Vermont producers propose $50 registration fee to fund pesticide collection; agency to study extended producer responsibility

Industry representatives and solid-waste managers asked officials at a public meeting on April 10 to add a $50 per-product pesticide registration fee to a special fund that would pay for collection and safe disposal of unused, obsolete and banned pesticides.

The request was presented by Margaret Lagos, a lobbyist with Primer and Piper representing the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, CropLife America and RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sustainable Environment). “We would like to see a $50 additional fee put onto our registration, our 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,” Lagos said.

Why it matters: Solid-waste officials said current funding no longer covers rising costs to run household hazardous waste collection programs. Jen Holiday, representing the Solid Waste District Managers Association, said hazardous-waste collection has become far more expensive and said pesticides account for about 10% of the materials managed at collection events. Holiday said hazardous-waste disposal cost the districts roughly $3,061 per ton last year, compared with about $150 per ton for ordinary municipal trash.

How the program has worked: Speakers said Vermont has long used a mix of fees and producer-funded programs to cover pesticide stewardship. Historically, an additional $15 registration surcharge was split into three $5 portions for public education, applicator education and collection/disposal; speakers said that level no longer covers current expenses. Holiday told the group that hazardous-waste volumes and contractor costs have risen and that some districts paid steep sums to hold collection events — for example, Lamoille Solid Waste District paid about $75,000 last year for two events serving 475 participants (about $150 per participant).

Alternatives and next steps: Presenters also urged study of extended producer responsibility (EPR) as a longer-term funding model. Under the EPR model described at the meeting, manufacturers would submit a plan to provide and fund collection systems for their products rather than the state fixing a per-registration fee in statute. Lagos and Holiday said EPR programs already exist in Vermont for paint, electronics, mercury-containing lights and thermostats and batteries, and have been effective in other materials categories.

Agency response and timeline: According to presenters, the Agency of Agriculture will evaluate options for an EPR program or identify a company to run a program and report back by Dec. 15 of this year. Meeting participants discussed attaching the proposed registration-fee language to related agricultural legislation; presenters said they would share draft language with agency contacts (names referenced during the meeting) and legislative staff for follow-up.

Numbers and scope from the discussion: Speakers said there are roughly 11,000–12,000 active pesticide registrations collected through the agency; at $50 each that was estimated in the meeting to generate about $550,000 annually. Speakers also said collection requirements for municipalities include at minimum a permanent facility or two collection events per year (the state previously required four). The proponents framed the fee as aimed at avoiding costly environmental cleanup and preventing pesticides from entering landfills and surface waters.

What was not decided: The meeting recorded no formal vote. Presenters described a proposed fee, the agency study and a reporting deadline; participants generally expressed agreement but did not take formal legislative action at the session. Questions about precise statutory placement and exact fiscal calculations were left for staff and counsel to reconcile in drafting.

Ending: Advocates and solid-waste managers left the meeting asking that legislative language be refined and distributed to agency staff and counsel. The group said they will continue coordination as the agency studies EPR options and as legislators consider whether to adopt the temporary fee or pursue an EPR framework.