Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/24/2017 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 134 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 19-BAN NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDES
1:32:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 19, "An Act limiting the application of
neonicotinoid pesticides." [Before the committee was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 19, Version 30-
LS0219\D, Nauman, 3/8/17, adopted as the working draft on
3/17/17.]
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled that during the bill's first hearing the
committee heard the sponsor's prepared statement and took public
testimony. She invited the sponsor to provide further comment.
1:32:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND, prime sponsor of HB 19, drew attention
to the committee packet containing written answers to all the
questions asked at the bill's first hearing, copies of
communications received from people, and copies of the labels
from a standard and widely available [neonicotinoid pesticide]
product made by Bayer and sold in retail stores for garden use.
The bill's purpose, she advised, is to keep neonicotinoid
pesticides from being used in seed treatment or being applied to
crops outside a greenhouse, in other words large-scale
commercial agriculture. The bill is not meant to prevent
individuals from buying and applying these products to
ornamental plants on their properties. Personally, she said,
she will no longer use these products on her own property as
they are unnecessary and are used mostly for convenience.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND drew attention to the labels and noted
it is almost impossible to read the fine print detailing the
dangers of neonicotinoid pesticides. The world is watching what
Alaska does, she said, because this is an issue of international
importance. She brought attention to the letter from a man in
England which states that one teaspoon of these chemicals is
enough to give a lethal dose to 1.25 billion honeybees, yet
thousands of pounds of these pesticides are routinely applied to
farmland and gardens across the U.S. Neonicotinoid pesticides
account for 17 percent of worldwide insecticide sales, she
noted. The advantage of these chemicals is that their toxicity
for mammals, birds, and fish is relatively low, although there
is growing concern about their effects on cerebellar neurons,
the brain and spinal neurons in mammals. Nearly 75 percent of
all flowering plants rely on pollinators for fertilization, she
said. People using neonicotinoids on their garden flowers are
damaging the bees coming to pollinate those flowers.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND pointed out that Alaska is unable to ban
the use of these retail products because it would interfere with
interstate commerce. Until the EPA steps in and bans these
products, she explained, all Alaska can do is try to control
them any way it can. The way to do that is through the state's
commercial agriculture and the pesticide applicators that are
called in for various kinds of pests on a larger scale by
consumers who do not want to use these products personally given
how nasty these products are.
1:37:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH addressed a link he sent to members
regarding the other side to this. He related that government
regulators did not see a connection. He asked what the downside
would be of banning or not using this pesticide product.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND replied she does not know that there
would be a downside because it is possible to do agriculture on
both a large scale and in a garden in such a way that it
discourages [pests]. She read from a letter by Michelle Wilber,
Organic Gardening Coordinator, Alaska Community Action on Toxics
(ACAT), which states: "I have firsthand proof that growing food
plants does not necessitate the use of pesticides, and can
instead be helped by bee-friendly organic methods and
techniques. I run a backyard gardening program in Anchorage
called Yarducopia. We grow a wide variety of vegetables
organically on over 2000 sf [square feet] of land a year. We
rely on interplanting to confuse and repel harmful insects while
attracting beneficial ones, observation and early intervention,
providing sufficient nutrients and water for strong plants, and
other organic methods to successfully deter pests."
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND recalled the spruce bark beetle kill of
millions of spruce trees across Alaska several years ago. She
said she prevented beetle kill of her spruce trees by watering
them, which is one example of how organic farmers work.
Interplanting, such as planting basil with tomatoes, confuses
and repels harmful insects, she continued, so there are ways to
not need to use these pesticide products. Commercial large-
scale agriculture relies heavily on chemicals. She reiterated
she doesn't think there is a downside to banning these products.
1:40:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to page 1, lines 8-9, of
the proposed CS, which state: "This subsection does not apply
to a pesticide applicator licensed under AS 46.03.320(b)." He
surmised this means the bill would not cut out those who are
licensed to apply.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND confirmed the proposed CS would not cut
out those who are licensed to apply. She drew attention to a
question-and-answer paper in the committee packet by Mr. Bob
Blankenburg, PE, Solid Wastes and Pesticides Program Manager,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), entitled, "HB019
Supporting Document Response to Committee Questions by DEC
3.24.17". She read from the answer to Question 3, which states:
DEC does not license applicators, rather, we issue a
certification. I would say that the certification process is
fairly rigorous new applicators are required to pass a
comprehensive examination, which includes specific questions
depending on which category or categories that the applicator is
certified under. Applicators are also subject to continuing
education requirements." Representative Drummond then read from
the answer to Question 2 in Mr. Blankenburg's paper, which
states: "We use an Enforcement Response Policy in dealing with
pesticide violations, with ramifications depending on the
gravity of the violation ? Among the most significant
administrative actions we could take is revoking certification
from an applicator for significant non-compliance." Therefore,
she concluded, DEC "is on it."
1:42:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to the answer to Question 1 in
Mr. Blankenburg's aforementioned paper, which states in part, "?
in the case of soybeans, A Minnesota document indicates that
neonicotinoid concentrations in plants that germinated from
neonicotinoid treated seeds decrease rapidly as the plant
grows". He inquired what this means.
1:42:59 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:43:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER reiterated his question.
CO-CHAIR TARR read aloud Question 1, which asks: "What is the
lifespan of contaminated seeds and soil? So, once the plant/seed
has been treated, does it stay in the plant for its lifespan?"
She asked Mr. Carter of the Division of Agriculture to interpret
the meaning of the answer referred to by Representative
Rauscher.
1:45:38 PM
ROBERT CARTER, Agronomist, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, replied that soybeans in canola oil are not the
only plants treated with these types of insecticides. In
Alaska, other such plants are potatoes, barley, wheat, and rye.
When a seed is treated either in-furrow or in the planting
equipment itself, he said, that systemic insecticide degrades as
the seed germinates and grows throughout that season. In
potatoes, for example, it's about 65-80 days before the
insecticide within that plant systemically is almost unviable.
1:46:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired as to the particular stage in a
plant's life that this insecticide would generally be applied.
MR. CARTER responded that that is a very open-ended question.
He explained that each chemical has a very specific label that
is the law that states when the chemical is best applied based
on the specific target pest. In the majority of the cases the
chemical is either put in the soil at planting, the seed is
treated before planting, or the chemical is applied in-season to
the mature plant.
1:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled Mr. Carter stating that the
plants used in Alaska include potatoes, wheat, barley, and rye.
She asked how much [neonicotinoid pesticide] is already being
used on Alaska grown products.
MR. CARTER confirmed the aforementioned plants are a few known
to have this type of pesticide sprayed on them. He said he
cannot speak to any direct numbers of how much one individual
farmer sprays or applies over another because [the division]
does not manage any business to that level. However, when
people inquire about recommendations for in-season management of
insects, [the division] takes that approach as an integrator
approach. Pesticides are not always the first answer, he said,
there are other options in the farmer's toolbox. Outside of the
aforementioned food crops there is use on ornamentals that are
for sale.
1:49:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether other pesticides are
available that would get the same result but be less harmful.
MR. CARTER replied that a multitude of insecticides, pesticides,
and fungicides exist that are used to stop a pest. [The
division] doesn't like to call a chemical toxic or harmful when
used by the label, he said, because the label is the research
that is provided that is the least toxic to the end user, the
product, and the environment. The term "replacement" cannot be
used, he continued, because there was a reason this class of
chemical was built, and that reason is that it replaced one that
is extremely harmful to humans, and while it may be less harmful
to humans it may be harmful to other things. It is a tool that
agricultural producers like to have in their toolbox when damage
to a crop reaches an economic threshold and producers must
choose between making a profit and continuing their farming
operation or losing a crop that could be detrimental to their
farming operation.
1:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked which pests in Alaska are being
targeted with the neonicotinoid pesticides. She surmised that
neonicotinoids are not sprayed for mosquito control.
MR. CARTER responded that there is a multitude of insects.
Neonicotinoids are nonselective, he explained, and do not choose
aphids over leafhoppers or spruce bark beetles. Any insect that
consumes this product from inside or outside a plant will die.
The majority of folks utilize neonicotinoids in their integrated
pest management plan. For example, the potato industry would
use it to stop leafhoppers and aphids from being a vector of
virus and disease within a potato seed field or a table stock
field. The cut flower industry may use them to stop thrips from
causing bud damage so that a plant's aesthetic value is there to
keep the market value up.
1:53:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether neonicotinoids are used
for widespread bark beetle problems like Alaska has had.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND clarified that she brought up the spruce
bark beetle as something that could have been treated with
massive amounts of water, but a whole forest cannot be watered,
and Alaska suffered through many dry seasons. The spruce bark
beetle is not on the Bayer label as being an insect that would
be impacted by this pesticide.
MR. CARTER added that there are numerous quantities of chemical
brand names, but only a few active ingredients fall within the
neonicotinoid class of pesticides. Each label is very specific
for the pest, the type, the crop, and the application site. He
said he doesn't have any current information on maps for use of
neonicotinoids to control the bark beetle. He presumed the
question is looking to when there is another large impact to a
native plant in Alaska and whether this chemical would be
necessary to stop that to protect the natural resource. Drawing
attention to the ending line of the proposed CS, he noted that
the language does not remove the product from use as a tool by a
certified pesticide applicator, which he appreciates.
1:55:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Mr. Carter whether he has any sense
that disallowing the use of [neonicotinoid pesticides] in Alaska
would cause an economic impact to any type of industry.
MR. CARTER answered he cannot speak to the direct revenue loss
or gain to the use of this type of pesticide. There should not
be any loss of revenue generated on a farm, he said, because any
agricultural producing area that is utilizing one of these
chemicals could go through the DEC process to get trained and to
retain an applicator's license within the state and then be able
to responsibly utilize these products.
1:56:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired whether the aforementioned would
be hard to do.
MR. CARTER replied he personally has been certified in the state
since he was 18 years old, so he has taken the test multiple
times and participated in the many continuing education units to
maintain his license. A multitude of training opportunities are
provided through the University of Alaska Fairbanks [Cooperative
Extension Service (CES)] and through the DEC, he said. Given
the training materials out there, the opportunity for the common
individual who may not be familiar with agricultural industries
has a very good chance of passing and becoming a certified
applicator in the state of Alaska. Responding further to
Representative Johnson, he said that to the best of his
knowledge multiple training opportunities are put on by DEC in
conjunction with the University of Alaska Fairbanks CES. There
is a 3-day training class prior to taking the exam, he
explained, but he believes DEC is willing to do self-study. The
test is extensive, taking about four hours between the core and
the category, so it can be done in a day.
1:59:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated that she is trying to get a sense
of how widespread the use of this is commercially. She asked
whether the dahlia and ornamental plant industries in general do
very much with their crops.
MR. CARTER responded that without a specific site or a specific
pest problem it would be hard to say that one industry utilizes
these more than the others. Knowing that the opportunity for
someone who is certified or someone who could become certified
to still make an application when absolutely necessary of one of
these classes of pesticides, he said he doesn't see that one
group is under-utilized over the other.
2:00:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON inquired how the bee population in Alaska
is doing.
MR. CARTER answered that, to the best of his knowledge, at this
time Alaska's bee population is quite healthy, both the native
bees as well as the bees that are imported or overwintered by
the beekeepers around the state. He said he cannot speak to
whether the populations are healthy because of Alaska's distance
to isolation and the lack of the use of these chemicals, but it
very well could be looked at either way. Is it the lack of
widespread use because of Alaska's isolation distances between
large agricultural lands? Is it the lack of use of this
insecticide class in general? But, he continued, to his
knowledge from the folks that he works with who deal with bees
the hives are quite healthy in the state.
2:02:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that her legislative aide for this
issue communicated with every commercial grower who had contact
information and none of them were using products containing
neonicotinoids. The aide also made visits during every Alaska
Farm Bureau meeting. While this is not scientific, she allowed,
the point is to not wait until there is damage to the bee
populations. These products have been already banned in Europe
by the European Union, which grows amazing amounts of food.
California's crops are suffering because of the collapse of bee
colonies, she said. The bee industry is huge in the Lower 48
billions and billions of bee populations are transported all
across the country to be there just in time to pollinate
flowering plants.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND further said it is rumored that the
Chinese are having people take paintbrushes and climb into the
trees to pollinate the plants. That is an absurd way of
pollinating something after destroying the natural pollinators
that do this just in the course of their work, she opined. Bees
don't know that they are pollinating this is how they operate.
Bees are an amazing social construct that happens to pollinate a
large percentage of food that goes into the mouths of humans and
sustains human lives. Since [neonicotinoids] are not already
widely used in Alaska, except at a small level in local,
personal gardens, she said she wants to stop the injury that may
occur to bees and natural pollinators, of which there are many
in Alaska and for which there are no statistics.
2:04:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR displayed DEC web site that provides information
on its Pesticide Control Program and certified applicators. She
observed that the web site states who must be licensed, and this
includes people using pesticides for commercial purposes other
than on their own property, providing consulting information,
applying pesticides on any school or public place, and applying
a restricted-use pesticide. She offered her understanding that
the change [in who needs to be certified] would be for farmers
themselves because they would be using it for commercial
purposes on their own properties, whereas the current regulation
is that certification is needed if it is on someone else's
property. Showing another page on the web site, she noted that
participating in the certified applicator training and paying
the $25 fee would not be onerous. Representative Tarr asked
whether Mr. Carter's understanding is also that that category
would be added to the people who would need to be certified.
MR. CARTER offered his belief the aforementioned is correct and
said those are definitely DEC regulations. From his many years
working in the industry as a certified applicator, he can say
that many of Alaska's agricultural producers are certified at
this time. They self-police and want to understand the laws,
regulations, and guidelines to make sure they are being safe
when they have to access one of these tools.
2:06:47 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said the aforementioned is her understanding as
well. She posited that the concern and need for restricting use
of [neonicotinoids] to certified applicators is because the
general population tends to treat in the wrong conditions and to
over-apply the amount of pesticide necessary to achieve the
desired intervention; whereas folks who are certified follow the
label closely, wear the protective gear, look at the conditions,
and do proper application. She asked whether Mr. Carter agrees
with how she sees the concern.
MR. CARTER offered his agreement by giving the analogy that when
people need a plumber or electrician for their homes they look
for a certified individual who has the knowledge, content base,
and experience to do their trade correctly and legally. He said
he stands behind Co-Chair Tarr 100 percent when it comes to
pesticides in general because the end user that's certified
knows and understands that the application rates, the sites, and
the pests identified on that label are the federal law, as
opposed to homeowners or unfamiliar users who think that if one
ounce is good they might as well use two. He said he agrees
that a certified applicator with anything relating to pesticides
tends to be the safest applicator.
2:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired as to how far away the federal
government is on the heels of this legislation.
2:09:24 PM
JOHANNA SCHULTZ, Staff, Representative Harriet Drummond, Alaska
State Legislature, responded that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) updated its pollinator health policy in January
2017. Called the Policy to Mitigate the Acute Risk to Bees From
Pesticide Products, this updated policy describes additional
pesticide label restrictions to protect bees under contract for
crop pollination services and prohibits applications of highly
toxic pesticides under certain conditions when bees are more
likely to be present, such as bloom. Also, she continued, the
update provides exceptions for those pesticides that have
residue that becomes less toxic to pollinators in a short amount
of time, for crops that have longer bloom periods, and allowing
pesticide use during hours when bees are less active. She said
it is her understanding that the EPA is acting on this and that
the five pesticides listed in the proposed CS are up for re-
review in 2018.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that state action sometimes prompts the
federal government to take more action. The federal government
may in some cases be waiting to see what is happening at the
state level, she said, because how it gets worked out in
different state-level policies gives a sense for a federal
policy, particularly on an agricultural item where the growing
conditions are very different from state to state and it can be
very hard to do a one-size-fits-all approach. Sometimes the EPA
process takes years to work its way through, she explained,
because it is a risk management model and the EPA must re-review
the science and take public comment. Alaska getting a little
ahead on this would not necessarily be a bad thing.
2:11:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated she supports this legislation in
general. She has had bees and understands that at one point it
was thought that [the problem] was viral. While this is not
currently a concern in Alaska, it might be in the future, so she
applauds bringing the bill forward. She said it doesn't sound
like the bill would cause commercial growers already using these
pesticides to have to change things unless it is just to get
permitted. However, she continued, she is concerned that
putting a regulation in place will require adding an enforcement
position, particularly as it relates to stores selling these
products. So, while she is not opposed to the legislation, she
said she does have concerns with adding a position when
legislators are working so hard to not grow the budget.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND agreed that another entire enforcement
position is not needed because DEC is already dealing with many
of these pesticides. She said when the bill gets to the House
Finance Standing Committee the committee would try to argue the
department down into less than a full position if that became
necessary. She noted that the proposed CS does not restrict
retail products, because these are controlled federally, and
such a restriction would interfere with interstate commerce;
therefore, the state cannot restrict them. She urged members to
read the labels if they buy these products. For example, [the
Bayer product] says: do not apply near lakes, streams, rivers,
or ponds; do not apply to plants grown for food; do not treat
plants grown in pots, flower boxes, or other containers; do not
apply to soils that are waterlogged or frozen; do not measure
this product with measuring utensils, such as measuring cups and
measuring spoons, used for food or drinking water.
Representative Drummond further noted that the label states for
outdoor residential use only and therefore it is not a
commercial grade product. The bill looks to control the
commercial quantities of this product that might be used in
Alaska, she explained.
2:16:07 PM
MS. SCHULTZ addressed the topic of viral impacts to bees and
said studies have shown that exposure to neonicotinoid
pesticides lowers the immune system of pollinators and bees,
making them more susceptible to virus and mites.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she recognizes that the collapse of
beehives is a huge concern all over and appreciates the intent
of the legislation. She added that she is trying to envision
somewhere between greenhouses and licensed applicators and what
would actually be regulated by the bill. Passing the bill to
make a statement, but not adding a [DEC position], would be a
great start.
2:17:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND agreed with Representative Johnson. She
noted that managed bees are a huge industry in the Lower 48 and
asked Mr. Carter whether any Alaska farmers or growers move bees
around for pollinating crops like is done in the Lower 48.
MR. CARTER replied he doesn't currently know of anyone who
actually contracts out a bee mover to move a hive from one farm
to another. However, he continued, many individuals and small
businesses are interested in raising bees in Alaska for their
products. Lots of farmers are leasing space on their farms, at
a very low rate, to individuals in the small bee business to
have those pollinators closer to their crops.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND surmised that those farmers who lease
space treat their environment very carefully in order to attract
those beekeepers.
MR. CARTER agreed and said that for most commercial farmers and
agricultural producers the land, soil, and crops are their
livelihood. In general, those agricultural producers protect
that as much as they do a member of their family and that is why
those bee groups and small businesses are utilizing that land.
2:19:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH related his personal experience in a pear
orchard in China where he held a paintbrush and gently dusted
one pear blossom after another to assure adequate pollination.
So, he continued, it is true that there are prices to pay when
people are incautious with the environment. Colony collapse
disorder is happening as close as Washington state and Alaska's
environment is fundamentally no different than Washington's with
respect to the way that bees will respond to potential poisons
in their environment. In the unhappy event that colony collapse
disorder comes to Alaska, Alaskans are going to find themselves
in the sorry situation of shipping bees from place to place like
is being done down south. Moving bees from hither to yon is one
way to introduce a lot of pathogens in a hurry to a bee's
environment, he opined, and is the way to promote pandemic
instead of epidemic amongst the populations and would be a
significant threat to Alaska's local strains of non-domestic
bees. He said he too has reservations about adding a position
and is glad there will be an effort to control costs when the
bill moves into the House Finance Standing Committee.
2:21:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO shared that he is related to a former
certified applicator and questions would come up about bodies of
water. He offered his understanding that DEC has regulations
that require certification as an applicator for work near a body
of water or doing bank stabilization. Any application from the
air also requires applicator certification. During talks with
this relative it came up that private people might apply more
than is necessary, but when paying for application to 400-500
acres the value of money and doing it correctly and carefully is
really important. He said he also shares the concern about a
fiscal note on the bill given an operational program is already
in place.
2:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said it is a good bill, but inquired
whether there is proof about the cause of colony collapse
disorder. He urged care be taken when talking about colony
collapse disorder because [neonicotinoids] have not yet been
associated with it.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH responded that it would be safe to say
there is a correlative relationship, although it is much harder
to establish a causal relationship.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that no matter what the cause
might be, when a hive is sprayed with a pesticide the hive is
not going to be there anymore. She pointed out that cardboard
boxes of bees can now be purchased as easily as a box of coffee,
and that the bees are then released with no worry about them
coming home. She said she supports the bill with amendments for
enforcement.
2:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND agreed with Representative Johnson and
offered her belief that the fiscal note related to the original
bill has been made simpler by saying that this does not apply to
the licensed pesticide applicators, thereby removing that group
of people from the purview of the bill. She said she would go
after the fiscal note once the bill is out of committee. She
related a personal story about almond trees in California, which
are among the crops to which billions of bees are brought from
different parts of the country at flowering time every year.
Between the cost of those bees and the bee owners losing all
those bees for all these various reasons, banning neonicotinoids
in Alaska is one of the smallest things that can actually be
done. Seeing all the almond trees in California's Central
Valley devastated by drought and lack of bees was an awful
sight.
2:29:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that discussion of roving bands of
honeybees makes him think about the potential of looking at
genetically modified honeybees at some point in time. This is a
good bill, he continued, because it points out the problem of
unintended consequences from a pesticide that was thought to be
a good thing.
2:30:46 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report the proposed CS for HB 19,
Version 30-LS0219\D, Nauman, 3/8/17, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 19(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB019 Letter of Support - NAU Frank von Hippel 3.23.17.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Letter of Support - CSS Jesse Richardville 3.23.17.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| David Wight 2016_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB019 Sponsor Statement 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Ver A 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Ver D 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Fiscal Note - DEC - SWM 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Beyond Pesticides 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Center Food Safety 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Scott Lawrence 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support ACAT 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Yarducopia 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Letters of Support 3.16.17.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB134 Sponsor Statement 2.23.17.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB0134A.PDF |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB0134 BoG proposals spreadsheet.xlsx |
HRES 3/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 Supporting Doc - BoG statute.pdf |
HRES 3/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB0134 BoG proposals spreadsheet.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB 134 letters in support.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 134 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Response To Committee Questions by DEC 3.24.17.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB19 Supporting Document - Responses to Questions by the DEC (2) 3.24.17.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |
| HB019 Supporting Document - Examples of Labeling Provided by DEC 3.24.17.pdf |
HRES 3/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 19 |