Committee hears concerns about draft rules implementing Act 182 neonic restrictions

At a meeting of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee, members heard testimony from Emily May of the Xerces Society urging changes to a draft administrative rule meant to implement Act 182 (H.706), the law restricting neonicotinoid insecticide uses in Vermont.

May, agricultural conservation lead with the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, said the draft rule contains what she called a clear timeline error and a broader problem with voluntary language: "the implementation starts in 2031, which is 2 years after the bill says that it should start because the phase out is in 2029," she said, adding that many provisions in the draft use "should" instead of the enforceable "shall." She told the committee that the law is intended to restrict routine, prophylactic use of neonic-treated seed and to require enforceable best management practices where neonics remain in use.

The testimony focused on several concrete concerns. May said the draft rule lacks specific, enforceable disposal requirements for excess treated seed — which she described as "poison pills for birds" — and recommended minimum distances from wells and surface water when burial is used. She pointed to Minnesota draft guidance that recommends burial at "at least 200 feet from a private well, tile drain inlet or open water, and a thousand feet from a public water supply well," and noted Vermont has only one facility farmers could realistically use for centralized disposal.

May also urged the committee to ensure the rule addresses non-seed agricultural uses covered by the law, particularly applications that present high risks to pollinators such as treatments on flowering crops and nursery stock. She said the rule should require distinct best-management practices for exempted, high-risk uses and include provisions such as advanced notification of nearby beekeepers when an exemption is granted. May said the draft rule currently focuses mainly on seed treatments and does not clearly cover nursery production or other high-risk applications.

On aerial application, May asked the agency to prohibit aerial applications of neonics outright rather than rely on the state's existing pesticide-control regulations, which set a 50-foot buffer from pollinator habitat. "A 50 foot buffer for a high drift scenario like aerial application really isn't sufficient for these very highly toxic insecticides," she said, while allowing that lower-drift technologies such as some drones might warrant different treatment if safety can be shown.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during the discussion. Representatives raised the issue of alignment between statutory requirements and pesticide label restrictions; May said labels sometimes include mandatory instructions but treated-seed labels and seed-tag QR codes are often limited in detail and not always read by growers. She recommended that where pesticide labels are more restrictive the rule should adopt the more protective standard.

May also pressed for an exemption process tied to documented pest pressure and integrated pest-management (IPM) steps: exemptions, she said, should be available only where a pest-risk assessment demonstrates need and where growers are using scouting, thresholds and cultural practices. She said the draft rule does not yet incorporate the statute's procedural language for exemption decisions and that the agency appears to be treating exemptions more as guidance than formal rulemaking.

The committee heard that the Interagency Committee on Administrative Rulemaking (ICAR) will review the draft next and that public comment will follow; May and others anticipate further changes through that process. No formal votes or committee actions on the draft rule were recorded during this meeting segment.

May closed by stressing both the environmental risks posed by neonics — to pollinators, birds and aquatic systems — and the goal of retaining viable farms while reducing pesticide risk. "We can reduce pesticide risk and protect pollinators while maintaining the viability of our farms," she said.