Poor Workmanship of Utility Companies causing Animal Welfare issues
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 166 - An act relating to utility construction worksites and consumer protection
What has happened so far?
Last fall, two farms in Tunbridge Vermont experienced significant harm to their animals due to remains that (subcontractors) from utility companies have left behind
S. 166 would require rules to ensure a standard of care related to construction worksite cleanup to hold companies accountable
Senate Judiciary took testimony from the affected farmers (watch their testimony here).
Rural Vermont supports this initiative to prevent harm from poor workmanship of utility companies in the future
Good news! The Senate Judiciary committee heard a bunch more testimony (Senate Judiciary hearings on S.166 from 2/08/22) on the bill onTuesday and expressed their support of Draft 3.1 of the amended S.166 by voting the bill out of committee to the Senate Finance Committee unanimously. While voting in favor, Sen. Joe Benning criticized the short scope of the pole types that included only distribution lines and not also transmission lines in the new protections for livestock and (land-) owners from left behind hazardous materials.
Neonics, and Pesticides
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 626 - An act relating to the sale, use, or application of neonicotinoid pesticides
What has happened so far?
The House Committee on Agriculture and Forestry continued to hear testimony from beekeepers (see Charles Mraz’s very compelling testimony), agricultural technical service providers (see Heather Darby’s important testimony), industry (Syngenta, Seed Dealers, etc.), ecologists and bird experts, and the Agency of Agriculture. The bill, as written, would charge AAFM to amend the pesticides rules related to the use of neonic “treated articles” (largely seeds), and includes a complete prohibition on the use of neonicotinoid pesticides should the Secretary fail to adopt such rules by July 1, 2024. The Agency of Agriculture is asking for the Committee to let the Agricultural Innovation Board take this on, and address this in the Pesticide Rule rewrite also happening now; suggesting it needs to do VT specific studies, and more in order to determine how to move forward. Rural VT is in conversation with NOFA VT and many environmental organizations, citizen advocates, and farmers - and Graham will be testifying this coming week in House Agriculture on this bill. We will provide testimony saying the following: the Pollinator Protection Committee was convened by the Legislature many years ago and made the recommendations in this bill - we do not need more research to understand the impacts of these substances and their negative impacts on farms (and lack of effectiveness as prophylactic on farms using them in regions like ours); the Agency’s draft Pesticide Rule rewrite does not even address treated seeds; we need the legislature to set a deadline for phasing out the use of treated seeds (evidenced by the lack of follow through by VAAFM despite their authority), allowing enough time and support for the Agriculture Innovation Board, the Agency of Ag, technical service providers, and farmers to find affordable untreated seed and to develop (and train folks in) an IPM management protocol which would facilitate monitoring for pests in order to be approved for variances to apply treated seed, or alternative pest control options. We cannot continue to use these substances prophylactically, we cannot continue to use substances which threaten other farms and the environment, and we need a just transition for farmers using these seeds.
BIPOC Land Access and Opportunities
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership
What has happened so far?
Now is the time for advocates to move and pass this important bill that was introduced last year
H. 273 reconciles with wealth disparities in home and land ownership of BIPOC Vermonters that have been historically marginalized by creating a fund.
The Housing Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs heard from the coalition Seeding Power including (not exhaustive) Ashley Laporte, Every Town organizers Kenya Lazuli (NEFOC) and Mindy Blank, Steffen Gillon from the Windham County NAACP and Rep. Brian Cina of Burlington. Watch the hearing here.
The House Committee on General, Housing, and Military Affairs considered last week to integrate the BIPOC land access fund into the working lands enterprise fund and took testimonials from AAFM staff and NOFA-VT. As crossover deadline is approaching, Rural Vermont wants to see the bill moved soon but misses any announcement of H.273 on this week's committee agenda (which could notably change any moment).
Reach out to committee members to express your support of the bill with a brief message: “I’m in support of H. 273 - An act relating to promoting racial and social equity in land access and property ownership - because …. (your message). Please vote in support of the bill.”
Did you know?
Between 1920 and 1997, the number of African Americans who farmed decreased by 98 percent, while white Americans who farmed declined by 66 percent OR at the time of World War I there were 1 million black farmers, and in 1992 there were 18,000
In Pigford v. Glickman 1997, thousands of black farming families won settlements against the USDA for discrimination between 1981 and 1996; with outlays over $2 billion
TIAA is a pension company originally set up for teachers and professors and people in the nonprofit world. Investment in farmland has proved troublesome for TIAA in Mississippi and elsewhere. “In Tunica County, where TIAA has acquired plantations from some of the oldest farm-owning white families in the state, black people make up 77 percent of the population but own only 6 percent of the farmland.”
Read More in The Great Land Robbery - The shameful story of how 1 million black families have been ripped from their farms, by Vann R. Newkirk II, theatlantic.com, September 2019 Issue.
Right to Farm
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
S. 268 - An act relating to the right to farm
What has happened so far?
While waiting for the current committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Committee on Judiciary, to take action, the Senate Committee on Agriculture already did a walk through of the bill that was proposed by two of the committee members (Sen. Parent and Sen. Starr, watch recording here). Legislative Council Michael O’Grady explained early February that most if not all states in the U.S. have a right to farm law with the intent to protect farms that have been in operation from lawsuits from neighbors. Usually the farm has to meet certain conditions, like being engaged in agricultural activities or in existence for a specific amount of years prior to the neighbors property ownership. The right to farm laws don’t prevent neighbors from filing lawsuits but simply how courts respond to the lawsuit - their ruling in favor of farms in response to a nuisance claim. He further explained that VT’s current right to farm law is fairly different from those in other states by including a rebuttable presumption that a farm is in accordance with the law. S. 268 would implement a standard more similar to states like Arkansas, Michigan, Oregon, and others - without a rebuttable presumption. Legislators gauged the need to adjust Vermont's nuisance lawsuit protection by asking for how many related lawsuits have been filed in recent years - with the legislative council stating that it doesn’t seem like there have been any Vermont cases. That said - it remains unclear if legislators will prioritize the formal adjustment to secure greater protection from nuisance lawsuits for Vermont farmers.
Read more about the Proposed change in Right to Farm law would limit nuisance suits against Vermont farms in VTDigger from Feb 6 2022 here.
Forestry Related Legislation
Current Use Program Amendments to Include Forever Forests
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H. 697 - An act relating to eligibility of reserve forestland for enrollment in the Use Value Appraisal Program
What has happened so far?
The House Ways and Means Committee will pick up this bill to include two new categories of tax incentives for landowners to leave forever forests in Vermont's Current Use Appraisal Program this Wednesday, February 9th at 1:15pm (see the agenda with the link for live streaming here). The bill defines the new Current Use categories as follows:
“Ecologically significant treatment areas” means lands within a parcel of managed forestland that will be managed using protective or conservation management strategies and are not required to be managed for timber, including old forests; State-significant natural communities; rare, threatened, and endangered species; riparian areas; forested wetlands; and vernal pools.
“Reserve forestland” means land that is managed for the purpose of attaining old forest values and functions in accordance with minimum acceptable standards for forest management and as approved by the Commissioner.
The findings of the bill ground the initiative in the limited eligibility and enrollment to lands that are actively managed for timber and related forest products. Points to Climate change causing significant negative ecologic and economic impacts including challenges that threaten forest health, working forests, and ecological functions. Following the goal to mitigate and adapt to Climate Change through a diversity of forest management strategies the bill now aims to include forests that exhibit old forest characteristics and that can provide unique contributions to biodiversity, improve climate resilience and adaptive capacity of Vermont’s working landscape, and serve as ecological benchmarks in Vermont's Current Use Program. The bill language acknowledges that currently only less than one percent of Vermont’s forestland show old forest characteristics with potential to grow - given the Current Use Value Appraisal program covering nearly 80 percent of Vermont’s forests through privately owned forestland.
Read more about the bill in the recent VTDigger article Bill proposes expanding Current Use program to include some wild forests from January 25, 2022 here.
Rural Vermont supports farmer activist Stephen Leslie in speaking up on behalf of soil health in the States various ambitions to measure soil health and also suggests to measure the soil health status in comparison to old growth forests, stating recently publicly:
“It is estimated that VT has lost 1/2 of its soil since the era of the 1810 Merino sheep boom. If we take as our measure the health of agricultural and forest lands nationally, VT does indeed look good. And we can recognize all the great work that has been done, especially over the last 20 years to reduce phosphorus pollution and promote soil health and sustainable working lands. But soil health nationally is not a good measure---it is in catastrophic condition. Nationally, soil loss is estimated to continue apace at 4 tons per acre per year (5 tons in IA)---that's the equivalent of a pickup truck of soil leaving every acre every year. Nationally, SOM in ag soils is 1% or less----even on the great plains, where Mollisol soils were typically 9%-12%.
My supposition is that we should not use national comparisons to determine the health of our baseline, but rather look back to what this region was like pre-European settlement.
If the heavily farmed rich alluvial clay and silt loam soils of the Champlain basin are now at 4-5%---imagine what they would have been when they were under the cover of the clayplain ancient old growth forests of white oak and pine? Forests that evolved over a period of 12,000 years in the wake of retreating glaciers (and where recent findings suggest the ancestors of the Abenaki were already present hunting mega-fauna). Though many of our soils are rocky, they were not poor and thin. Early VT settlers reported bumper yields from their cleared fields, far exceeding what they had experienced farming the already worn-out soils of southern New England. For a time prior to westward expansion, the Champlain Valley was known as the "bread basket of the Republic".
We should take the soil health of the ancient old growth forests as the baseline measure for soil health in our region (emphasis added). That means understanding the ecology of ancient old growth forests, where deep soil carbon accrued through centuries. That legacy is the carbon bank we are still farming on. If we consider how the soil health principles are exemplified in an intact old growth forest system, and then mimic those functions in our land management practices, then we have before us a tremendous opportunity to heal and regenerate our land---and to respond in a most powerful and meaningful way to the challenges of a changing climate.” (Stephen Leslie, Cedar Mountain Farm/ Cobb Hill Cheese, Hartland Vermont via email to the Vermont Soil Health Policy Network on January 21, 2022)
Forest Future Program
Relevant bills for Rural Vermont:
H.566, An act relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program
In the past several weeks, the Vermont House Committee on Agriculture & Forestry has heard testimony from a variety of stakeholders and experts about H.566, An act relating to the establishment of the Vermont Forest Future Program. H.566 will require the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund to “strengthen, promote, and protect the forest products industry in Vermont” by creating a Vermont Forest Future Action Plan in collaboration with the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation.
The bill as written seeks to encourage “sustainable economic development” and includes language pertaining to climate change mitigation and “sustainable and responsible forest management practices.” Most recently on February 1, House Agriculture & Forestry heard from two forest industry professionals, one of whom provided the committee with insight on how a similar action plan rolled out in Maine to support their timber industry in the wake of several paper mills closing in rapid succession. The witnesses expressed optimism about the potential for Vermont’s forest products industry while emphasizing the need for stakeholder groups to have a seat at the table for all those who have interests in Vermont’s forests, with Rep. Vicki Strong (R, Orleans-Caledonia) and committee Chair Carolyn Patridge (D, Windham-3) echoing that need. As of February 9, H.566 still sits in House Agriculture & Forestry.
Environmental Justice Bill
S.148 - An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont
S.148, An act relating to environmental justice in Vermont, seeks to establish solutions for the problem of unequal exposure to environmental hazards between certain groups in Vermont–as Elena Mihaly, Vice President of the Conservation Law Fund, noted in her February 3 testimony before the Vermont Senate Committee on Natural Resources, BIPOC and low income Vermonters tend to face more of those hazards and the benefits intended to remediate those hazards than white Vermonters. The passage of S.148 would put into motion five specific tools: an environmental justice mapping tool for the Agency of Natural Resources, community engagement plans, guidance on how government agencies can assess total environmental impacts, an inventory of where state funds have been invested in the past, and an environmental justice advisory council. In the first two weeks of February, Senate Natural Resources will finish editing and complete the markup phase of the bill, anticipating that it will be voted out of the committee by the end of the month.
RAP Amendment Bill Update
S. 258 - An act relating to amending the Required Agricultural Practices in order to address climate resiliency
What has happened so far?
S. 258 has been a conversation starter for legislators in response to environmental groups issuing a letter to use the upcoming RAP revision to also assess how far the rule is fit to mitigate agricultural practices in facing the changing climate. Senators from the agricultural committee heard from VAAFM about how they currently see the current RAPs as being already relevant for climate mitigation. Since then the bill has not been moved - possibly a sign that legislators look to rulemaking at this point. Rural Vermont is preparing for the revision process and discussing the RAPs internally as well as with other organizations.
Want to get involved?
Join the monthly meetings of the Vermont Soil Health Policy Network where a diversity of stakeholders shares about their work in the field and consults about policy proposals, contact caroline@ruralvermont.org. This week Abbie Corse shared insights about the Climate Action Plan and gave a passionate testimony of the need to think intersectional and link environmental programs with farm viability goals as farmers lack healthcare, childcare, retirement plans and other social benefits.
