SmartTranscript of Senate Agriculture - 2025-04-10-2025 - 9:00 AM

[Chair Russ Ingalls]: Good morning. It's Thursday, April tenth. Beautiful day out there. Sugar makers are still boiling. That's good. Just want to warm up a little bit. We're gonna spend some time this morning, talking about pesticide pesticide feed disposal and report proposal. I've been hearing about this for about a month or so and and just had some conversations at the cafeteria in the hallway and thought it'd be great to get the groups in and and explain to us what they're trying to accomplish. So who wants to lead off? I do. Thank you. Margaret, the floor is yours. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: It's Thank you. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: There you go. For the [Margaret Laggis]: record, my name is Margaret Lagos, and I'm a lobbyist with Primer and Piper. And I, in this instance, am representing BIO, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, CLA, CropLife America, and RISE, Responsible Industry for a Sustainable Environment. And just to give a little, historical, background for you all, since about the late eighties, eighty nine, ninety, ninety one, somewhere in there, the state of Vermont wanted to hire a toxicologist. They came to the pesticide registrants because we we pay for most of our own programming through our registration fee, and they asked us if we would be willing to pay for that. They increased our fee. We brought in a toxicologist. But as a part of that, we also brought in an extra fifteen dollar fee, and that fifteen dollars was split three ways. Five dollars into an education program through the agency that helped Vermonters properly purchase, use, and dispose of pesticides. Because our our issues are somebody goes to the store, they see a gallon jug is, you know, less per ounce than a than a one ounce container of a pesticide, and they're like, oh, I I wanna buy the being Vermonters and being frugal. I wanna buy, you know, get the best bang for my buck, and they end up buying more than they really need to use. And so part of those PSAs were to properly purchase. And then the second was to properly use. Just because you have a large bug infestation, don't use twice as much as what the label says. Follow the label direction. So properly use the product. And then when you're done with the product, triple rinse your container and properly dispose of it. So it was a three pronged approach for those PSAs on education. And And then five dollars was supposed to also go into the collection and disposal of unused obsolete and banned pesticides. We don't want these products ending up in somebody's garbage can and in the landfill. We want to properly steward these products. And then the third five dollars was for the education of applicators. So since basically, since nineteen ninety, this industry has already had an EPR program in place. We've always paid for our own container collection and disposal and for the proper collection and disposal of unused, unwanted, and banned pesticides. So the issue has become that as people are moving into Vermont, they're buying some of these older properties, they're going down in the basement, and they're finding shelves full of products that they they don't know what they are. Maybe the label is gone. You know, it's a problem. So they are coming into a collection site, which is what they're supposed to do, and we are grateful for that. But it's getting to be expensive. And Vermont is a very rural state, so we'll have collection sites up in Essex County. We'll have some down in Southern Vermont, and there's not a good way to very efficiently efficiently run this. And so the program has gotten more and more expensive over the years by hundreds of thousands of dollars. We're not talking more expensive by a couple hundred dollars. So, obviously, the amount of money that we were collecting through our fee was was no longer adequate to cover that. So the agency and and we spoke to the agency about this. We knew that they were gonna be not able to properly fund the solid waste districts, this year. And so we came to them and said, we would like to see a fifty dollar additional fee put on to our registration or product registration that would go into a special fund and would just create a special fund that would properly pay for the programs that the solid waste districts are running. The solid waste districts also wanted to do a study on could we set up an EPR program for pesticides that would kinda get this burden off of their shoulders and potentially put it on to somebody else's and have some other outside entity, run the program. And so the agency the the second part of the language here is that the agency will take a look at running an e p r program or setting up an e p r program or finding a company that would run a program for us in the state of Vermont and they will come back and report back to you December fifteenth of this year. So it'll be pretty quick. Take a good look at that. But that's really what we're coming to you to say is that we have always stewarded our our products. We do not want these products ending up in a landfill. We want to pay this fee so that we adequately get these products collected and disposed of. So that's that's why we're coming to you and asking for a fee increase. We know it's kind of unusual to do that, but we very specifically want a fee increase to go into a special fund to properly steward our products in the state of Vermont. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, Margaret. Appreciate that very much. Any question for Margaret? No. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: You had mentioned the PR campaign that you you had. Can you expound on that? I mean, because moving into this area of twenty eighteen [Margaret Laggis]: and and buying a house [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yep. [Margaret Laggis]: No idea of this and going down in Yeah. My basement and finding things that I had no idea what they were. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yep. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: So how how are we how are we communicating that? Not only and I just that that was just one scenario. But how are we communicating that? Because I I have not heard any any PSAs or anything like that. [Margaret Laggis]: Yep. Yep. So the Agency of Agriculture still does run PSAs. You may have seen, like, don't pee on your driveway, and it's if you're gonna add, you know, products to your lawn. Exactly. It's to not put phosphorus on your you know, if you're putting it on your lawn, make sure you don't get I [Vice Chair Joe Major]: wouldn't remember that. I wouldn't remember that PSA. [Margaret Laggis]: So they do run them. It's very obviously, as you can imagine, it's very expensive to run them. And I also think the solid waste districts put out posters that tell you about the products that you can bring in. They always have special days for these products. But it is you know, we are a rural state. It's very expensive to run these programs. And so you do you probably don't see them often enough. But if you go to your town clerk's office, there's usually a poster there that talks about how to get rid of you know, if you if you get there and you find an old motor oil, you know, the same kind of thing. There are a lot of products in these homes these days that do not belong in your trash, and so we're trying to properly collect them. But that it is an ongoing issue as to how to best educate Vermonters. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: From from a communication standpoint, can we can we find alternative ways less expensive, I e social media? [Margaret Laggis]: I would say, like, the front porch forum. You know, some of those things might be really Exactly. [Vice Chair Joe Major]: Those types of and and also through, like I said, through real estate agents and things of that nature [Chair Russ Ingalls]: that could [Vice Chair Joe Major]: put this out as well. Just just a thought since Absolutely. I think a big component of this would be communicating this to the general population. [Margaret Laggis]: Yeah. I think if you've lived in Vermont for a long time, you're well aware of your solid waste districts because you eventually have a couch that you need to get rid of. You have, you know, other things and and that and therefore, you kind of meet them and get to know them. But I do agree that if you're brand new here, you might not have a clue what to do with these kind of products or how to properly handle them. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Sounds good. Any more from Margaret? Yep. [Member Brian Collamore]: So you wanna go from two hundred to two fifty? Is that basically [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yes. Or anything else? No? Steve, do I know? Are you would you like to or who would like to go next? [Member Steven Heffernan]: Is gonna go next. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Okay. Sounds good. Come on. [Jennifer Holiday]: Marty? Morning. My name is Jen Holiday. I'm the director of public power communications for the district, and thank you for having me here. I've never been in community with at least the folks that are here today. So it's it's [Chair Russ Ingalls]: So glad to have you. [Jennifer Holiday]: Nice to be here. I'm also representing today the the Solid Waste District Managers Association, which is made up of all the Solid Waste Districts in the United States. I'm gonna give you just a little bit of background about solid waste districts and alliances and our requirements that that might be helpful. Vermont towns and cities formed solid waste districts to meet the current dates that are required by the state associated with solid waste. And, one of those mandates, the primary mandate is to write a solid waste implementation plan, every five years and be approved by the state. And that plan the objectives of the plan is to help achieve statewide goals. And those statewide goals are waste reduction, toxicity reduction, energy conservation, sustainable materials management, and reducing our line our reliance on solid waste disposal. So some towns write solid waste implementation plan on their own, but most of the municipalities joined together and formed regional solid waste districts or alliances. And solid waste districts have municipal they're chartered municipalities and alliances work under the the municipal authority of of their member towns. So there's sixteen districts and alliances and eleven individual towns that have SWIP SWIP approvals and programs. And collectively, we're all referred to as solid waste management entities or SWNIs. So when I say SWNIs, you'll know what that is. So one of the many SWIB requirements is to have collection services for household hazardous waste and very small quantity generator waste. Very small quantity generators are businesses, institutions, far farmers, nonprofit, any entity that essentially is not a household and generates less than two hundred and twenty pounds per month. So there needs to be a place where those folks can go to dispose of their hazardous products. Collection of household hazardous waste and BSQG waste is the most challenging aspect of the SWIP. We have people showing up at our facilities. Oh, the so the requirement in the SWIP is to have, at a minimum, either a permanent collection facility or two collection events per year. And so people show up at our events or our facilities with things that you wouldn't expect would come out of households. We have people that bring home chemicals from work, and sometimes these chemicals can be highly explosive. We have products that haven't been able to, like, be the tea that comes in. And we have a lot of what we call unknowns products that are unlabeled because people have them stored in their basements, and they forget what they are. They're unlabeled or or it's rather, tip is cleaned out based in our attic or garage of a of someone who's passed away. And we have to individually test those materials to to determine how to safely manage that and transport it. We also have to follow really complex environmental and safety protocols, and the municipalities are also have long term liability risk because they are signing off on manifest that hold them accountable for that material from cradle to grave. And all of the waste, all of hazardous waste that we collect is shipped out of state. There is no tree expertise in Vermont. So some of some of the places that goes is as far away as Texas to be treated, either fuel blinded, incinerated, or landfilled in a hazardous waste landfill. So as you can imagine, the program is very, very expensive. CSWD, Chippensal Waste District, who I worked for, we spent close to a million dollars a year on hazardous waste collection and management through our permanent collection program. And the volumes of hazardous waste continue to rise as do the cost. We we have had cost increases of forty five percent in the last ten years. And we we like to talk about things in terms of tons in the waste management field. So we we do cost per ton per things, you know, whether it's landfill disposal or what we're getting for commodities at materials recovery facility. Hazardous waste cost us three thousand and sixty one dollars per ton last year. And to put that some reference in that solid waste, your regular trash going up to the country landfill costs about a hundred and fifty dollars per ton. So it's it's a significant cost, to manage hazardous waste both in permanent facilities and events. Events have they're required to hire a hazardous waste contractor to hold the event, and these costs have increased significantly over the past year because we don't have many contractors that wanna come to and have and hold household hazardous waste collection programs. In Lamoille County, Lamoille Solid Waste District, seventy five thousand dollars last year just to pull their two events with four hundred and seventy five participants. That amounts to about a hundred and fifty dollars per participant is what that that the Lamoille Solid Waste District had to pay to to do that. Okay. So pesticides make up about ten percent of the materials that we manage through our household hazardous waste collection program. It's it's more for some areas like Addison County, less Virginia County, but somewhere around ten percent. And it's important to because it because pesticides are are one of the most toxic nutrients that we manage, it's it's really important to keep these programs going and keep them out of the landfill, keep them out in the environment. RMA, HC of Ag, has been funding these programs for a pesticide collection for about twenty five years, but the funding had kept up with the increase in volume and the cost of the programs. So today, we received PSWD receives less than what it would have of what it costs us to be interested in that program. So a little bit about EPR. I just wanted to Margaret touched really briefly on it. Extended producer responsibility, I'm not sure what how much you're aware of what that is. Okay. But it's it's been demonstrated to be a very highly effective tool in Vermont to provide sustainable funding for collection programs, particularly for materials that are hard to manage. What it does is it is it requires the product manufacturer to provide for a system and pay for it to recover their products at the end of the of their life. And Vermont has DPR logs on paint, electronics, mercury containing lights, mercury containing thermostat batteries, and most recently, law two years ago, household waste became a category that's small and under reduced responsibility, which includes things like gold chemicals and solvents and and cleaners that don't even include pesticides. So how it works in swing is we in all cases of EPR programs in the state of Vermont, the producers are required to set up a program, but how it has worked on the ground is they essentially we are the program. Solid roots districts and alliances are providing the service. In some cases, like paint, bulbs, batteries, retailers provide that service too. You can bring your those products to retail locations. So the producers don't really have to open up household hazardous waste program, but they do need, like, a a a producer responsibility organization, paying one organizer that represents them that basically pays pays the collection with programs for their cause. So we're we're basically acting as a collection program, and Vermont is a national leader in extended producer responsibility. Not only the number of programs that we have are very high compared to most states. I think we're back into the nation in terms of the number of EPR programs that we have, but they've been incredibly effective. We have some of the well, we have the highest collection rates for for some of these products in the than any other state. And the the cost of the program, though, on the producers has not raised any cost for the consumer in the state with the exception of paint that has an advanced display has an advanced leak at the form of retail. But, otherwise, the consumer doesn't have seen any increased cost in the state of Vermont. So the CSWD and Solway District Managers Association support the proposal that study committee submitted to study options for sustainable farming sources to cover all costs associated with collection and disposal of pesticides. I think that extend producer responsibility is a more sustainable way of doing this because the cost of the programs will continue to increase and the producers will just have to incorporate that into the program. Whereas current the current funding mechanism will have to come back to you at some point some day. [Member Brian Collamore]: Do you mind saying that again, I just think? [Jennifer Holiday]: Yeah. Yeah. So the extended producer responsibility wouldn't require any kind of fee in statute. Correct? It's they submit a plan. This is what we're gonna do, and they figure out how to pay for it. They don't need any type of they do need a legislation so that everybody's in and there's no providers that they must do this, but it's not specific about how much it's gonna cost and how much they're gonna. And, we do support in the interim of any more sustainable funding like EPR, EPR to be looked at in the intro raising the fees so that our costs are covered. But, ultimately, we think that it would be more sustainable that we're not through this fee that's in statute, but it is an EPR program. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Yes. Thank you, mister chair. I guess I'm confused. Aren't we putting a fifty dollar charge in statute? [Jennifer Holiday]: Yes. Yes. So what what we're if you look at do you have a do you have a language I do do. So there is a sunset clause in statute in this in this language. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Well, there's a report due in December, but I don't see any signs up until subscribed. That's the extended production is also important. It's part of that. [Margaret Laggis]: Right. It goes it goes away if an EPR goes into play. Okay. [Jennifer Holiday]: Alright. So it's a temporary Okay. Increase? [Margaret Laggis]: I mean, it's it's permanent unless an EPR program goes into play. It's not necessary anymore. Gotcha. And the difference I think, Brian, the easiest way to explain that difference is that in an EPR program, there's not nothing in statute that says there's a fifty dollar fee that takes care of it. What it is is that, basically, the manufacturers are required to either set up some kind of a trade association or do something like that that set puts a plan in place. They offer it to the state of Vermont. It gets accepted, and then they just have to, amongst themselves, figure out how to pay for it. It's not something that is set in Vermont statute that it's fifty dollars a year or a hundred dollars a year. It's whatever it costs. They have to gather that money amongst themselves and and pay for it. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Okay. And I'm just curious, Myroneli, you popped back up. It's fifty dollars per registration. So what's an average number of registrations for your group a year? I mean, fifty dollars doesn't sound like a lot, but it could [Margaret Laggis]: two thousand It's you can ask Steve the exact numbers. I believe it's gonna raise about five hundred thousand dollars. A year. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Okay. Here's the the other question I had. Where do hospitals that which is a biohazard for the most part fit into all of this? [Jennifer Holiday]: Right. Biohazard falls into different Separate stuff. Okay. [Margaret Laggis]: And they're a larger producer. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Okay. Thank [Chair Russ Ingalls]: you. [Member Brian Collamore]: Yep. Yep. So we do collection twice a year. You know? Could we to save money, switch down to once a year and do a lot better just like Greenup Day that start advertising that this is the day that they're gonna collect to say say because there's six hundred and fifty thousand of it. So twice a year, again, makes it very expensive. And it's the average [Jennifer Holiday]: So the requirement comes from the state, and it was four times a year. And they reduced it to two times a year because of the cost in hopes that more EPR, such as EPR for HHW, that hasn't been implemented yet, will will help findings so that we can provide for our services. We have a permit facility at the Chittendaw Waste District. I think there's about seven permit facilities that keep on they're adding they've added a few in the last couple years. We our our participation rate, meaning how many participate per year at our facility is twelve. One day collection events are around one or two percent of the households. So people are not they don't have appropriate access, really, to properly dispose of the hazardous waste. So they're either holding on to it or burning the trash. And there is there you know, the waste composition say that the state did last year, which is they sorted trash to see what's going into the trash. It give us, like, six hundred tons of house advantage waste for this trash. So we don't really wanna take back on that as cost savings measure because it will infringe and profit disposal. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: I get that. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Anything else? Thank you. Thank you. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Thank you, John. [Member Steven Heffernan]: Forty, on the record, Steve Bueno, director of [Chair Russ Ingalls]: the Department of Health [Member Steven Heffernan]: and Agriculture Resource Management division of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and Economics. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yeah. Yeah. [Member Robert Plunkett]: You gotta come up with an acronym. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: We have acronyms. Oh, I know. [Member Steven Heffernan]: So, anyway, just basically here to answer questions about you know, we were reproach by folks here about this, and they asked how it could work, and so we provide us with answers. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: What do you need from us? What do we do? Are we gonna have to attach it to something or approve? How how is this gonna go through? I'm gonna defer to it's a both [Steve Dwinnell]: of that. Jonathan Wolf from Primer Piper, Adelson Kramer. Our our hope is that you'd be interested in attaching it to one of your miscellaneous angles. Okay. Potentially, for a for Yeah. Where where it's identified. The language that you would need, you probably need bench counsel to to make sure that the subsections are right, that what you see in in red there, and then the pesticide report is new language. The sub above nine eighteen registration is current language. So it'd be a sub sub c or sub whatever. But, yeah, the the hope and the goal would be to attach it there, and then we'd work with them with your colleagues in finance and then as well as the outside of business to move on there. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: K. Nobody's arguing this. Everybody's happy. Yes. Everybody. Everybody's good. K. Sounds like it's solving a problem and doing good, and everybody agrees. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Yeah. Tip of the cap to the producers too for stepping up, Paul. Yeah. Yeah. You know? It's important that the load gets shared. [Member Brian Collamore]: So so, Margaret, why why the producers were willing to do this? [Margaret Laggis]: We we do it everywhere across the country. This is we do not want our products to end up in landfills. We want them to be properly disposed of. So, we feel very, very strongly about this, and I I believe there are programs in every single state to do this. [Steve Dwinnell]: And I'll I'll just add that that, you know, the the the Swimmies came to us and and and we were talking and trying to find a solution to this. And talking to the agency, there there will be they don't have enough money in the budget to cover the disposal. So the fifty dollar fee is what is the Google that cover that, help fill their hole so it doesn't fall back on the taxpayers on the back end. So we have to fall back on the taxpayers so that that we might might understand. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Well, I can imagine too. It's gonna help the producers as well because I know I was in that business. We had people come into the the businesses all the time wanting to dispose of that stuff, and they they putting it on the backs of them as well. So Yeah. I get that. You you pay for it one way or you pay for it another where it just Yeah. It's where it's not supposed to. Yeah. [Margaret Laggis]: And we don't want it dumped in the wrong place. You know, we we we absolutely want these things properly disposed of. And that's what happens. If you don't have a program and you don't have a way to get rid of a product that you no longer want to use, you're gonna do something with it, and we want you to do the right thing with it. [Steve Dwinnell]: I have one one just technical change on on the on the language in there. I think Steve caught it. I don't know if you wanted to mention that for the per product. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yeah. I [Member Steven Heffernan]: didn't Yeah. The registrar shall pay additional eighty six dollars per product insurance. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Okay. Yeah. So [Steve Dwinnell]: it needs to be a per product. Yep. Just maybe we'll clean that up. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Great. Well, we're gonna have Michael O'Grady in here later. We'll share this language with him, and we have as now that, that's how you wanna do it, we'll we have four eighty four being held out. So [Margaret Laggis]: Yep. We'll [Chair Russ Ingalls]: language in there. If anybody's got any questions or anything later, just let us know. I don't Thank [Margaret Laggis]: you very much. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yeah. I don't think that I don't have a problem with any You don't have some. [Member Robert Plunkett]: No. I know. If if Stephanie could just give me an idea of how many registrations are there in the [Margaret Laggis]: Yeah. Stephanie Smith, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture. There are twelve thousand approximately. [Member Steven Heffernan]: K. I'll follow-up. I will note that the number has gone down. It's declining some of our revenue. It was eleven thousand seven [Steve Dwinnell]: hundred or so by the end. [Member Steven Heffernan]: Yeah. It varies every year. [Margaret Laggis]: It varies every year, and we collect registrations throughout the year. So currently, we are a little more than eleven thousand, but we could see that go for the end of this year. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Okay. Well, is everybody good? Everybody who would want to speak, have a chance to speak? Sound good? Well, thank you for coming, Andy. Did you I [Margaret Laggis]: just wanted to I apologize. No. That's okay. That's you weren't looking my way. I just wanted to add that the best way to manage a pesticide is you know your best. So that you know what you have in your storage, store it appropriately. Yeah. Buy the appropriate tool for the pest that you have and then to use it in accordance with the label. And the label do labels do have disposal instructions and frequently will say contact your local solid waste district. So review your labels. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: All good. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you hopping in. Thank you. Feel all good. Yes, Margaret. Thank you, Margaret. [Margaret Laggis]: Bye. [Jennifer Holiday]: I'm not late. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: And we got eleven o'clock. Usually, Michael is does not have any extra time, but maybe Linda can see where he's at and see if he's must come early. If not, we can take a break. [Jennifer Holiday]: I'm sending it. It's still breaking [Steve Dwinnell]: right now. We can't take time. Yeah. I was just at four. Thank you. Eleven. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: So We'll just see what Linda says and see if he's on his way. It's just super timing. I know. I know. That's why I wanted to say what happened. [Member Robert Plunkett]: And that's five hundred [Steve Dwinnell]: and fifty thousand dollars again. Oh, yeah. [Member Robert Plunkett]: Eleven thousand times fifty. So Yeah. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Yeah. Well, I know they've been talking to me for some time, but [Member Brian Collamore]: just the first question [Chair Russ Ingalls]: I had when when I met with them in the cafeteria is that, okay. Yeah. I see everybody here. Who's swinging at this? They said nobody. They all just wanna agree. Okay? That's where I go. Yep. He's [Jennifer Holiday]: sitting up for open. [Chair Russ Ingalls]: Alright. No problem. So let's break till eleven. Okay. And And there. Yeah. Yeah. Jared? Yes? We're [Steve Dwinnell]: gonna send Michael Brady the the language with

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Agriculture - 2025-04-10-2025 - 9:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: