casella somewhere. You know damn well where it goes. Right across from my house. Let

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: me just see what they're Richard's small backyard. Okay. So I'm sensing that we're maybe we are not coalescing around including that and pardon the amendment. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay. But don't throw it away. I plan on being here next year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And the senate may be doing something as we heard, so we'll not worry about that. The CAFO stakeholder language. Anybody, so let let me throw the question this way. We have language, we looked at it quickly today. Does anyone have concerns about the language or what's proposed there? The yeah. I'm We had a date question at 12/01/2026. Yeah. We could push that forward. Yeah. We could push that forward. Back into 2027. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Push it forward to February or March 1. Yeah. And and that may give us time to assure them we have some funding. I think March 1 makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. And on a request they had for personnel to to be part of the process.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Committee discussion here.

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I I I Yeah. Yourself. When we had the stakeholder group and someone would bring up a criticism of one agency or the other, all of a sudden, conversation was justifying their existence and counter justifying their existence, and conversation stopped. We're of mine with the stakeholders that we go into these meetings and have frank discussion both sides on both agencies without losing the conversation to justifying their existences. So that that's kind of the way we are. We want them there to hear. We want them there to ask to answer questions. And and this could we could we could change. We could decide as stakeholders so that we want more involvement for them. But for now, I think the stakeholders wanna drive the conversation, and I believe that's how I believe that's how it happens in New York. I'm not sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. Anybody have a different perspective?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So I have a

[Unidentified committee member (primary mapping)]: different perspective, clarifying question. So I don't have enough input to give on this situation. You have most of the information, Richard, but are you saying that we won't keep that link to the third party?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: What's that? Yes. Yes. Oh, yeah. The third party's gonna stay. It's gonna stay whether it starts now or later, it's gotta stay. That that's a definite a 100% unanimous of all the stakeholders.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think the agency or we heard from the commissioner that were all daters at it. It's just a question of how would it be paid for. So I think we've got a good, a reasonably good solution in the language now. John?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What Richard mentioned earlier, I don't know of too many farmers, mid sized, large, to have any trust in what's come from that agency. I would keep the third party, try to, so they can build a different attitude, both sides. With my own experience, I was never too excited about this whole thing.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Richard, do you recommend keeping the 300,000 placeholder number, or is there a way to wordsmith it to have dollars support this?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I think 300,000 is a lot of money.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It sounds like I

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: think it could be half that and maybe a third of the 300,000.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But if you know?

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: What do they do if they don't use the money? All of it. You know? Does does that is that part of what the BAA is? No.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If they don't use it, it can roll over, it gets a little complicated in the budgeting process, but I can tell you what happens in the school board. Yeah, well that's also complicated. I'd say maybe we stick with that number. I don't think it matters all that much. Right, appropriations is gone. So, and we

[Rep. Richard "Dick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: have the other clarifying language below it, and changing the date to March 1. At ten.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, we should break, we are on the floor at one, and just a little pitch for being there on time if you want to hear the State of Singers.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Oh, we do. Yeah. Our

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: latest whatever it is that we're doing.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Oh, we get at least on.