Senate Agriculture Committee narrows focus on H.739, seeks permit-based limits on paraquat use

The Senate Agriculture Committee on April 23 heard expert testimony on H.739, a bill to prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat while allowing narrowly defined exemptions for certain tree and berry production.

Steve Gwozdz, director of the Division of Plant Industry at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the committee that paraquat labels and federal guidance already include detailed application requirements. "When it comes to hand application, there's actually specific language on the label relative to hand application," he said, noting hand application must be hand-pressurized and that drift is governed by nozzle type, boom height, pressure and droplet size.

Gwozdz and committee members discussed technical ways to limit large-scale use. Witnesses described existing practices in orchards and berry production that use narrow passes — a "32–38 inch arm" or "strip" rather than wide boom applications — and said controls should prevent whole-field "burn down" operations. The committee discussed numerical references mentioned in testimony, including keeping applications "not being any higher than 14 inches of going through the air" and limiting overall use to a small annual volume (one participant referenced "less than 125 gallons a year").

Rather than prescribe a single boom width or droplet specification in statute, Gwozdz recommended that the committee require a statutory permit authority and use established standards and federal tools to define conditions. "The permit shall have conditions which minimize drift and minimize off-target selection," he said, adding that the agency periodically inspects permitted applications and can identify noncompliance.

Gwozdz also suggested referencing existing industry standards — the Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers — and EPA drift-mitigation measures, including an EPA drift-reduction calculator that aggregates pressure, nozzle, boom height and application volume factors. He noted that some mitigation language is being added to labels to comply with the Endangered Species Act, and recommended the committee rely on these established tools rather than invent a new technical specification in statute.

Committee members agreed to work with counsel to draft permit authority language that would allow the agency to set enforceable conditions and to continue refining statutory wording with staff and the attorney assigned to the bill. No formal vote was taken; committee members said they want to finalize language and consult staff and counsel before the next step.

The committee's next steps include coordinating with the Agency of Agriculture and the bill attorney to draft permit-authority language and consider cross-references to EPA guidance and engineering standards in the statutory or permit language.