Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're live. You wait for the script, there we go. Okay. Good morning, Senate Agriculture back in action. We're gonna spend some time with a CAFO stakeholder group. I'm gonna just kind of tee this up a little bit, and then you guys can all tell me where I'm right or wrong, which I'm fine with. I just want to make sure that we get out of this meeting what is important to you folks because you are who we work for. So I think we've

[Keith Sprague]: done a lot of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: work with CAFO. I think we've passed some legislation last year that was helpful. I hope it was. Then we had the stakeholders group and I followed a lot of those meetings. I didn't attend any, but I followed them. And I thought we were making fairly good progress. But from what I'm hearing and understanding that the what was discussed at those meetings doesn't seem to be making the final report. I think it's very important that if we are making a law or laws about farming, that the people that are doing the farming ought to be able to be heard and understood and that a big part of what we agreed to in the stakeholders report should reflect that. With that, feel free to tear any of that apart, add to it. Who wants to lead off? Amanda? Amanda, the floor is yours.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Thank you. Appreciate that. I want to thank the committee for having us in today. And I'll just do the formal introduction. I think I've met most of you and appreciate your service for the dairy community and ag community in hold. But my name is Amanda St Pierre, and I am currently farming with my husband and my two sons, Bradley and Jamie in Berkshire. I currently serve as co executive director for the Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance. Our share is Kevin Curry and our co executive is Shannon Hill, who's testified before you guys, I think numerous times. So I'm here today though with the farmer watershed groups and Vermont Dairy Producer Alliance, which is part of a farmer coalition formed as we participated in the CAFO stakeholder group that your committee requested and we appreciated last year. There is going to be a formal report as Chair Ingalls has stated and it's currently under draft and we have been adding input and working through that process. The final report is yet to be submitted, but we have been trying to put in our thoughts as what that should look like. But we are here today to talk about that a little bit and our overall experience, I think, through the stakeholder process and what we learned. You will be getting the formal report soon, I believe. So the question is why are we here today maybe before that report is issued. And we are here to present our own findings and requests that you may not see in that final report. There are many perspectives in SLANT that will be reported. As a coalition, we have shared a letter with you all. You should have that. That was distributed to the stakeholder group and it will be included as amendment at the end of the final report that you receive. Our goal today as a farmers that are most affected more than any other entity is to give you a clear insight into what has been happening, what we feel the state CAFO permit should cover, and how we may best move forward in the future regarding managing our current permits, non discharge, which is with the agency of ag, and the CAFO discharge permit which will be with the agency of natural resources. For some perspective, I want to say that the farmers we represent today began our work on water quality in earnest many many years ago long before this recent task of developing a discharge permit. The Franklin Grand Isle Watershed Alliance, which I am a member of, was developed over twenty years ago and since then there have been water quality groups, watershed groups that have formed by farmers taking lead all over our state and they are here today. Investments of millions of dollars in water quality have been financed in part by our tax payers through grants and federal funds, but the work in the primary payments have been done privately through farmer money and our own personal hard work. What we have done to date should impress you. The results have been proven with the implementation of the required ag practices. The work around the REPs was collaborative and our farmers, watershed groups, UVM Extension representatives, and the Agency of Ag all work together and the key work is collaborative. I'm going to just pause and if you hear background noise, I'm sorry I'm at the sugar house. So if if you can't hear me just let me know. I did

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: not, Well, it was

[Amanda St. Pierre]: my sons are. I'm their cheerleader right now, but anyway, despite the historical perspective and the record of continued improvement, we find ourselves at crossroads with conflicting perspectives. Currently, we are out of compliance, and I use that with quotes, without a prescribed federal CAFO discharge permit. There are many opinions on how we got here and you're going to hear some today, but I want you to understand that farmers are fully and actively participating and willing to do the work required. And that's important to note, but we need help setting a fair timeline, achieve financial aid, and guiding the agency to follow what other states have done to be in compliance with EPA. Farmers agree that there needs to be a discharge permit created under Agency of Natural Resources, which needs to meet the federal Clean Water Act requirements and satisfies Region one EPA. This permit needs to meet those requirements but should not exceed those requirements. The Required Ag Practices or RAPs are the most stringent of regulations as any of the states we heard from. Dairy states including Wisconsin, Colorado, New York, and Maine. This already puts us at an economic disadvantage over a dollar per hundredweight of our pay price in milk is going towards meeting those standards. So if we're getting paid $18 a hundredweight, a dollar goes towards water quality practices and infrastructure, that leaves us with $17 a hundredweight to run our dairies. I would like to point out that our farmers were the only ones included in the stakeholder group without legal representation. The petitioners are all attorneys by their own admission and both agencies have legal counsel. So you're wondering why is the lack of legal counsel important? Legal counsel would have been able to interpret the insertions of legal requirements in state and federal law similar to your legal counsel that you have that comes into your committee, Michael Grady. It would have helped us ensure the language choices that will be used to trigger a CAFO discharge permit, assist in developing due process for appeals and inspections, and create pathways for farmers to recognize areas of concern prior to becoming a violation and define ways of funding what those requirements of new infrastructure would be. In New York and in Wisconsin as the dairy industry they use their own legal counsel to participate in the development of any new regulations or agencies oversight. We were able to get legal counsel after the stakeholder process had concluded and we will be working with them moving forward. However, this late response that we were able to get, we were advised the following and I think it's really important that your committee understands this. The Clean Water Act is under revision currently and it's open for public comments. It has not been made final. So this Clean Water Act that we are trying to create a permit for has not been finalized. Since that's the case, is it the best use of the legislature and taxpayers money to create a permit that the very nature must meet those standards, but we don't know what those standards are yet. It seems there is a lot of pressure to rush into rulemaking this summer prior to this federal process being completed. We feel that the state CAFO discharge permit should not reach beyond those EPA that EPA sets. With the timing of this revision and the delay of the process, we question and our legal counsel questions whether we can do that before we know what those standards even are. It is imperative that our state CAFO discharge permit is in line with the federal Clean Water Act. In closing, as you have a lot of folks here to testify, I want to personally thank you for always welcoming us into your committee and for your time and attention. We are the farmers whose industry depends on wise and thoughtful regulations that will meet this federal requirement. That is why we are here in the first place. We did learn a lot from the stakeholder process and we would like to take that knowledge and use it to develop a workable, ineffective, and sustainable CAFO permit for Vermont. Thank you for your time and I'm going to yield it to my counterparts that are here to testify.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well I just got a couple of questions if that's okay.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Yes.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Who's driving the rush to finish the permit? That could be the legislature as well under a timeline. If that's the case, well then we are the legislature so we can hopefully make adjustments to that. But who's making the push to get this decision in before the EPA makes their final adjustments? Or are they not, they're just not aware of it? Describe that process a little bit more for us.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: In my understanding, and I'm in no way a legal expert, but in my understanding that this process started prior to the change in the administration and it's been pending. Prior to that there was a lot of like back and forth and this needs to happen which got elevated to you guys and the petitioners making some kind of a sue. I don't know if it was a full lawsuit or a claim to EPA that put pressure to get this done, but that was all prior to the change in administration. And at that point there wasn't a reopening of the Clean Water Act. But since that happened, because you know time continues, nothing stands still. And so since this was all in progress, we've had a change in administration and they reopened the Clean Water Act and it is open to public comments. So that to me should change the process of what we're trying to do. We have come a long way, we've had a lot of conversations, we learned a lot of information, But if we're in the process of writing something, I think the Agency of Natural Resources might need a new timeline from the legislature that they could potentially work towards writing individual permits if necessary and wait for the finalizing of this Clean Water Act to do any formal group permitting. There's just a lot of, in my opinion, still questions to be had that are very very significant. One is what are they going to use to trigger a CAFO permit? There's a lot of discussion. You'll hear about that today. So to answer your question, I really think it's a timing issue that this got started, change in administration on a federal level. And now we're at a point where we need to reflect as our state government, what is the best use of taxpayer money to get the best type of program created?

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Thank you, mister chair. Amanda, good to see you. There's three people that have your actresses and actors now. I've seen you in the videos with the Monument Farms. And you you did some great work, Walter and Brian and Amanda. And I I look forward to, the next one. It's like a series of really, really well done videos.

[Walt Gladstone]: So Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Congratulations. I guess I'm confused. We've got a letter from the Department of Environmental Environmental Conservation that indicates the report is not due until 2036. I do not know if that is a typo or if it is supposed to be at the end of this month, which I assume based on the nods I'm getting, this must just be an error. But the last line in that says, only '36, and I'm thinking, well, what's the rush then?

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Well, yeah. That

[Brian Kemp]: that was all over

[Walt Gladstone]: the phone.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Okay. Anyway, the other day, I think it was last week, we had Brian Redmond in from DEC. If I'm mischaracterizing what he relayed to us, then I'll stand corrected. He seemed to indicate that there was a group from DEC and a group from stakeholders here that were really having a lot of fun working together and everything was

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: great. Am I remembering that correctly? I think you are.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And that's

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: why So, again, I'm puzzled here. And that's why we have folks in because we wanna have both sides.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Yeah. Yeah. I think I'm not gonna I I mean, I do think like first of all, I'm sitting here today with farmers that worked with the petitioners. Now imagine that, okay, we are working through some agreements with the petitioners. We are willing to sit at the table and work through some really tough issues, right? So there was a lot of like, I think big steps taken and we had a lot of great conversations. Honestly the best conversations, and I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but the facilitator asked the agencies to step outside the room and the petitioners weren't there and it was just the farmers and we had some great collaborative discussions and none of it was we don't want this permit to happen. We're not willing to do the work. I think that's why we're here. Honestly because we felt like we don't want other people speaking for us. It's really important that you hear from us directly and we're not trying to, I don't think we're trying to say anything that's untrue or it's from our perspective and I think we have a valid perspective. But I would like to, yeah, I just I think that's the answer for you, but I think you're going to hear more from everybody else today and that should clear some of that up.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Senator Heffernan has got a question and we are gonna jump to some other folks.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah, thanks, Amanda. And this is for anybody in the room. My concern when we started talking about CAFO is that Vermont wanted to add Vermont's additional water quality standards to the CAFO. And am I hearing that we, as farmers, you're believing it's getting more restrictive than what we're seeing in other states?

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Yes, that's our concern. It's one of our main concerns. We want to be held to the same standards as other dairy industries in other states where as valid and as important. We've already stepped up and gone above and beyond with the required ag practices, which will be 95% of all farms in the state will be under those. And really the CAEPOS should be only on farms that in our opinion have a direct discharge that need time to correct their issue when they would follow into this permit. It's not a way of permitting all dairies. And you know, I think just our work under the required ag practices is so far beyond the states, I don't think there needs to be overreaching in this permit.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Thank you for your information.

[Walt Gladstone]: Yeah, I'll I'm speak sorry. I'm Walt Gladstone. I'm gonna speak to that in my testimony. Walt

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: are you ready to test? Yep. Are you next? We'll have you in the chair. Thank you. Thanks

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Walt.

[Walt Gladstone]: So I'm Walt Gladstone. I farm in Bradford, Vermont with my wife and my two sons, and we landed there. You guys know our story probably from past testimony, so I'm not going talk much to it. Currently, we're milking 2,600 cows. I think it's important I want to share with you. I'm 64 years old, and a third of my lawyer. I was on a farm with my dad milking 34 cows. So I'm here also on behalf of the Connecticut River Watershed Alliance representing the farm's lost in the River Valley. So I'm going to speak a little bit to the process, that's why we're here. I always find it a little chuckle at times. Come here, every one of us, with a different perspective, a different background, a different place how we were growing up. I feel like that's kind of like what happened. And I'm so grateful for the fact that we did have the stakeholders group and we did have all these different perspectives coming from different points of view. And I actually, I brought a pair of sunglasses that I bought my wife a few years ago. And there's the ones that, you know, if you look at them, it's always yellow, it's always bright, it always looks it really looks that point of view. In our meetings, and we had good conversation and dialogue, but as it's already been mentioned,

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: the

[Walt Gladstone]: agencies came from, I think these sunglasses represent my thought. And I don't mean to say it sarcastically, negatively, but you get so close to something and you're so passionate about it that they were defending their point of view. And sometimes it looked like, Holy moly.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So let me ask you a question. I'm sorry to interrupt you. Is what I want to get to. Yeah. The final report. Are you being engaged in the final report as far as to how to get there? Are you guys I I know you have the stakeholder group and all that, but are you getting your input into this final report?

[Walt Gladstone]: I don't know what that chapter, I can't tell you that I can fully answer that, but I'm gonna go beyond that and just speak to the that of the things in the report that is there, but I felt like there's been pull back to this, is it was our recommendation to have a third party. And it goes back to your question, why do we want to have a third party? It's not that all of the guys in this room behind me, we're gonna go cherry pick this third party that'll be lenient and be easy on the farmers. The fact of the matter is the world is so small right now, guys, that we can go across New York State to our fellow farmers and the other guys around New England. In New York State, they have a, what I would call a very rigorous program. It's been in place for a long time. The fact of the matter is we have time, we need time to catch up. Because what was happening is you had these two agencies that were doing their job and were here because we have to have this HAPO program at a discharge, okay? That's one of the problems in front of us right now. None of us in this room is saying, If there is a discharge that's going into the waters of Vermont, this needs to be addressed. And every one of us want that addressed as soon as you guys do. And the consumers, the question is, we don't even know for a fact what a discharge has been defined as. So when you say like this, it's kind of like fog, I don't understand it. And oftentimes, I almost wonder like you try to get in someone's head and try to understand what are they thinking. I don't know what they dare tell us. Like, because one of the retributions. And so we all know that you have a discharge program. Then they're setting that, standing that up. We totally support that. The question is, who is going to handle the non discharge program? And based on the communication, and I say this in no disrespect, I say it from the standpoint, everyone came from their point of view and we're all going to try to make it better. As far as our offense, right now we're at a reset button. Let's push the reset button, let's stand back, and let's figure out how we can make this better. You guys have really been a big part of allowing us farmers to be part of that. If my dad were alive today, he'd go, I'm proud of what you guys are doing, because I think the farmers are being the ones that really have stepped up to say, hey, listen, you guys can't figure this out. Let's go over here. Let's listen to what New York State potentially does or this Jennifer from the federal program. Let's put something in place that I wanted to say three things that are probably from the beginning. The three words that I want you to remember for me are clarity, time and money. And that clarity guard is we need to know what's expected of us. So one of the things is we have these different So I want you gentlemen to understand this term. We talk about standards and practices. I might be out doing the way my farting is, but someone may come along and say, Your practice is not up the snowfall. You are not meeting this certain level of compliance. Well, someone has lifted the gate. I've used the parallelism I was thinking to make so you can understand. It's like building a fence. I'm not a great fence builder. But are we gonna have three stands or are we gonna have six strands? How far apart is it gonna be? How tight is it gonna be? And then next thing you know, someone behind us says, Oh, no, it's gotta be eight strands because the deer are gonna jump over. So someone decides, Oh, at this point in time, we need to take a different angle to this and who's to pay for that? Every time we lift the bar, who's gonna pay for that and how are we gonna do this? So my two points that I wanted you gentlemen to fully understand was, go to the party so we can all kind of get clarity to, we're all looking in the same direction. The other part is the stakeholders' room. Because it's funny how those people are like, Well, once we get there. Well, this is not a get there. This is a moment in time and it will change. And we need to continue to evolve as the world changes. This stakeholder group is critical. And I think it's very important for you gentlemen to have us part of this. Last thing I'll say to you, which is very frustrating from my perspective is this is all about mitigating risk. We're talking about clean water. But sometimes, are we gonna set the fence or we're live in an incubator? We sent guys to the moon the other day. They went around the backside for a period of time. We had no communication with those people. That was risk. And sometimes the risk that someone's deciding that we need to corral on our farms, it's gonna cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And you've been to my farm, different people have been to my farm. And it's like, this is really a problem. I appreciate the fact that we're here to be part of the solution.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, I'm gonna say, and we're gonna have Brian Collamore for a sec. I will say this, the hardest part ever in my history of dealing with farmers, it's been a long time, I've dealt with farmers my whole life, and I'm very proud that I have, is that we could never get to this point. We could never get farmers in the same room. If you had 15 farmers in the room, you had 20 different opinions. Jesus. I think that we're past that. I think that we're at a point now to where farmers are coming, and they're showing up. We had a farmer, maybe that farmer's in this room today, I can't remember, it's been thirty years since I've been in this building, and I found out that I should have been here a lot more often than that, and I think that is the most important thing that we can say at this point in time.

[Walt Gladstone]: Thank you. So one last point- Yes, sir. Know, it's interesting too. It's about farms, and I think we gotta step back and start ask, are we gonna define people by the number of cows they milk? Because I don't know who, I've got more questions than answers. Why would we decide to have this group of farms, they're gonna be on an every year schedule of inspection. These guys are gonna be three years. Why won't we start out with, we're all gonna be on a three year schedule. We're gonna say who's got the most problems, and then let's visit those guys more often so we can help those guys get their farms in shape sooner. I think this whole thing, need to step back and really look at the whole picture. Thank you. Brought this not to drink. Everything we do here. I brought this not to drink because I wanted you guys to tell me whether it was half full or half empty.

[Keith Sprague]: That's a wrong ability to asking that

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: question. Thank you.

[Brian Kemp]: Good afternoon, yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I go ahead, I have it. Yeah, go on up.

[Walt Gladstone]: Yeah, so.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: Hey, Gayhardt, Department Addison, Gayhardt Brothers with my parents, semi retired, my brother, my daughter, my nephew, and other family members, co chair of the Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition with Brian Collamore. I guess I would start by kind of trying to I don't know that I can keep up with Amanda and Walt's articulate way of speaking, but I would tell you that I had a little apprehension about participating in the stakeholder KFO meetings because of time restraints and distance and frequency and all these other things that make my life busy. I would tell you that after probably three meetings, I felt pretty humbled to be in the room with the people that I was in there with. I felt like honored was another word that comes to my mind to be in the room with all the other farmer members and agencies and later to come in the petitioners. Good dialogue happened when we were allowed to have dialogue. I would say that we felt heard somehow towards the end. I would say probably like three or four meetings from the end as we're going around the room. We heard about the inspection processes. We heard about the lack of clarity. We heard about how my inspection varies from another firm's inspection. We heard different inspectors, round robin, this person, that person. The meeting prior to that, we had a presentation from a lady in Colorado who was this third party, and it kind of hit me like a brick wall. It was like, here's a person that you can take all this noise out of agencies that we have been involved with and their ability to work together could not be more clear to us and that it was a struggle and we felt, you've all heard it, the kids in an ugly divorce, we're doing what we need to do but we're not sure who's in charge and what the rules are. It felt to me like it was a no brainer. There needs to be an independent party that comes into our situation. It is a way for us to gain trust between the Department of ANR or DC or whatever you'd like to call them. In a way for us to gain traction, to gain footage, to gain years experience working with one another. And I think it was a few days later, watershed group started to talk about it and it seemed like it had some buy in and some momentum. And there was resistance from the Department of ANR and that said it can't happen, won't happen. We need to use resources that exist in the state because I think it was because of union requirements or what have you, I don't know. Just felt it was what I think made everybody feel a little bit more comfortable about this unchartered water that we're entering. I hope, not that I hope, think that the reason the farmers in this stakeholder meeting are a little bit upset is some of the wording of how that third party transition is going to happen and the ability to dictate what their involvement is, is it in an advisory role or in an inspection role, or what is the role? The reason that it hit me so hard is because we operate in multiple states. So Department of Transportation, I think that you were looking for clarity. Walt hit on it. There's a book of rules that's this thick that state the rules and you can have an officer pull you over one day and he can interpret these rules one way one day and you can have another officer stop you another day and he interprets those exact same rules a different way. It's extremely hard to operate a business under that, or you want that description, guess, or that unclear water. So it just took away, I feel like Vermont's a super small state. We're all connected in one way or another. Be it relationships, neighbors, friends, family. It goes, we're all kind of So the third party thing felt like a real way to kinda push that noise away and have it be someone that we don't know, that doesn't know us, that has clear clean water standard acts in front of them that's black and white. There's not the potential for a risk or the life that we live of, you know, there's a piece of sawdust on some cement there that could travel to a ditch. The risks are up for us to manage. I understand what they are. We know what they are. We're surrounded by them every day. It's a hard way to farm having that fear under you all the time, not knowing whether that's gonna be a problem or not or on the day of an inspection. I guess, and the other thing that I would like to hit on a little bit is the money that comes behind it. Like their farmers have stepped up to the plate and have done their job. That's gonna be the struggle going forward. I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: think Julie Moore, about that, sorry to interrupt you, don't want to lose your

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: That's okay. Brain

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: of thought.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I thought that Julie Moore had a great statement on there that said basically, and I think I've got this right, farmers single handedly have been the people who have mitigated the phosphorus from the Lake Champlain. Made it sound that she was giving you credit for that, and I hope that's what's coming out through the stakeholder process that you folks are being recognized in that way. The other thing is, I think it's very important for this committee to understand, is you're in here for a reason, and you guys are all telling your reasons. I'm not saying that we're not getting it, but this is what we really need to understand before you leave. We need to understand is where do you think, and you're telling it, but keep telling us, Where do you think it's going off the rails as far as this final report? Or is it or not? Are you are you being listened to? Do you think that or are you fearful that that it's or you don't know, you just don't know where this final report's gonna come to. So we need to understand that so that we can attack that a little bit better.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: Yeah, so I appreciate everything Julie says and I think she's spot on. I think the little bit of disconnect in is maybe the feeling that I think we all share and that we're constantly under attack or under scrutiny or being looked at more stringently than, know, shall we say Burlington or municipalities that have issues that go untreated, unfixed. Ultimately, every single Vermonter has a piece in this game. And we need to be supported for that. There needs to be You can travel to New York, you can travel to Pennsylvania, you can travel to Maine. They all have things that support their farmers. New York, 20% investment tax credit. Boy, talk about a disadvantage here in this state. Kind of goes the other way. Just kind of stakes being in that microscope when all you want is your family's business to succeed. I think that the lack of clarity or so we've asked numerous times about seeing this actual permit and we got told, Just reference the MFO. It's the closest thing that we have. How are we supposed to agree to that? We haven't even seen it. We demand, not demand, but we ought to get the respect to at least see what After we've been let down numerous times by what other agency or like, been kept in the dark or told, You'll find out, you'll find out. It's like, and all the time to find out is before it gets written in the rules. As clear as I can be about it.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, I think that's very helpful to us. Thank you. So, yeah. Appreciate your time. No, appreciate your time.

[Keith Sprague]: Thank you. Thank you, guys, for doing what we do and allowing us to be here. My name is Keith Sprague, dairy farmer. Happy birthday. Oh,

[Walt Gladstone]: thank god.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: How do we know that?

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: Have some M and S.

[Keith Sprague]: Word gets around. Thank you. 55. We should. Yeah. I I hear, I think three times, Senator Ingalls, you've spoken of, bring this back to the stakeholder process and the report that you guys eventually, I assume eventually, know, when it's on your desk and you digest that. So my comments here, which I wrote on some index cards last night before I went to bed, all stemmed from the stakeholder, the stakeholder words that we put together that has not been all the way and have done its best, but will I think it's important that I'll touch on those and there's a backstory here that I think is going to help digest some of the questions that I've heard asked

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: in between.

[Keith Sprague]: So I'll try to paint that story and then try to directly answer your questions as best as I'm capable. And hopefully that allows you guys to do your job to a fullest, to be better of all places here. So, you know, everybody spoke of the spoke of the stakeholder process and it was extremely rewarding and helpful and honored as Tim said and Amanda spoke very clearly of it as did Walt and and I feel the same way and so and those first sitting downs of that process, it was very, very clear. They asked us, everybody in the room individually, what they wanted out of this. And so at that point in the room, there's the agencies, and then there are the farmers, and then the TSP, which is a technical service provider. So that's like an agricultural consultant business that we hire to help with our nutrient management plan, and they do a lot of our field mapping. So they're real key parts of these factors. Anyway, they were in that room and the number one thing that everybody wanted was clarity out of all of those groups as far as farmers and the TSP people. It was overwhelming to that. As these meetings went on and this, and so the number one thing that first had to be decided is if are we gonna are we wanting A and R to take over everything?

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: Or are

[Keith Sprague]: we wanting the Department of Ag to hang, to stay on in their capacity as they are now, and A and R to just take on discharge part? And so those things were being decided. So the very first thing that we needed to know was the definition of a what's a discharge? What's the definition of a discharge? And and so that I was asked. The first day so as those meetings continued on, we were told that we would hear that. It was also clear that if we're gonna get somewhere, we wanted this report to you guys to be the through the eyes of everybody that's gonna come at you behind the scenes here, the petitioners, the agencies, and the firearmers. So it's important, why are the petitioners not in this room? So we are an open armed, a ball of nerves. I'll never forget that meeting that I went into, and I was like, I didn't know what to expect. I had no idea. I mean, here, it's just like, you're inviting the lion in, or you're inviting the wolf in, we're sheep. You know? I mean, that's kind of like the mentality. And so and do you know what the very first thing that the petitioner said was? What they wanted was for us to do nothing different as far as They wanted clarity. They wanted clarity. So we have the TSPs, we have the farmers, and we have the petitioners that wanted clarity. So then you spoke of all these other states that we dove into and figured out how their system works. And we saw their systems just like the state of Vermont, what's being proposed with the ANR and the agency work, and it works beautifully. There's ones that they are struggling in this. So it's no perfect system, but the majority of it, it works, and it can be in several different stages. So whatever is being proposed has the potential to work, very much so. So one of those meetings, the EPA was in house. Came I mean, the the the the due diligence that went into this process is just flooring

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: for me.

[Keith Sprague]: But so the EPA came, sat, and visited with us this entire time. And or sorry, this is one meeting, not the entire time, but they were there several hours. And what we got out of that meeting was finally, you know, we it was it was it was it was them answering yes, no, or we'll get back to you on that. And then finally, by the end of the meeting, they were in beach clothes with sandals on, with a drink, sitting on a lawn chair. And what their response to us was is, we are in this room today because there's two agencies that are not doing their job the way that we see that it should be done, and there needs to be clarity. So we have all people in this room that need, that have spoken on the terms of there needs to be clarity. Meanwhile, we're well into these meetings, the discharge thing has been brought up several times. We do not have a definition in the middle of these meetings. So we're building this stakeholder, we're building this report for you guys. And throughout that process I spoke of, we have a, the first thing that we had to get over, and it took half of these meetings to get to where we had it find, was stakeholders wanted two, decided that we wanted two agencies, right? And I'm going to tell you one farm story that made it of why we wanted two agencies. So I had an LFO inspection several years ago and all was beautiful to my liking, to both agencies liking. All was good. Got a department from

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a letter from the Department

[Keith Sprague]: of Ag saying all things are good. This was an area of concern. You know, all minor things. About sixty days later, I got a letter of a violate a letter of a bi a a letter of attempt to violation or from ANR. That LFO inspection was five years ago plus. That alleged violation letter has not been settled yet. Okay? This is one farm struggling to address the alleged violation five years later with the utmost earnest attempt to solve has not been solved yet. One farm, one story, okay? Farmers have a lack of trust for the agency of natural resources system. That is why there's still two agencies. You're gonna see that in the report, that there's two agencies that have chosen. So, again, we're still deep into this and there's things that are in this report that you're gonna see and what we we are concerned about is the fact that the the the pro the the the report has been maybe written softer than we would like it to be written. And so that's why we're here today because we want to emphasize some of these points. So, you know, one of them, and you've heard several times, is this third party. And so, would clarity is at the utmost as you've heard, and then there's it's without a third party, we're scared to death that there's not gonna be clarity. We just feel like this is so important. So you're gonna hear it, I think, again here anyway. I'm I'm sure, and I'm sorry to repeat. I won't drag it

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: in the You're fine.

[Keith Sprague]: Yeah. Go and go ahead. And then the the other that you're gonna see in this report is compliance over over discipline, if you will. And and and so instead of, like, going going and looking if if they're granted, we don't even know what a discharge is. I mean, we all sit here and we know what a discharge is. Right? But we're we're getting vibes that a discharge may be well, if it has potential to discharge, that's gonna be maybe what a definition of a discharge is. That totally changes everything. I mean, it's like I mean,

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: the- I'm sorry, you define what potential of a discharge is?

[Keith Sprague]: Exactly. We would love to have had you in our thinking. Exactly. Right. Exactly. But thank you for asking that question. Your hand is

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: a big no. Yeah, because I-

[Keith Sprague]: I So the answer to that is no. I can't define that. Yeah. We've asked that. It's on top of when we've got so our answers were like, yeah. Well, maybe if there's potential to discharge, that's gonna be, know, the definition of the discharge. And then, okay, what's that gonna do? It's just anyway, I don't wanna I wanna I wanna get to answering you guys' questions. And you've heard this one already, the discharge permit not to exceed EPAs. And then, you know, as Amanda, and so there's definitely energy in the room that knowing the state's level, like they already have a water quality regulation that's higher than the federal. Like like we all know that, right? So this is like fearful it's headed in the same direction. We want to just emphasize the clarity of that and because of softness of it's written in the report that you're going to have. Obviously, the definition of the discharge, you've heard that repetitively. The agency does not have standard operating procedures. You know? We we have I mean, you guys, I'm sure, have all been businessmen or know about businessmen, but there it's like you can't get past first phase without SOPs. Yes. No. I mean and then a compliance schedule is through loosely written within that system, and I think it's vitally important. And then the other is money, as you heard. And so it's like, we sit here a little bit, kind of like, there's a part of me naturally is like, okay, we're sitting here in front of the Senate House asking for money to run a business. But we've got to back things up several generations ago before the RAPs and before the required agriculture, or yeah, RAPs, there's the AA piece, I can't remember the definition of Accepted Ag. Accepted Ag practices. As even before that, there was statue there's language and statues in the state of Vermont that the farms are here before the people that are demanding water quality. And so therefore, we're gonna up we're gonna up we're gonna up that water quality and the farms and taxpayers have to share that cost. So that's why that that all is to this day. So it's it's in statutes, in language that we are to receive taxpayers money to help with this process. So just a little quick background there, if you can. And then I'll wrap up my conclusion here, the Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Ag, facilitators all shared with us near the end of the stakeholder process. That had been the most engaging and informative and just surprising process of a stakeholder group that they had ever been experiencing. And there was even a question of, is this your second one or something like that? And it wasn't. I mean, this you know, people spoke that they've been to many of this process. Honestly, it's my first one, so I don't know the difference. But I do know that there was a dozen firearms, you know, that poured everything they had into it. And I do know the agencies did the same thing. And I do know the petitioners did the same thing. At the end of the day, nobody, farmers included, petitioners and the agencies all want clean water. You know? We wanna work towards that. And then so if I I I I think what I wanna leave you leave you with is when this document is on your table is to take it seriously. I'll lock one into this. And not that I suspect maybe others don't, but I do know and speaking personally, and from what we've been told, that it seems like it was heavily respected and whatnot. And then so we're just fearful that it's a slighter, softer version may end up here on this desk, or there may be other side I just,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: this is what I want. I want this report to come out and to feel that, and to have you folks come back to me, to this committee and say, yeah, that's what we agree with. That's what I want and I want to make sure that you folks are feeling that that's the direction that this report is going to come back to. I'm feeling a little bit better about it, but I think there's still a lot of apprehension because you guys, yet the simplest of terms, nobody's been able to define to you what the simplest of terms of what they're trying to solve. And so that's where I'm nervous. That's where my rub is. I want to make sure that when this report comes out and I thought it was very important to get you in before this report come out because it's awful hard to change words once it once it's been written down and say, boom, here it is. We appreciate that. Because we are going to talk next with the people that are doing the report.

[Walt Gladstone]: I appreciate that. It's interesting. I've never been part of a stakeholders group. Of course, we run our businesses. We have stakeholders groups every day. But I guess why I feel like it's so important that everyone gets a chance to talk to you and you ask those questions, you really try to understand it. Because when the stakeholders group, I don't know if the stakeholders group has so many different opinions on paper. Does the paper say, well, I think this, but he thought that, but this I don't know if this this this paper, when it's all written, it's all done, that we all come to the same decision. So I think that's part of this important communication too. I don't know, because I don't have that experience, I share that. That would be my concern.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. And I don't believe it has to

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: all come on the same decision, but when you read it, like you said, definition of discharge. That's one thing we want in this report. It's And not that's something that, I hope the chair pushes up that, hey, this is something your stakeholders are asking you for. And clarity, that came from everybody in the room. If this report isn't got clarity in it, it's not a

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: good Sure, Amanda, hold on.

[Keith Sprague]: Yeah, think Amanda could add something to this.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Amanda, go ahead.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: So I want to make sure we get the other people in to testify. I think one of our goals today was to share parts of what is going to be required with a CAFO discharge, just so you would have a baseline of what is going

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to be

[Amanda St. Pierre]: required. So You're going to hear from Jonathan Chamberlain about that a little bit. Brian and I have been working on behalf of the Farmers Coalition adding input to the report through the facilitator. And I know the agencies have been adding input, but it is not going to be a definitive report you'll be receiving. It is going to be trying to capture the essence of the conversation that came out of the stakeholder group and the many different scenarios that were discussed and that there were several areas that were not fully agreed upon. So I think it would be important if your committee has a certain type of report you want to see. I think that it would be imperative to have that discussion because the drafts that we're working with are like a time capture of what we discussed, how we got there, and there's several different options on the table.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Shouldn't we report Amanda have a conclusion?

[Amanda St. Pierre]: You can't come to a conclusion without the clarity, definitions and the process of what being know, what they're missing. We haven't been included in any of that. So we don't want a report that comes out with a definition and that's why we wrote our letter that I shared with you because there are ideas that we feel very strongly that can help that we are almost consistent upon happening. But we don't need like you know this is a discharge permit in which we were told directly from a staffer that a trigger could be a potential. And basically, and I'm getting kind of into the weeds and I want Brian to really do the recap on this, but there's a lot of concern for the farmers and that is why we're here and wanted you to hear our perspective. There's a lot of things in play above and beyond just developing these permits that I think have to be addressed between the two agencies and you've heard that already in testimony and probably behind the scenes. But just specifically on report, that is not the report that I'm seeing on in draft form. So I think if you have an idea of what a report should be, you might want to be having some conversations before they present it. I know there was an interim report put out by ANR anyway, you guys have seen that. I mean, just word choices in a report can mean many different things. That was our concern is that they give so many options and so many examples. Somebody could take that report and say, well, it was discussed in the stakeholder group, so must be there was consensus. That really is why we're here today to let you know that while we did a lot of great work and there was a lot of good information, I don't know as we can really have consensus until we see what a draft permit would look like and have it analyzed. Does it meet the clean water standards? And first and foremost, what is going to trigger farms to have to get this permit? And what is it going to cost for farms to have to achieve?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I got it Amanda. Let's get the rest of the folks in here. Mr. Frank, are you all set? Have you said what you wanted to say?

[Keith Sprague]: Yeah. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Happy birthday. Thank you for the birthday wishes. I have a I have a sense of where it came from. This name's been mentioned in here a few times. Welcome. Morning. Morning.

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: I'm Jonathan Chamberlain. I live in Addison, Vermont. I'm a technical service provider. So I've worked with a lot of producers in this state that are under a current no discharge permit, eligible medium farm, certified small farm. That's why I spend a fair amount of my time doing. And I guess I just wanna follow-up and I have notes and I think I'm gonna kinda not follow them very well to try to answer your question. You know, this report. So, you know, we've been discussing this report and I kind of think you're getting the opinion starting to see that it's big. There's not a lot of certainties. There's not a lot of things that these producers can take home and say, this is what I'm going to do. This is what I need to do. And so I think part of some of the things that we wanna hit home is the importance of some of these things that are in there and how they need to be followed through by you guys, hopefully, with real solutions and ways that this this group can come back and basically work with the stakeholder group. I I think it's a critical piece. You know, as these things aren't getting defined and as these questions aren't getting answered, you know, these producers want certainty. You've heard this from everybody. They wanna know what's expected of me, and then how are we going to address these concerns.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Jonathan, do you think that this report, when it comes out, is going to have definitive things that say that you will and shall and you must? Do you think that that's

[Keith Sprague]: what the report's gonna say? Not not that I've said.

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: Okay. I think it's gonna cover a lot of things. And like Amanda said, you know, it's gonna capture the breadth of the discussions and things like that. But I think the groundwork that's kind of laid in this report taken the right way can really mean a lot of things and do a lot of positive things for water quality and ensuring success of this industry in this state. This watershed this working group, water quality working group, you know, the ability to be able to have this group with some meat behind it. Right? You know, it's one thing to say, you know, we're all gonna meet, we're gonna talk, and then when we leave the room, yeah, we took it in advisement. Right? You know, this group this group can sort of in that water quality working group get some of these answers and drive to get answers and help have a stake at the table to get answers and make sure those answers are achievable. Right? I mean, everybody wants to do water quality, but they need to have a goal. They need to have something that they could achieve. Thank you,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: mister chair. Other states, like New York, we heard Colorado, I think.

[Brian Kemp]: Wisconsin. Which one? Wisconsin. Wisconsin. Do they

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: have a definition? Do they have clarity Yes. In Is there Yes.

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: And you talk about this third party group, the training. If you can get that definition, which, you know, New York has a group. If you wanna reference, they have a water quality group of basically producers, industry, environmental groups, state agencies, extension or their universities, land grant university participates in. And as these things come up, they can address. And it's a standing committee that actually the agencies take advisement from, work with, they come with collaboration, and they get things done. And there is stakeholder buy in because that's one of the biggest things I think is, you know, these producers have done a lot. They've made major investments. They've done a lot of things as you heard from from secretary Julie Moore. You know, and these guys want to keep doing that, but it's gotta be something that can be achievable. And I think without some guidance and without some some direction, you know, I think it can be lost. And, you know, it's if you think about a definition of direct discharge, well, in theory, that's kind of a simple question. Right? Or a simple directive. But we live in a world that isn't very black and white. Right? You know, there's black on one side, white on the other, and a million miles gray in between. And so, you know, I think that's what these producers you know, my notes as as I wrote these last night, consistency and clarity are critical. You know, this third party coming in and setting up protocols and procedures for agencies to follow so that if you have one inspector one year and you have another inspector the next year, it's consistent. The criteria they're looking at and the criteria they're evaluating your operation under are the same. They find something, they can make a decision. They don't find anything, it's over. You don't have to worry about six months later getting a certified letter from the AG's office saying that we found this. How can it be that an inspector leave and a producer not know they have an issue, right? I mean, it seems pretty reasonable. They acknowledge a confrontational lab.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: It's like getting a weight ticket and they send it in the mail the next

[Brian Kemp]: two weeks because Oh, it's probably two weeks. We love it in two weeks.

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: So I I don't know how much more you want me to go into, but I I I really just wanna emphasize that, you know, you're gonna this report's gonna have a lot of broad spectrums, and I I think these guys have really sorta hit on, you know, that third party to come in and help get some consistency. And then this working group, I think, really sort of gives the ability to have and get some clarity that you guys are looking for. That would be a If you're not gonna get a report, you gotta get it from somewhere.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: What would be a failure of this report if it came to you right there and you didn't see that there would be the failure?

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: It would probably be those two things. It's the ability to make to give some consistency and clarity and then to be able to address concerns and issues going forward. You know, it's as we sat in the room at this working group, you know, talked a lot about the big picture, you know, framework and structure. And really when it comes down to it, it's the details that have some biggest impacts, like the definition of you know, that's a detail, but it it can be in the world of the whole program. So, you know, are we gonna solve all of that in this report? No. But it needs to be solved, and it needs buy in, and its producers need to be a part of that. And I would encourage you to to put major emphasis on some

[Brian Kemp]: of those pieces. And what do

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: you think that the the parameters of the report are are are looking what do you think that their end game is when they issue their report? What do you think that their next steps are gonna be?

[Jonathan Chamberlain]: To be honest with you, the individual or the company that's been paid to write this report, I don't even know that they're trying to build consensus as far as to capture what the group's discussion and what their thoughts were. It really, in my mind, depends on what the agencies do with it after, particularly with ANR, how they take this report, and then what you guys perceive it to be or needs. And that's why, you know, that's why this group is here today is to make sure you understand what's important to these guys and what what they need from this report. And I think there's some some questions as to whether it's gonna be clear enough to give the direction that it needs.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I guess that that's the theme of where I've trying to get to and I think I'm getting there, but I just want to make sure that everybody has a chance to say it. The actionable part of this report once it comes out, where does it go to after this? The actionable part of it. I mean, we're okay, we've got the report. Where do we go?

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I think they're asking people in this building to dictate where it goes. Yeah,

[Keith Sprague]: I think that is true.

[Walt Gladstone]: I think, how do I say this? It's kind of like, I don't know, I've been growing pumpkins for thirty years. I don't know. Usually you want to include people that have experience in a certain field. That's why we're here and want to be part of this. It's interesting, these DSPs, I've heard this over time. Jonathan and these other DSPs that are working in our state, sometimes it's like, oh, you want to hear from the farmers? Holy moly. I know what's going on in my sandbox and what my view of the deal is. I need to know what Jonathan's learned because he covered all these other parts going over to New York State, these other states. It's really important to to gain that information. So where does it go here? I hope that The thing that's interesting about this is clarity. We could be signing up for clarity that we all hate, but that's what it is. Now we'll know. And that scares us. But at some point, if and I tried to say this, New York State, as I understand it, through a TSP, not through me knowing it, but unless we had these farmers on one of our talks, you know, it's been over time where someone came out with an inspection. They didn't really think that it had a A lot of this goes back to having an engineer stamp on it. So now you got a stamp, now you're okay. But you still have to do the right things to stay in compliance. And there's been time and money to get there. We're kind of behind the eight ball, as I understand it. We've been in this kind of world where, as I see it, the ag department was trying to do their job. You know, they thought they were doing their job. It wasn't a discharge in the river, but then when they had one that was in violation, they handed it off to A and R as I understand it. A and R, I don't know, they didn't get it done. They didn't file a KFO permit. They they didn't have enough stats. There's a 100 different reasons why it didn't happen. Did not happen. So we don't know what this clarity is going to be. And like Jonathan said, the consistency. We just need to know how high the fence is and then who's going to help us get there because at some point, you know, and this is a subject for another day, you know, if the economics over time that we're such a competitive disadvantage, there just won't be many of us. And I've thought about this. I've wondered why now Connecticut and Massachusetts have got these programs. Oh, now there's just so many less farmers. We can afford to support the ones that are left. I don't know. We're five years away from that? I don't know. It's kind of like, let's get ahead of it so we can still be out there doing our job.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you. Who's next?

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I would just add to one more statement to that clarity Don't bother that up here. Yeah. So the timeliness of, like we asked for, you know, that inspection happens and this past year we had both of agency ag inspection. Had an A and R inspection. We had an EPA inspection. I had received reports back from the agency. I received a report back from the EPA. I don't know. Do I care that I didn't receive one from ANR? I say this with a grain of salt because it yeah. I feel like I'm sticking my neck out a little bit as an individual. But there is something about that I'm hopeful that this third party situation, they can I can they can leave my farm that day and I know where I stand and I don't get a certified piece of mail six months later in the mail that says my buffer was one foot short of being in an acceptable measurement? Come on.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Why couldn't the third party be the ANR? I mean, yeah, I mean, agency of agriculture.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I don't really I I don't know. I Because I think that they've been poked in the chest also with the job that they're they're being accused of being our advocate, but also the reg also the regulatory arm. By nature, there's a conflict there. They're trying to support us. They're also trying to, you know, enforce us. So I think people outside of that window, there's something there that they can that they can poke at.

[Walt Gladstone]: I can't defend that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Jeff, on the screen. Yes.

[Jeff Sanders]: Yep. I'll I'll give it a shot. Try to keep the time short. Good morning.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. We're almost we're getting wound down here. So keep your thoughts. Go ahead.

[Jeff Sanders]: Thank you for hearing us this morning. My name's Jeff Sanders, and I work with the Farmers Watershed Alliance, a watershed boots on the ground, water quality people for the last twenty years. The group has existed and I've been involved with them since 2010. And through this stakeholder process, things have become clear to us that I'd like to share. First, I want to give you just a touch of background just to kind of paint the plate there. Over the past decade, Vermont has made historic commitments to its waters. According to the Clean Water Initiative 2025 performance report, the state and its partners have invested over $755,000,000 in clean water projects since 2016. And This has been a massive public and private effort and has addressed critical issues across all sectors from farming, municipal roads, wastewater infrastructure. The FWA and its farmers have been on the front lines of this effort implementing over 50 projects, everything from barnyard runoff to aeration to improve water infiltration and reduce runoff. We understand the responsibility the farmers carry under the EPA's phosphorus TMDLs and the data proves that the farmers have delivered. As of 2025, the agricultural sector accounts for 83% of the total documented phosphorus reductions in Lake Champlain Basin. In the St. Albans Bay segment, which is very polluted, they've met or exceeded the implementation targets with 74% of the critical acres now managed under nutrient reduction practices. The farmers are and were the first responders to society's call to take action long before other sectors could even mobilize on this scale. This reduction was achieved while receiving only 16.5% of the funds. By most standard, that's an outstanding return on investment. You got 83% of the reduction with 16.5% of the funds, which also means all the other sectors contributed 17% reduction while getting 84% of the funds. And I and I say all that to say that that the farmers have been diligently working and contributing. And but however, now we face a significant shift. The EPA is requiring a new layer of regulation, the CAFO permitting program. Well, it's not new, but they are forcing the state of Vermont to address it, which is fair enough. While these permits have a role in high risk scenarios, we are deeply concerned about compliance versus conservation trade off. A discharge permit issued by the agency of natural resources, as we understand it right now, will require expensive engineering certifications to prove that a farm does not discharge. And this transition presents three major risks to the farm and to Vermont's water quality. The first is financial diversion. It threatens to redirect millions of dollars away from boots on the ground practical projects into administrative paperwork that capture no phosphorus. So that's a net negative for water quality. Secondly, the infrastructure gap. Any new strategy for any new strategy to succeed. Hold it. Hold it. Infrastructure gap. Vermont lacks the engineering capacity to handle the sudden surge in these mandatory certifications. So if you will, for example, picture a twenty year old manure pit that lacks certification. Even if you could find an engineer to go look at it, the likelihood of them putting their engineering stamp on something 20 years old is not gonna hap How does a farmer get in compliance with that kind of a requirement, which is language in the current Clean Water Act. So it's not that is in the language. So it's very real possibility that this could happen. And third, like everyone else has said, it's just the need for clarity. For any new strategy to succeed, there needs to be clarity in expectations and outcomes. Farmers need to know exactly what's required and what the environmental return will be. Ambiguity only leads to wasted resources and stalled progress. And this process hasn't really led to clarity on points like this. I think it's things that people want to work out a little bit later. And to sum it up, Vermont already has some of the most stringent agricultural environmental laws in the country. We're in the top five states. We're right there with California and Maryland. Maryland's got a huge poultry industry, very tightly regulated. We're right there with them. And taking adding more regulation doesn't mean cleaner water. It often just means more red tape. And from a boots on the ground water quality organization, we're going to ask the legislature to guide ANR in the rulemaking process that ensures that our agricultural landscape is strengthened. A good first step is to make that permanent stakeholder group, has started permanent and give it some authority with respect to how their output is viewed by the agencies. And as a group, we need to prioritize practicality over paperwork and provide clarity to the farmers if we're gonna make this go for another twenty years. Thank you. That's all I have to say.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thanks, Jeff. Any questions for Jeff? Yep.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: I don't have a question. Just a couple of observations. Are you gonna be the last one for answers? So I'm not sure exactly why a farmer has to prove that they're not disjunctual. It might be a better situation, certainly for you folks, if the state proved you were. Just the owner should not be on the farm in It's my also interesting that, again, if you're gonna involve somebody, it's kinda like asking a brain surgeon the best management practices to fix a muffler on a 1967 Volvo. They're just not equipped. You should be the people that should be able to answer, hey, we all wanna get to the same point. We want the best water quality we could possibly get in Vermont. Here's how we think we could do that, and it should be a back and forth. I really like Jeff's idea about having the stakeholder group stay in. And I'm getting three things out of all this, clarity, time and money, right? Said I should I'm remember trying to remember that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Maybe even definition, which could be

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: a Yeah, different no, clarity or consistency is the first thing. I think the agency of agriculture should be the people in place for a non disjudge permit and ANR, obviously, because that's what they do in a permit. So those are the first two. And then this third party, I think, is a great idea. And to Senator Heffernan's point earlier, if there's already existing language from other states,

[Keith Sprague]: it's not

[Brian Kemp]: We don't need to reinvent wheels.

[Walt Gladstone]: Exactly. Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That's it.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I would say that one thing that we've also talked about is a stakeholder thing actually being put in statue so it can't be manipulated and thrown away in the future. Super, super important.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. The more vague it is, the more likely someone got up on the wrong side of the bed, could do an inspection and

[Brian Kemp]: it won't be a good report.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And senator Plunkett just had to step out to another meeting. He did he's not leaving or other other than that. So Emma

[Amanda St. Pierre]: I just wanna flag too.

[Keith Sprague]: Because I don't know who you are.

[Emma Schollis]: Oh, Emma Schollis with Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance. This idea of potential

[Brian Kemp]: Yeah.

[Emma Schollis]: I mean, anything could be potential, and it's, it's a very slippery slope, and to Senator Baltimore's point-

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Very subjective.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: It, it

[Emma Schollis]: is not fair to have the farmer prove a possible discharge. Anything is possible on these farms, whether it's a sudden burst of five inches of rain or snow. It that potential aspect is is extremely concerning.

[Keith Sprague]: Brian Collamore, thank you.

[Brian Kemp]: So I have a little strip, but it's been ballpark. And

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Wonder how that I think

[Brian Kemp]: you guys are all gonna wake up at 2AM in the morning and thirty. I don't know. I think

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: It's okay. And I'll say again.

[Brian Kemp]: Yeah. So thank you, Senator Ingalls and committee members for bringing us in here today. We appreciate the opportunity. We appreciate the opportunity to have Bennington's CAFO working group. I have been in other stakeholder groups in the past and I was a little reluctant to join this one because of the experiences I had in the past with some of the petitioners at the table. It was called the Dairy Water Collaborative Group where Roger Albee the other gentleman, Will Rock, started to try to bring the farmers and the petitioners together. Had a facilitator come in, some of the petitioners look right across the table at me and Marie Ardette and say, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. That's how that went.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But you didn't have that this time.

[Brian Kemp]: This time had a much better reception. We hope it's not smoke and mirrors. Like I said, I'm not really following this script. Others have hit all the highlights. We are responsible for the most reduction. We've been doing this for ten years. So I went into this a little reluctant. I met with Julie Moore, with all due respect, early on. She asked me why are farmers nervous about the community? It's been natural resources. I said Julie, we just don't know. We hear a lot. We have the comfort level with the ag agency. We've built relationships with them. We know for the most part what to expect. Not all farmers have had that good experience as others have, even with the Ag agency, but you work through them. ANR, we don't know what to expect. Some of the staff during these meetings from ANR, when questions were asked, would pretty much answer, Well, that's the way it is. That's

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: scary. Yeah, we had some discussions about that.

[Brian Kemp]: That's scary. This report, as for this report, you're not going to get the answers you're looking for. Facilitator does a great job. I worked with him on the pay per performance program several years ago. He's very experienced. He does a great job. But it's his job to do as somebody else said. Here's what was discussed. Here's this option. Here's that option. I think in the interim report, you've got five options listed out how this would be managed down the road. That's scary. We, again, need that clarity. So a couple of us farmers got together and stuck our neck well, called the petitioners up and said, We want to have a discussion with you. We want to see really where you're at and what maybe we can come to terms with. So there will be an amendment with the final report of this type of agreement that the farmers and the petitioners came together on, and it was third parties. And that third party is not just an advisement, which in the latest draft, it's the secretary shall use third party as an adviser. That's watered down. That's not what we want. We want to mandate third party. And that third party has two duties in my mind. Train both agencies on the same level playing field. You're not going to inspect this farm different because you're from Agency of Ags or you're from the Agency of Natural Resources. Here is the template. When I used to manage Mountain Meadows Beef Barn, we went through third party audits to sell the Whole Foods. When we had our audits it was black and white. The same exact criteria from inspector to inspector. And you didn't see a lot of variations. They knew what they had to follow. That's what we want from this third party. And then yes, as an advisory council. To your question, can it be held within the Ag agency? I don't think so. I think there's that scrutiny already that Tim mentioned that probably the petitioners and others maybe even in the public sector see that complicated support system for MAG Agency and then they'll let regulatory. But the third party would be neutral. There was a woman they brought in, it was mentioned earlier, she does EPA inspections. She virtually told us on the day of an inspection, if that discharge, either if it's some effluent from a bunker silo or whatever it may be from a barnyard. If it's not getting to the water, it is not a discharge. We cannot get ANR to say that. We keep hearing the words. Well, if there's a potential, then most likely. And then in this report, there was some language that Amanda mentioned. She and I have been going back and forth with the facilitator. The comments were made in that, and we got them changed, but I'm here to tell you that it said, well, just because there's not a discharge on that day, most likely discharges are happening. They're just not being seen. Now that sets up a stage for you folks reading that later on without us giving you our perspective. And unfortunately at LSAC, we're not going to get in to talk to them before they report. That gives that interpretation in your mind is already set. But a lot of times I think you said what you read kind of sings in here. You know, that's scary. We got that language tweaked and changed. It's a little more subtle. It's still there. But you're not gonna get facts out of the report, unfortunately. And I think Tim hit it right. We're looking for a legislative body to help direct this with the understanding that it's far from being perfect. It may never be perfect. And that's why I begin to articulate the working group needs to continue. I know there's a bill being proposed on the house side. They worked with the petitioners to do it and to make the stakeholder group happen. Farmers and the petitioners are it's being suggested to be co chairs. The agencies can be there for support, but not lead it. They're there for support.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So let me ask you about the third party a little bit. Where would you folks Not a loaded question. I need to understand your understanding. Just so you know,

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: when he says it's not a loaded question, expect it to have you want.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Where is who who who's gonna pay for the third party? How do you where do you see the funds coming from? Give us a perspective of that because then it will have to that will be

[Keith Sprague]: that will come in new life.

[Brian Kemp]: State of. It's it's they're in that draft proposal coming out. There is it's listed how much money a year to pay for that third party. We understand that, Bert. It's gonna have to fall on the taxpayers. But I think somebody else said it once before, all taxpayers in this state benefit from ag and forestry. Cause. And they not? No, yeah, no. And isn't it time? Yeah, and we agree. That maybe for what they value and for what tourism values coming in here, that some of that burden, it's time to start some type of fund, and that's beyond us, farmers. That's way beyond this. We need the clarity. We need an appeal process written into this thing. It just can't be mandatory. There's gotta be an opportunity for firearms to be able to stand up and appeal it. If they're in violation, they're in violation, but sometimes in those gray areas, I mean, appeal process happens in every sector of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: who we Right. Yeah, I agree with

[Brian Kemp]: He gave you that letter. We submitted it to you. I would say read that again when this draft comes out, please. And you will again hear what you're hearing today. The third party, the discharge needs to be done. And the bigger part that I'd like to just hit on, and I know we're tight on time, but when we met with the petitioners, us farmers, we said, What can we come up with for a plan that's fair and equitable? As far as one agency taking over or two, there's a lot of concerns about the agencies. We all know the history. I think we've gained some ground on that. I think we've beat that horse enough. And I'm hoping maybe the governor has heard it and will help that situation maybe. Can I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: stop you there, I've already wrote the note? I think it's very important that the agency of agriculture stays involved and the enforcement doesn't go 100% to ANR.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: Thank you.

[Brian Kemp]: Thank you for saying that. Where everybody's at? I think farmers feel that way also. I don't think any of us wanna see it all go to ANR. And if it has to eventually, at least what we proposed is in five years we reassess, meaning the stakeholder group is still inactive and we're working on this. And we reassess at that time to see where we're at, what's working, what's not working, and then make that decision. We got the petitioners to give us the thumbs up on that. That's huge. Who's the petitioners? CLF, BNRC, Lake Champlain Basin, and Citizens Advisory Group. Sure. And they, all four, agreed to that. Sure. Give this process five years. Now I'll go even further on third party, and I know it means more money. But if that year, we propose in two years at least with them for trainings and advisory, but maybe that ought to be thought we'd carry it out to the five years so that they're part of that assessment in five years, and they're still in the loop.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah, good to be. Question. Would the property be willing to keep the depot permit and stuff in price if that meant for paying for the third parties?

[Brian Kemp]: You know, I don't wanna speak Say for it again.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: We're trying to take away the fee from the MFOs and- Oh, okay. Yeah, right? If we say we're gonna keep those fees, but they're gonna go to a third party help afford I don't wish I'm wrong with buying

[Brian Kemp]: it. Personally, yeah, I was quite surprised by that, and it's appreciative, you know, that people are thinking that way, but I'd rather have it go to good use like that and still pay our annual fees personally. Others may feel different. That transition period is critical. During that transition period, we need to, if we're bound to have a discharge on the farm, we're going to get thrown into a discharge permit once it's developed. And in that five year plan, the petitioners have outlined, they wanted an outline, they wanna see progress. They did tell us, It's not farmers, it's the regulation process that's been the problem. And someone mentioned that, you know, if ANR receives a complaint from the ag agency, a violation, well, the last eight years, there's been like 190 of them. And I don't think there's been that many cases looked at. So I asked the petitioners why you have such faith in ANR taking over all, because they initially wanted ANR to take over the whole bank. And they said, Well, we know it's not perfect. But if we just feel like if we keep the Ag agency in there and ANR, it's status quo two point zero? And I said, Well, we have to work to correct them, and hopefully we can build that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I'm not going to myself agree to do anything because what happens, here's what happens. We lose ANR in there, you lose this committee. I think this committee has done a damn good job as far as to stay aligned with farmers groups, understanding too that we don't like including in all of that as well. But we've been a realistic voice. I think that this committee has shown future agriculture committees on how valuable they can be to farmers. And I truly believe that.

[Brian Kemp]: So you've heard a lot, and

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: we've Rob, go ahead. Yeah, you had mentioned that there's language to the farmers groups and the commissioners that's in the House. Where is that?

[Brian Kemp]: Oh, that language isn't in the House. That will be an amendment that comes out with the report. There is a proposal being written to help make the stakeholder group become in statute. We've heard there's some pushback from AR about it being done in rules. We all who have just enough a little experience to know rules can be changed, and statute's much more difficult. We would appreciate it in statute. So that language is in the appendix to the report, or is that something that was just being drafted right now as we speak on the health side.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Leave it in the health side.

[Brian Kemp]: Yeah. Okay. In the health side. We can see that. I think it's I'm not sure when they're putting it out, but it's being proposed, and there is a funding mechanism in that for the third party. But, I mean, we could also have that discussion. Think some of the farmers in this room already said, you know, they'd be fine with paying our thanks. Just to wrap up, because we respect your time, primers have been committed and spent substantial time with the working group, but also nights and evenings, special meetings, Zoom visits, and it's just been a great experience. We couldn't have done it without our partners from UVM and the TSPs, and we need to keep that going. We need them on the stakeholder group as well, not just farmers and petitioners. And even the Conservation District should be involved because in some parts of the state, that's the representation for the farmer if they're not in a watershed group like we are. And then I just want to say at the end of the day, we want to be part of the solution. However, we just cannot support a system that creates such significant financial or regulatory pressure that it risks pushing agriculture out of the market. Yep. We agree. Thank you for that. The

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: the thing throughout the, you know, last couple hours has been, to me, obviously the clarity part. And you're understanding that you're willing to you know what you have to do. You're understanding that you're willing to work and you just wanna know what to do and how to do it. So, Amanda.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Yes, and Senator, I just want to point out, we don't quite yet know what we need to do because they haven't finished the Clean Water Act revisions.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Right. I'm just saying that that's what you want to get to Right. Yes. And how to do it. And then if there I mean, throughout the process, I mean, if there's something that you're not doing, to just tell you what you're not doing and you'll make adjustments going forward. And that's incredibly reasonable, and I think we need to get there. I think probably more than anything, I well, I appreciate you coming and and telling us. I I've said, and senator Ingalls has said numerous times, that, we we are your advocate. We do work for you. We'll try our best to to make that come to fruition.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I would just add trust and confidence in that process. Yeah. Clarity, trust, confidence with all of us. You know, the process is the trust in that key too.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Is everybody spoken who wants to speak? Sir, are you?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Good, I'm listening. I'm the director

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: of the Watershed Management Division. Okay. Madam.

[Walt Gladstone]: Just the intern.

[Keith Sprague]: Cool, sir. John, since four minutes. Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So, well, we want to thank you. I want one last bit of call to action. It's been touched upon already. We're not trying to throw any other committee under the bus, but we are getting pushed back about the governor did step up, probably surprised you all that he thought of you in the way that he thinks that your LFOs and your MFO permits are too much of a burden right now and that he'd like to reduce that. We do have an appropriations committee that's fighting that a little bit, so call to action to that. If you were to get ahold of those appropriation members and let them know how important even this little bit of dollars could be to you, that would be helpful. We're actually doing the lobbying for you on your behalf, but on your behalf as well it'd be very helpful if they heard from you. Your little young lady right over here can help you with that. Emma can help you, and give you some contact information for that. So I would make sure that you heard let your voices be heard on that, like, rather real soon.

[Walt Gladstone]: I'm just curious. You know, we look at this committee as allies. I mean, and of course, you know, you're learning from us from our experiences. I often wonder, this is, I feel, like a very naive question, like, Who else should we be talking to? Because I feel like sometimes, you know, this is like we're coming in to talk

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Your representatives, all your representatives. I think that is as important as we can say. Mean, you guys are a large diverse group from a lot of different areas and as many voices that you can get inside of this building. I think the most important people that you can talk to are the people that you elect to come down here and represent you.

[Walt Gladstone]: Thank you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think that is, if you did that, you're reaching the people that you need to reach.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: The Act one eighty one as well?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. Act 181 is a very big thing that's going on right now. Well, Well, I want to thank everyone for taking the time. Very helpful to us. We have some more work that we've learned today that we will continue with, and before we go, customary, when we get a large group of farmers, we've got to get the picture, So here we go.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Thank you, senators.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yes. Stay on the tree. We're gonna get a picture.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: No. She's pictures.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Oh, you're getting the Emma,

[Walt Gladstone]: where are you going? No. No. I don't get

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a picture.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Don't get

[Brian Kemp]: picture. Really? Yep. No. No.

[Keith Sprague]: That's a good idea. We gotta look at them.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good job. So I can meet a.

[Unidentified Farmer (Champlain Valley Farmer Coalition Co-Chair)]: I would get some of those.

[Amanda St. Pierre]: Oh, wait. You know what? I have an

[Walt Gladstone]: actual camera in my back. I'm gonna take some pictures of the side notes later. Well,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: that camera helped my chin here.

[Keith Sprague]: Thank you. Thank you. Yep. Thanks.

[Brian Kemp]: Well, good to