Lawmakers have approved an update to the state’s pesticide regulations, the first time the rules have changed in more than 30 years.
The change brings Vermont in line with federal regulations, and includes a requirement that people using commercial pesticides must provide more notification to landowners and the public about when and how they are used. A new permit process will be required for adult mosquito spraying, and town governments will go through a new permit process for using the chemicals on private land and in public rights-of-way.
Environmental groups — including the Lake Champlain Committee, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, Audubon Vermont, Conservation Law Foundation, Vermont Public Interest Research Group, Vermont Natural Resources Council and the Vermont chapter of the Sierra Club — opposed the new regulations, arguing that they don’t go far enough to protect the health of humans and the ecosystem.
While the organizations “broadly support many of the overarching intentions and modifications” in the new rules, they argue the approach “maintains the status quo regarding pesticide regulation and management instead of evolving to a system where pesticides are used as a method of last resort after evaluating alternative pest management measures,” according to a letter submitted along with other public comments.
Another group of environmental activists known as the VT Pesticide and Poison Action Network said in a statement Thursday that the rules “don’t go nearly far enough in protecting worker and public health and mitigating the harms to wildlife, water, and soil that is posed by the use of these poisons.”
Throughout the process, concerns from various state agencies have surfaced at the last minute, causing lawmakers to delay their vote on the new rules three times in the last year.
Most recently, officials at the Vermont Department of Health requested a change in the new permitting process for aerial and truck-mounted pesticide applications, designed to control mosquitoes.
When issuing a permit, health department officials requested that the Agency of Agriculture consult with them “to evaluate whether issuing the permit would cause a significant public health risk.”
When lawmakers asked David Huber, deputy director of the Public Health & Agricultural Resource Management Division at the agency, about the change Thursday, the questions focused on the agency’s authority to move ahead with a permit, even if health department officials said it posed a health risk.
“If it turns out that the Department of Health has a very valid reason as to why they would not want a permit to go through, then I think that has to be assessed and evaluated,” Huber said.
In response, Rep. Trevor Squirrell, D-Underhill, said his concern remained.
“It seems to me that, if in fact there’s significant public health risk, they should not be getting a permit,” he said. “What I’m hearing from the agency is that, ‘we’ll talk about it.’ I’m concerned about that. I need to feel more comfortable.”
Steve Dwinell, director of the Public Health & Agricultural Resource Management Division, said if health department officials expressed concerns about significant health risks, the agency would not issue a permit, or would modify the permit to address the risk.
The lawmakers who serve on the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules voted unanimously to approve the bill, but directed lawmakers in other relevant committees to discuss issues that aren’t addressed in the regulations.
While most seeds in the state are pretreated with pesticides, and studies have shown the treatment can be harmful to pollinators, the new rules don’t move the needle on whether and how pretreated seeds are used.
A new law, passed last year, requires the Agency of Agriculture to draft best management practices for the use of treated seeds. The bill had originally proposed banning the seeds altogether, but it met fierce opposition from the already struggling dairy industry, which relies on the seeds to feed their cows.