Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neonicotinoids Policy Implementation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont committee reviews implementation questions from 2024 Act 182 banning many neonicotinoid uses
Summary
Lawyers and legislators told the committee that Act 182 (2024) bans certain neonicotinoid seed treatments and outdoor applications during bloom, but state agency staff are interpreting the statute——to also prohibit treatments of trees because trees are "perennials" under the statute; the committee will review proposed agency rules next week.
Michael Grady, legislative counsel, briefed the committee on Act 182, the 2024 law restricting many uses of neonicotinoid pesticides and banning certain neonicotinoid-treated seeds.
The law, Grady said, "relat[es] to banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides," includes definitions of treated articles and neonicotinoid pesticides, and sets exemptions and emergency exceptions that the secretary of agriculture may issue in writing for up to one year.
The committee's central issue Thursday was statutory interpretation: the act bars applications to "ornamental plants," and agency staff told counsel they interpret the statute's reference to perennials to include trees. That interpretation, Grady said, means the agency will not permit arborists to apply neonicotinoids to trees for nonbloom or noncrop treatments unless an exemption is issued.
Why it matters: the committee intended to allow some tree treatments, committee members said, but Grady cautioned that courts give weight both to legislative intent and to plain language. "According to Steve," Grady said, citing agency counsel, "the plain language, a perennial is a tree." That difference between intended effect and the agency's plain-language reading underlies current implementation questions.
The law contains several compliance and transparency measures, Grady told the committee: exemptions require completion of integrated pest management training and a documented pest risk assessment; exemption orders are limited to one year, may specify geographic scope and use restrictions to minimize harm to pollinators and ecosystems, and must be posted to the General Assembly's website. In addition, the statute ties some effective dates and repeals to analogous prohibitions in New York law, meaning Vermont's prohibition on treated-seed sales and on ornamental-plant applications may not take effect unless New York's comparable measures remain in force.
Committee members asked how the agency will enforce its interpretation and how the agency will treat arborists. Grady explained enforcement tools exist under the agency's general enforcement authority and its pesticide enforcement provisions, and that the agency may proceed by issuing compliance letters, administrative orders, or civil penalties. He said the law instructs the agency to consult with the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) when the secretary adopts rules and to consult with the Agricultural Innovation Board for best management practices (BMPs) for treated-seed use.
Representative Bryant asked practical questions about whether a person must be a custom applicator to plant treated seed; Grady answered that treated seeds are treated articles under EPA practice and therefore are not regulated as pesticides in the same way as sprayed products, so no custom-applicator license is required for planting treated seeds.
The committee did not vote on any change to the statute. Grady said a proposed administrative rule implementing parts of Act 182 has been drafted and the committee plans to review that rule at an upcoming meeting.
Ending: The committee scheduled review of the proposed rule next week; members asked staff to return with agency representatives to clarify how the agency will define "ornamental plants" in rule language and how it will apply enforcement tools in practice.
