Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Disposal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews $50 pesticide-registration fee to fund household pesticide disposal
Summary
Legislative staff and Agency of Agriculture witnesses described an added $50 annual pesticide registration fee intended to reimburse solid waste districts for household pesticide disposal while agencies explore a longer-term extended producer responsibility solution.
A proposal to add a $50 annual fee to pesticide registrations in Vermont drew an overview from Agency of Agriculture staff at a legislative committee meeting.
"The pesticide registrants got together and proposed a mechanism to fund that disposal through the existing registration fees by adding a $50 fee that, is intended to exist until a more permanent solution can come along," said Steve Dwindel, Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. He told the committee that solid waste management districts have been shouldering increasing costs to dispose of unwanted and obsolete pesticides turned in by households.
The bill language would place the $50 fee on top of the existing registration fee for pesticides. Legislative staff described the new fee as intended to cover annual disposal costs currently borne by solid waste districts. "JFO estimates it would raise approximately $615,000 for the pesticide monitoring special fund on an annual basis," staff said during the hearing.
Witnesses emphasized that the fee is an interim measure while agencies and stakeholders consider an extended producer responsibility (EPR) model for pesticides. "The problem we've got right now is there is no extended producer responsibility organization for pesticides," Dwindel said. Section 3 of the bill directs the Agency of Agriculture to consult with the Department of Environmental Conservation and report on sustainable revenue sources for pesticide collection and disposal.
Committee members noted written support from solid waste districts and manufacturers. No formal vote on this provision occurred during the hearing; the proposal remains a proposal being discussed by the committee.
The agencies and witnesses provided fiscal estimates and a policy rationale but did not present final administrative rules or an enacted EPR plan. The committee heard that the added fee would be collected through the existing pesticide‑registration process and routed to state pesticide monitoring funds, which would then, in part, support reimbursements to solid waste districts for household collection and disposal work.
The agencies will continue consultations on a longer-term structure for pesticide stewardship and may return with recommended statutory language or implementation steps.
