Legislative Update 03.13.23
Note that this update is not a comprehensive list of all of the bills or work we are tracking. This reflects movement on issues and bills since our last legislative update (02.28.23) which you can see here.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LAOB Sunrise Report & Legislative Asks
23-0138 - “Right to Farm” Update
LAOB Sunrise Report & Legislative Asks
In the last couple weeks of February, the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB) released its Sunrise Report. You can see a presentation about the report and board to the House Committee on General and Housing from February 28th, here. As summarized on its website, “the Land Access and Opportunity Board was created under Section 22 of Act 182 of 2022 to engage with Vermont organizations working on housing equity and land access "to recommend new opportunities and improve access to woodlands, farmland, and land and home ownership for Vermonters from historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities who continue to face barriers to land and home ownership."” It is an independent Board made up of BIPOC community leaders and is currently housed within the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB).
Rural Vermont supports the recommendations of the report - as well as the organizing effort led by Seeding Power Vermont (the organization leading the original effort which led to the creation of the Board) to increase the requested appropriation of $1.2 million to fund the Board to continue its work for one year, to $4.8 million to fund the work of the Board for 4 years.
S.56 - Childcare
S.56 - Childcare: We recently co-facilitated a workshop / listening session about childcare in the agricultural community at the NOFA VT winter conference. We did this alongside national childcare and ag researcher Florence Becot, and Suzanne Graham of Let’s Grow Kids (LGK) - and heard from approximately 20 people in the room about their experiences, challenges, and what they’d like to see change related to childcare in Vermont..
At the moment there is a piece of legislation, S.56, which proposes investing significantly more money into VT’s childcare sector. We rely on local and national advocates and researchers, as well as our community members, to help inform us on the needs of our communities - Let’s Grow Kids! is one of those local resources. Here’s a link to more information about the bill from Let’s Grow Kids - as well as a recent update from VT Digger. This is also a list of improvements that Let’s Grow Kids is advocating for in relationship to the bill. LGK anticipates S.56 will pass out of Senate Health & Welfare by the end of this week, and will go next to Senate Finance & Appropriations Committees for further deliberation; then to the Senate floor and on to the House by the end of March.
Please be in touch with Graham@ruralvermont.org if you would like to share your thoughts on this legislation, your interest in providing testimony on childcare, or simply to talk about your experiences with childcare in VT as a member of the agricultural community.
H.368 - An act relating to supporting new farmers, veteran farmers, and farmers who are disadvantaged
H.368: House Ag Committee members Heather Suprenaut, Esme Cole and Josie Leavitt are co-sponsoring this bill which charges the Vermont House and Conservation Board (VHCB) with supporting new, veteran, and disadvantaged farmers. The bill would expand VHCB’s formal duties to include “increasing financial and technical assistance” for those groups. There is no associated allocation or fund defined in the bill itself.
The draft defines a disadvantaged farmer as someone “engaged in farming or proposing to engage in farming who is annually earning not more than the State median income level for the relevant household size.”
The draft was just introduced to committee on 2/24, so check back for updates or follow along on the statehouse website as conversation and testimony begin.
23-0138 - “Right to Farm” Update
23 - 0138: Each state’s “right to farm” law is a protection for farms against nuisance lawsuits. The idea is that farming can be smelly and loud, but that doesn’t mean anyone who moves near a town should be able to sue a farm that’s not harming anybody. Different state’s right to farm laws have different amounts of strictness, or protection for farmers. Last year, Vermont’s right to farm law had been worked on as well, which resulted in the successful expansion of the lists of activities that are now encompassed under the nuisance protection. This year, the Farm Bureau, the Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance and supporting farms have requested changes that expand protection for farms, including new, expanding, and transitioning farms.
It is indeed important to protect farms from unreasonable nuisance complaints and Rural Vermont believes the existing law is adequate, and that the suggested changes are potentially harmful. Rural Vermont has received clear feedback from our national allies in the National Family Farm Coalition that many expanded “Right to Farm” laws have been used to effectively displace and disadvantage small farms, and to prevent communities from defending themselves and their lands and waters in states such as Missouri, North Carolina, and more.
Importantly, the bill would remove an exemption which states that farms are not protected from lawsuit if “the activity has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare, or has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property.” (12 V.S.A. § 5753). The draft also removes language stating that the legal protection shall not “be construed to limit the authority of State or local boards of health to abate nuisances affecting the public health” (12 V.S.A. § 5753). This change also removes a requirement that the practice has been in place for at least a year, and potentially expands protections to practices like biogas digestion. By removing these clauses the new Right to Farm bill would make pressing charges against a farm much harder.
This change requires an attempt at mediation between plaintiffs and farms before a legal action can be pursued, though this mediation would not extend the 1 year deadline for the plaintiff to file suit. And farms are, importantly, still required to be compliant with the state’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and Rule of Control of Pesticides, but the latest changes place the burden of proof of non compliance on the plaintiff themselves.
There are even more changes and details in this bill. For more info and up-to-date drafts and testimonies of the bill, you can follow it here.
Cannabis Update
S.71 and H.270: An act relating to miscellaneous amendments to the adult-use and medical cannabis programs.
H.426: An act relating to the creation of new types of cannabis establishment licenses and the provision of cannabis excise tax revenue to the Cannabis Business Development Fund, communities that have been disproportionately impacted by cannabis prohibition, and substance misuse treatment
One of the bills we worked to inform prior to the session - H.426 - is now numbered and on the wall in House Government Operations; and we anticipate its companion bill to emerge in Senate Government Operations soon. We do not support all provisions of H.426 (such as the “social equity delivery license”), some ideas we have brought to the table are not reflected in the bill as we suggested they be authored (such as the direct sales allowances), and some ideas and language we brought were simply not included in the bill (such as scaled direct sales allowances for sales of immature plants and seeds by cultivators to the general public).
Our coalition colleague Geoffrey Pizzutillo of the Vermont Growers’ Association testified to the House Gov. Operations committee on H.270 on February 28th - during which he brought the committee through our coalition’s top 10 priorities and presenced H.426 on the committee’s wall (meaning it is waiting to be addressed by the committee). We have since been told by the Chair of the committee that he does not want to include new subjects in H.270 at this point so close to crossover - but he has also told us that he is committed to having more and broader testimony after crossover when other cannabis related bills come to this committee. For this reason, on Wednesday March 15th, our coalition will also have 2 medical advocates and stakeholders representing the Green Mtn Patients’ Alliance as well as two licensed cultivators providing testimony to the committee on H.270 focusing on the medical provisions as well as the “propagation license” (which currently only allows a propagator to sell immature plants to cultivators - and not to the general public or other licensees).
At this time and going forward, we will need support from the broader community in contacting your representatives, and members of the House and Senate Government Operations Committees, voicing your support for our coalition and its policy priorities. We may be able to improve H.270 to some extent this week (in particular the medical and propagation aspects), and then in the Senate - but we are hoping that the other bill we worked on prior to the session will be numbered and taken up for discussion soon, such that we can have the opportunity to address more fundamental barriers and inequities in this newly regulated economy.
Universal School Meals Update
H.165 - An act relating to school food programs and universal school meals
Referred to Ways and Means
Rep. Erin Brady w/ Rep. Jana Brown, Rep. Esme Cole & Rep. Josie Leavitt
This bill extends the current COVID-reactive universal school meal policies by requiring all public schools in Vermont to make available school breakfast and lunch to all students at no charge in perpetuity. It also extends some support to public-tution students at some independent schools. The bill asks for $29M from the Education Fund to the Agency of Education for fiscal year 2024.
23-0761 - House Miscellaneous Ag Bill
23-0761
Fair and Field Days Support
The first part of the House’s miscellaneous ag bill states support for Vermont’s various fairs and field days events, and seeks to support them with grant funding. It establishes a new grant program in the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) to fund the associations that host fairs and field days. The size of this fund is as yet unknown.
Meat Processing License Fees
There is a semantic change from “meat cutting operations” to “meat processing operations” in existing statutes that determine things like vendor fees collected by VAAFM.
Livestock Brands
There is a set of laws in the current statute that determines the rules and regulations around branding livestock - it determines the rules for registering unique brands, etc. This change repeals and removes that chapter of the law because the practice is extinct.
Bees & Apiaries
There are many existing laws that require the registration, reporting and potential inspection of beehives in the state in order to decrease harm done by pests and diseases. There are many proposed changes to that statute (6 V.S.A. § 3023), most of which are small and semantical, but some of which will impact anyone in the state with bees, be they a small backyard colony or a large honey business.
The annual report required by VAAFM will no longer need to include whether the location of an apiary will change into two weeks of report submission. But it now requires reporting for bees that are just passing through the state as well (colonies and equipment that started outside of Vermont and are designed for another place outside of Vermont).
There is also a change in the cadence of inspections for those selling bees: instead of requiring one summertime inspection, it would require inspection within 45 days prior to any sale. This likely shifts the inspection time to just before the springtime sale of bees, instead of in the annual cycle before the distribution of many hives. It also might require more inspections for those selling bees throughout the season.
There are currently rules requiring a permit to import bees. Three of the exceptions to this rule are proposed to be removed, which would require more import permits. Those exceptions which would no longer be considered exceptions to having to file an import permit are for bees that are transported out of Vermont for less than 75 miles away for 30 days or less. With this bill, an import permit would be required even if those conditions are met. There is still no import permit required for bees just traveling through Vermont to another destination (though that information is now required on the annual report).
Soil Amendments
The definition of “soil amendments” is being expanded to include additives to hydroponic (soil-less) systems, which will expand VAAFM authority for that type of growing.
Nurseries & Pest Survey and Detection
The state and VAAFM’s definition of “nursery dealer” is proposed to be expanded to those who install (plant) nursery stock for commercial gain (in addition to those who sell or distribute for commercial gain). This supposedly would expand authority of nursery regulations (6 V.S.A. § Chapter 206) to folks like gardeners and landscapers who are paid to plant trees, shrubs or almost anything plant-y other than seeds.
This also tweaks the procedure for when VAAFM orders for plants to be destroyed in a way that will apparently have little impact.
Lastly, there is a proposed chance to remove a clause about compensation for destruction, removing the agency's responsibility to reimburse for trees or plants that are ordered to be destroyed due to infestation.
S.115 Senate Miscellaneous Ag Bill
S.115
Dairy Quarantine
The change expands the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets’ (VAAFM) ability to quarantine livestock to include dairy cows suspected of producing contaminated or unsafe milk. This was written with potential contamination from drugs and antibiotics in mind.
Eggs Law Update
Most of the the state’s egg laws haven’t been updated since 1973, and these changes would “modernize” them, bringing egg laws on par with many other food regulation statutes. This includes disallowing the sale or donation of adulterated eggs. “Modernization” also includes updating language about how penalties are handled by VAAFM with farmers, but that language change should have little impact on farmers or hen raisers.
The proposed changes also raise the maximum penalties that VAAFM might assess for violations. It has been over 30 years since the original maximums were changed, and these changes largely restate the maximums given the decades of inflation since.
VAAFM Enforcement
This bill would increase the maximum penalty that VAAFM can assess for a violation from $1k to $5k, and increases the total maximum fees for recurring and multiple violations from $25k to $50k.
Water Quality
These changes slightly curtail municipal authority to penalize stormwater management infractions. It adds that towns can manage stormwater, but only if “the municipality does not exceed [ANR’s] authority, maintains the exemptions in 10 V.S.A. § 1264(d)(1), and does not charge an operating fee related to exempt practices.” This makes sure that towns cannot regulate or penalize farms in particular, which are exempt from storm water regulation. Many towns currently penalize farms for their stormwater management (which is based on impervious surfaces, which can be large for farms) and this change would protect those farms, leading to a decrease in revenue for some towns.