MONTPELIER — Following a flood of public concern about plans to apply a pesticide to address milfoil — a widespread invasive weed — on Lake Bomoseen, lawmakers have introduced a bill to ban most chemicals that control aquatic nuisances for one year while a new committee conducts a study.
“I think we’d all agree that the starting point for any discussion about chemicals in water should be ‘no,’” Rep. Seth Bongartz, D-Manchester, who introduced the bill, told members of the House Committee on Environment and Energy this week. “Then, you move on to a discussion about whether there are circumstances under which it might be justified, and then what they might be.”
Right now, the existing statute “gets very quickly to ‘yes,’” he said.
As introduced, the bill, H.31, contains two parts. The first would establish a moratorium on any new permits from the state’s Agency of Natural Resources that would allow “the use or application of pesticides, chemicals other than pesticides, or biological controls.” It also would ban the use of any pesticides already allowed by the state under existing permits, with a few exceptions for urgent situations.
Its second part would establish an Aquatic Nuisance Control Study Committee, which would assess the environmental and health impacts from using pesticides, other chemicals and biological controls. The committee would compare those impacts to the usefulness of the treatment.
But certain elements of the proposed legislation are not likely to pass out of committee in its current form, according to Rep. Laura Sibilia, I-Dover, vice chair of the House Environment and Energy Committee, which is currently reviewing the bill. Sibilia is presiding over the committee in place of its chair, Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, who has been absent this week.
“I’d say there’s a fair amount of contention around whether or not a moratorium is needed, and to what scale,” Sibilia said, “and probably more consensus around (the) study, although we’re hearing from a number of folks that the rulemaking process should be allowed to play out.”
The state has made progress in recent years on the aquatic nuisance permitting process, according to Oliver Pierson, who manages the state’s lakes and ponds program, and state officials want further input from the public. A rulemaking process is already underway that would solidify the new measures and allow for more public engagement, Pierson said.
The bill and its subject matter are sources of tension among Vermonters who care about lakes and waterways. Several members of a group that is concerned most about a potential herbicide treatment on Lake Bomoseen testified before lawmakers this week, advocating in ardent support of the bill.
Bob Stannard, a former state representative and lobbyist who has been organizing the movement against spraying herbicides, pointed to herbicide treatments that took place on Lake Saint Catherine, which reportedly impacted fish populations due to the sudden disappearance of so many plants. (Stannard also writes commentaries for VTDigger.)
Residents who live near the lake are “quite upset” about the permit application, submitted by the Lake Bomoseen Association, that seeks approval to apply the herbicide ProcellaCOR to address Eurasian watermilfoil, Stannard said. State officials are currently reviewing the application.
Opponents of the herbicide say the milfoil in the lake is not problematic, and they worry about unintended consequences for human health and the environment. Anglers have been particularly anxious about the herbicide, worried that its application could impact fish populations in the popular fishing spot.
More than 3,500 people have signed petitions opposing the application, Stannard said.
“The reason why H.31 is important here is that, notwithstanding all of this opposition to an application, the (Department of Environmental Conservation) can still go forward and issue a permit. It can listen to objections and say, ‘fine, we hear you. We don’t agree with you,’” he said.
The Vermont Natural Resources Council supports the bill. The current process does not sufficiently seek to understand the ecological harms posed by aquatic nuisances, according to written testimony from Jon Groveman, the council’s policy and water program director.
“Given what we know about the dangers of pesticides to human health and the environment, VNRC does not believe that the statute is asking the right questions and taking the right approach to determine when pesticides are used in Vermont’s waters, and it is time to revisit the aquatic nuisance permitting statute,” he wrote.
Meanwhile, other lake associations have testified against the bill. Members of the Lake Carmi Camper’s Association have been working to address outbreaks of harmful cyanobacteria blooms that come after many years of phosphorus pollution in the lake. So far, that pollution has decreased by about 40%, but outbreaks still plague the lake because of “legacy” phosphorus that remains at its bottom. An expensive aeration system, in place for three years, has yet to solve the problem.
Cyanobacteria blooms can cause skin rashes, sore throats, stomach problems and more serious health impacts because they can release toxins when they die and decompose, according to the Vermont Department of Health.
Recently, the association has turned to aluminum sulfate, or alum, a chemical that would prevent phosphorus from fueling blooms. This year’s budget includes funding for a feasibility study. A permit application to the Agency of Natural Resources would be a likely next step, Pierson said.
On Thursday, members of the Lake Carmi Camper’s Association told lawmakers they oppose the bill because it could stop the progress toward an alum treatment.
Pat Suozzi, a member of the Lake Iroquois Association, said her association used herbicide to treat milfoil and found it to be effective at removing the weed and allowing other native plants to regrow.
Pierson said the permitting process in Vermont is the most rigorous of any state in New England. Lake associations already need to meet a high burden of proof that chemical applications are a last resort to obtain a permit, he said.
“We don’t want these lakes to be applying pesticide year in and year out,” he told lawmakers. “We want this to be a one-off issue to get an infestation under control and use other measures thereafter to address the aquatic invasive species infestation.”
Asked whether Pierson believed the processes could be improved through a study by the proposed committee, he said the committee work could repeat what’s already taking shape in the rulemaking process.
If the bill doesn’t pass out of the committee by the end of the day on Friday — the Statehouse’s mid-session crossover deadline — it will not move forward this year.