 Good morning everyone. It's February 14th, Valentine's Day, and I didn't know well at all, never even thought of it. I mean, I thought of Valentine's Day but I didn't want to stress it, I guess. But anyways, it's great to see you all and hope you had a good weekend. We have Ryan Patch with us again this morning, who was in last week, and he is a participant on the Climate Council. We talked about how ag could play a role in all of that. We thought we should have Ryan back in to continue that discussion and see what they're proposing to do for ag, for keeping carbon out of the air. So I'll welcome Ryan and I think everyone so we can fire right up and let you get started. Excellent. Thank you, Chair Stauer. For the record, Ryan Patch with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. Really appreciate the opportunity to be back with you, taking off the week. Last, I was here, big setup about agriculture and the opportunity that agricultural soils can play in both building mitigation, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, putting it in the soil, as well as the role ag soils can play in building resilience, both for growing from the crops and for the watershed. I am going to take some time to walk through agriculture and how it is conceptualized within the Global Warming Solutions Act, as it relates to the emission reduction requirements that are promulgated in the law, as well as the net zero targets that are also laid out. And attempt to do a bit of history and a comparison about similar environmental management effort that was undertaken and how the two processes from the climate side still has some work to be done as far as the assessment and tracking of progress agriculture is making towards either meeting the emission reduction requirements or towards the net zero goals. And so some keywords here, I like to keep in mind, emissions reduction. The emissions inventory tracks the gross emissions of XYZ, transportation fuels, heating, cows birthing, et cetera. We'll get into the real details of that. So that's the emission side, the mitigation, and that zero side focuses more on net accounting and the net balance. Both that is emitted and then what is sequestered, you know, both the reduction of emissions, as well as the sinks and ability for the soils and biomass to absorb additional carbon. So we'll be digging into those points of the bill. And I will now attempt to share my screen. Apologies for being live stream. Got to share a screen. All right. Okay. So picking up in the middle of the PowerPoint, so the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body that gives direction for how national inventories are deducted, the opportunities that exist for mitigation opportunities. One of the chapters is focused explicitly on this term I'm going to introduce. Not my favorite acronym. I do like acronyms, but this one doesn't quite flow for me. So apologies in advance. But in the climate change assessment world, the new sectoral term that agriculture fits into, this is from 2006, is the agriculture, forestry, and other land use sector. People ask, what in the world is other land use? Here, within this sector, it's meant to mean human managed land, whether it's grasslands, wetlands, urban trees, and green spaces, all the other areas that aren't developed and built infrastructure. And I'm going to belabor this huge block of text on the screen. And I apologize for maybe reading a bit too much, but I think it's really important to contextualize, try to bridge the gap between what attempted to share last week, which is the opportunity and how farmers are already doing good, and how we can track and support and encourage farmers to do more. And so the IPCC says that the agriculture, forestry, and other land use sector encompasses managed ecosystems and offers significant mitigation opportunities while delivering food, wood, and other renewable resources, as well as biodiversity conservation, provided the sector adapts to climate change. It's interactive, it's not static. Agriculture is going to have to adapt to a changing climate. This is the executive summary of the AFOLU sector in the recent release, 2022 assessment report, the six assessment report that was put up by the IPCC. Land-based mitigation measures represent some of the most important options currently available. They can deliver carbon dioxide removal, CDRs, and substitute for fossil fuels, thereby enabling emissions reductions in other sectors. The rapid deployment of AFOLU measures is essential in all pathways, staying within the limits of the remaining budget for the 1.5 degrees Celsius target. We're carefully and appropriately implemented AFOLU mitigation measures are uniquely positioned to deliver substantial co-benefits to help address many of the wider challenges associated with land management. If AFOLU measures are deployed badly, then they're taken together with the increase in need to produce sufficient food, feed, fuel, and wood. They may exacerbate trade-offs with the conservation of habitats, adaptation, biodiversity, and other services. At the same time, the capacity to support these functions may be threatened by climate change itself. So very interactive, a huge portion of the world's surface in the AFOLU sector is privately owned or human managed. There's a lot of threats to agriculture in the AFOLU sector, but also opportunities. And so at the core of this next part of our talk is an attempt to connect the benefits of sequestration with the emissions inventory requirements that are promulgated in the Global Warming Solutions Act. So I apologize for once again trying to compare this to the state's water quality cleanup efforts, but I think... It's all hand in hand. Yeah, as we discussed, the co-benefits for water has many climate co-benefits. What I'm going to be digging into here for the next couple of slides is a comparison of how the 41% of all phosphorus loading is attributed to agriculture. How was that measured and modeled? And how does that set up the reduction targets for agriculture in other sectors? And then comparing that to the greenhouse gas emissions inventory and the emission reduction requirements that are established in the Global Warming Solutions Act to try to compare how those processes were assessed. It points to a gap yet unfinished, but work is ongoing on the ag side for the GWSA inventory and implementation. So on the left-hand side of your screen, this is 20 years of tracking, right? How do we know we have phosphorus problems in the water? We have algae blooms and we also track in the lake the amount of phosphorus that comes in. So we know at the mouth of all of these lake segments, you can see the trend lines here. They're all going up and they're all about the water quality standard. Now, when you started developing this phosphorus issue in the water, how far back in time did the council go or have you gone to determine where that phosphorus came from in the beginning? And, or has it just always been here? Great question. The TNBL for Phosphor Phylloxampline Basin is based on long-term monitoring since the 1990s. However, there are considerations for in-lake phosphorus in a certain base, St. Albans and the Siskoid, acknowledging that there is a legacy phosphorus load that was delivered long before any of the current generation was alive. The transformation of the Mont Landscape, the harvesting of trees for developing potash as well as wide-scale sheet farming, a lot of erosion, a lot of historic phosphorus is in the base of all of these water bodies. So that's there in a consideration, but the focus of the TNBL was the current loading that's happening going into the lake. But no, no research back in the 50s, 1950s, late 40s, maybe early 50s, when the U.S. government was sending super phosphate by the train carloads to all points in the northeast to get more phosphorus into the soil. Do you go back to that point at all? That's not likely accounted for in the long-term monitoring that's been ongoing, but the point I take from that is government intervention can affect individual managers of land. You give a lot of phosphorus, they're going to use it. If you support cover crop, people will use it. So what public investments are made to support environmental goals, the point here for the greenhouse gas emissions is that they're going up and they're measured at global scale. We know the concentrations are going up and this is from the IPCC on the right, looking at the relative contribution of the different areas. So just like we know phosphorus levels rising in the lake, global CO2 levels and emissions are increasing. This is a portion into loading based on models. We know from the TNBL for phosphorus from Lake Champlain Basin based on a lot of land use imagery, but it gives us the base loading. We know agriculture from the current greenhouse gas emission inventory is 16% of Vermont's total emissions, just like it was 41% of phosphorus. The EPA set out reduction targets for water, and I've highlighted the agricultural reductions for each lake segment. On the right, we have the emissions reductions that were established by the General Assembly in the global warming solutions out. So comparing how we know that levels are growing up, phosphorus and CO2, where does that loading come from? For the Lake Champlain Basin TNBL for phosphorus, we have this very geospatially explicit land covered dataset and assumptions that are used based on the ag census and forest cover index and a whole bunch of other considerations to come up with relative shares of the land-based, how much agriculture is using of landing the watershed, what managements are being applied, a load that's delivered to the edge of the field and a load that's delivered to the water in an effort to really come up with a rather granular and process-based model which can give us a pretty specific degree of understanding about where phosphorus loading is coming from in the watersheds. We'll get into more details with the greenhouse gas emissions inventory. The state utilizes the EPA state inventory tool, which is a downscaled national inventory. It's much more coarse. It's not process-based. It's mainly based on the number of cows, as an example, the amount of milk produced in the state, the amount of alfalfa grown, the amount of fertilizer purchased and used by agriculture. Those are the inputs that go into a spreadsheet-based model, which output relative shares of methane and nitrous oxide emissions in that. What are the dark red areas in that map on the left? Development lands. So I assume the biggest one is Burlington. You got it. Okay. Now, can you see the 89 corridor down to Montpelier Bay Area across the river? So this is the whole basin, not just Vermont, of course. And then kind of the accounting. The reasonable assurance is how do we... The EPA took the total load apportioned it up into the watershed, ran scenarios about can agriculture meet these reduction targets and how are they going to do it. In most cases, the RAPs are generally assumed to or modeled to meet their reductions. There are some special watersheds where they're not, and so farms are going to have to do more. That was all modeled and accepted before the TMDL was signed and approved. No such real accounting about these emission reduction targets and how is agriculture going to get there. My research was conducted prior to the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act. And so this question of how are emissions tabulated? How is agriculture going to get there? How are we going to track it is a lot of the work that the Climate Council and the Agriculture and Ecosystem subcommittee specifically dug into trying to understand what are the most effective and cost-effective strategies for agriculture. Can they be counted in the emissions inventory? And if not, why not? And can we count them? And so that's basically the narrative of the next part of this talk is trying to get into some of the specifics starting from the big headline. There used to be greenhouse gas reduction goals. The Global Warming Solutions Act made them requirements. And it established a few different timelines, 26% production from the 2005 standard by 2025, 40% from the 1990 standard by 2030, and 80% from the 1990 standard by 2050. So some very aggressive but the first two, the 26 and the 40 are in line with some other states and commitments that are made nationally. So goals to requirements. This slides an S. Two things to, you know, where did this greenhouse gas goals come from? It was on the books. You took that, made it requirements. You have to meet these requirements, or there's a cause of action against A&R for the state's failure to meet those emission reduction requirements. It was passed, best I can find, Act 168 of 2006, it was passed in 2005, 2006, established those greenhouse gas reduction goals. A very important and will conclude with this thing highlighted in green, which is to say less than a month after that law was passed, the IPCC put out new standards and guides for how agriculture emissions are to be inventory for a national inventory. And so previously, and we'll get into this, ag emissions and then the land on which those emissions are farmed are counted separately in the pre-July of 2006 paradigm. It was then put together in 2006 and it remains so even in the latest AR6 that was just published in 2022. I've also just, you know, there were amendments that were made in Act 209 of 2008 and then the GWSA was passed in 2020 and of course there's been a whole bunch of developments, the Paris Accord and further greenhouse gas emission inventory refinements, the state of Vermont joining the U.S. Climate Alliance and a lot of drivers leading us to the GWSA. So in the GWSA and this remains unchanged, those emission reduction targets as measured in inventory pursuant to Section 582 of this title. So Title 10, Conservation Development, generally ANR's title, has Section 582, the greenhouse gas inventories in it back in 2006 directed and it remains relatively unchanged but directs them to conduct an emissions inventory. And since 2000, since they started conducting the inventory, the state of Vermont has used the Environmental Protection Agency's state inventory tool. And it's an interactive spreadsheet model that takes the national inventory and downscales it to a state-by-state basis and you're able to input state specific data, in the case of agriculture, number of cows, milk production, you can adjust for the number that are pasture, the number that are in barns so you can adjust a whole bunch of specific parameters within the spreadsheet. But at the end of the day, it is still just spreadsheet and it is a gross inventory, meaning it's just looking at the emissions from the different sectors. We're back to maybe where I should have started. This is the picture of the latest greenhouse gas and emissions inventory that's put out by A&R and agriculture is tagging with 16% of the contribution. To put out there just this data point, I'll return to it towards the end. This is from Dr. Ali Kaseba. She was at FPR. She's now at UVM Extension. This is looking at those emissions inventory. If you take the sum of the emissions that are counted in the inventory from this pie and you put them on this graph, this chart, you see the estimated total emissions are here. When you include the next sequestration by forests and municipal trees, include emissions from land use change and then from the burning of the harvest and the use of the harvest of wood products, there is a net reduction in emissions. The forest sector took in, the forest that we have in Vermont, that's 73% of the land base, took in about 42% of the state's annual emissions. And is that increased each year where the growing trees will grow constantly? We've had forests and parks and tell us how much a tree will grow a year. So our forest, is there growth included each year? Because it's all we hear about is we're losing our forest. Everybody's cutting all the trees. But you never hear anybody say, well, our forest grew by 5% last year and normal growth. To offset some of the harvesting. The Vermont Climate Council published a carbon budget, which is a attempt to get at this kind of net analysis of when we look at our emissions and then we look at the opportunities for sinks. How are we doing and how do they change over time? The carbon budget was run once and can be run again. I'm not the subject matter expert to speak to. I can say the importance of ensuring that our carbon stocks remain carbon stocks is important, whether it's agriculture or forestry. I do know in the value appraisal program enrollment of forest land seems to be up. But as far as the total land cover, that's not my area of expertise. So I don't know what the, I hear that we are losing acres of forest land. The maturation of trees versus the loss, I don't know what the net balance is within the forest sector. So I got to apologize and say I can't answer that question. Other than to say, right, we have a substantial carbon sink resource in Vermont that based in this 2018 snapshot would take in about 42% of all those emissions. And so I think, you know, as we get into looking at the emissions that are tabulated within the greenhouse gas emission inventory within the state inventory tool, right? This is consistent with that pre-2006 framework. We have emissions tabulated on a gross basis, which includes those from agriculture with our methane and nitrous oxide emissions from cows, the storage of manure, the spreading of manure and the use of fertilizers that are also tabulated next to sectors that are more transportation and fuel use-based. That is obviously the largest share of transportation. Heating is another important sector, as well as electricity use. But the point being, as we talked about last week, the opportunity in the agriculture sector, including AFOLU, is not just emissions reduction. When we talk about emissions reduction, when we think about transportation sector, we think about electrification, right? We think about taking an internal combustion engine and making it electric, right? That negates those emissions from the burning of that fuel. What do we do in the agricultural sector? I'll get to the point of this, which is what is being counted in the SIT tool. Just to put up on the screen here, this is from the IPCC. Agriculture can prevent emissions. It can reduce emissions. It can sequester carbon. You can use products to substitute for more fossil fuel-intensive products. There's a lot of opportunities in the ag sector beyond just looking at the emissions and how to reduce them. So, okay, digging into that 16%, I appreciate you bearing with me. As I said, the 2006 framework is still used in the EPA SIT tool, and it's looking at emissions from agriculture. What's included in this is inter-affirmation, manure management, which means the storage of manure, and then the nitrous oxide emissions from soils, which includes sun-off alpha, but is predominantly the spreading of manure on fields. So it's our ruminant animals, mainly our cows, and how are we managing their manure? What's not included in this inventory, because it's a gross inventory, is we're not looking at the soil of carbon exchange. The opportunity for soils to take in more carbon and is emitted on an annual basis. Is that because that hasn't been updated since 2006? That's the punchline. EPA, I have a slide on it, that EPA acknowledges that this was updated in 2006, that it went from being agricultural emissions and the land use, land use change in forestry and other terrible acronym. Acknowledges that they were put together. EPA SIT tool still has those sectors inventory separately. They are reported together on a national scale, but how Vermont has applied it is looking at these four categories of emissions from agriculture. When we say the emissions from agriculture is 16%, we're looking at these four categories, and we're not looking at the management of these categories. That's what will be established later. It is a cow emits this amount spreading this much manure stored in this way. It is a workbook that looks up the number of cows, the amount of milk produced, and then it spits out the emissions. Management, when we talk about managing for soil health or managing for efficient ruminant digestion, there are ways to affect emissions from manure spreading and storage. But this is what's being looked at within the industry. The manure and the milk issue, I think we've been told in the past that why they use those two items is because of the commercial feed that we purchase from wherever that comes in here comes with phosphorus in those ingredients. Of course, the more milk a cow gives, the more feed you have to give them. Also, the more structural built the cow is, the more manure and feed you give them, the more manure they're going to produce. What we've been told in the last few years is that feed companies have cut down tremendously on the amount of phosphorus that's going into the commercial feed. My only question is, is that accurate? Are we checking the commercial feed today for phosphorus content to reduce the input into the animal? Have you guys at a council talked about any of that? The input of cow numbers and milk producers is a good metric. You have high producing cows, you're going to have a lot of milk, you're going to have a lot more manure. On the phosphorus side, how does feed affect emissions? That is an ongoing area of research. There's certain technologies or feed additives that are being studied that can affect rumid digestion and the amount of methane that comes out. When it comes to phosphorus, yes, that's definitely been an area of study and talking point for a while. When it comes to whole farm nutrient mass balance, yes, phosphorus inputs and exports in the milk and the meat, the inputs in the grain, all important to consider. When it comes to a nutrient management plan, whether it's a high phosphorus feed or a low phosphorus feed, that's going to be represented in the manure test and manure is going to be applied and managed based on that test. And so regardless of its higher low, it will be seen and reflected in the volume of the manure stored and the manure test. And so it is captured. If they have a lower phosphorus feed, they probably have more capacity. If you have a lower phosphorus concentration manure, you can apply more in an end-based limited system. So the question about feed management absolutely did come up in the Agriculture and Ecosystem Subcommittee. It is a recommendation. It is an area that Vermont is looking to do more research but is in the real beginning stages of trialing feed management for climate benefit in the state. So it's a recommendation and something that needs some more research and support. But if you develop rules and regulations based on insufficient evidence, because you just said that it needs more study, but if we're developing rules and ranks to move forward off faulty data, how are we supposed to get that right? One saying I've heard that makes sense to me in this case and applies specifically to climate action and climate negations. Don't let the perfect beginning be the good. We know directionally that these sort of health practices are good for water, good for climate. We know how much we have accepted phosphorus reduction efficiencies from EPA and DEC, so we know how much their reductions are for phosphorus. We'll work out what the benefit is for climate on the back end. Let's just keep doing these practices. We don't want to recommend practices that may have unintended consequences. So being cautious about more research in the feed management space is where we are at. That being said, the recommendations for other climate action on ag is definitely let's move forward. When we get the accounting framework set up, we'll count all those benefits, but let's not pause to make a recommendation. We know cover crop as an example is good for a whole host of things once. Mr. Hyatt, Irene. Thank you, Mr. Dirk. Did I hear you say the data is from 2006, and if so, how many more years are we going to wait before the discussion ever begins? Sorry. The charge for Vermont to start tracking emissions was 2006. Since whenever the first one was published, I don't know. My understanding is A&R has been using the State Inventory Tool from EPA, which is an appropriate state-level assessment. The data, the most recent data is from 2017 for agriculture because it's based off of the Ag Census, and so this 2022 census last year will be published in 23, and so those figures will be used moving forward for animal numbers and other inputs like that. So this is how emissions have changed over time for agriculture. Nothing too drastic, definitely some changes. Main mitigation options. Okay, so if we're just looking at, you know, ignore this on the right because those aren't trapped in the emissions inventory. We're just looking at the entire fermentation and manure storage, right? Some example, mitigation strategies, dietary adjustments, improved genetics, improved reproductive performance, right? You can get more milk per cow for the same emissions. That's a more efficient production of calories of food. Within the manure storage space, different storages have different emission factors. What can happen is, and as you see here on the phone on the bottom, digesters, right? You can help cover and collect biogas, and you can either flare it just converting the methane to CO2, and since the methane is such a high global warming potential, by destroying the methane and turning it to CO2, that is counted as emission reduction in methane, and that is currently the emissions reductions that agriculture has in the emissions inventory. The 14 digesters in Vermont are tracked and counted, and the storage of that manure is, you know, doesn't have an emission because it's all captured and burned. The opportunity here is, of course, the ability to take that biogas and turn it into a useful product, whether it's electricity using that methane to biogas to run a digester, whether it's flaring the methane and using it as a thermal application to heat the farm, to heat the milkhouse, to heat neighbors, or to take it, refine it, and turn it into renewable natural gas. And so there is a project in Vermont down in Salisbury that is providing military college with natural gas that has come from Dairy Farm, where the gases from the manure and other food waste has been off gas, collected, and refined and put into the pipeline as natural gas. So you can get energy from the manure, which is a valuable thing. It's very expensive to implement and expensive to operate. And so we're looking at what are the best opportunities for our medium and small-scale farms in Vermont because at this time, no off-the-shelf technology for Vermont-sized farms really exists in the way almost exclusively large farms are using digesters in the state. So we only have 14? Based on my last check of the iStar database, yes, 14. Okay, what's the point of all this, right? Mission inventory, we're looking at manure storage and collection. Because we know that not all farming has an equal environmental benefit, right? On the left-hand side, we have what can be conceptualized as full-width tillage, no conservation practices applied on a very steep slope, right? So lots of erosion, a lot of deposition, a lot of burning off of carbon in the soils in the form of organic matter. On the right-hand side, we have more of the type of farming system that relies on soil health practices and what Vermont farmers are moving towards. And what we see here is when you apply these management not only do we have a phosphorus reduction efficiency that is accepted and applied by DEC for farms that implement the nature of cover crop, an acre of reduce or no-till, another acre of riparian buffers or crop rotation, we can count that phosphorus efficiency. We don't yet have a state efficiency for what happens in the crop. The picture on the left almost looks like it was hand-painted or something. It doesn't look like a real picture. Do you know where that was taken from? I think it's Indiana. It's from some NRCS. I normally look at the sources. I apologize. I've lost that in the years of using that image. But it's just a low-quality photo, I think. It certainly doesn't look like a Vermont photo. No, no, I purposely chose a non-Vermont part for the left-hand side. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we really have farms that don't have a nutrient management plan? Uh-uh. We don't have any. There is a requirement for nutrient management for all farms in the state. CSFOs and up need to have a written nutrient management plan. SFOs need to take soil out fast and apply it based on agronomic recommendations. If, based on inspection, they don't have that, there's an enforcement mechanism to compel them to... What's the fourth management practice? It's kind of blacked out there. Oh, sorry. That's a crop rotation. Okay. Thanks. I wouldn't use Indiana pictures because you went to a public meeting and you showed this. I mean, I didn't be upset that a farmer in Vermont would let their fields look like that. And I visit farms quite often. And I haven't seen anything like that in 20... Oh, the loss of soil. Yeah, bang was. Yeah, maybe a black and white photo from 50 years ago. That's in Vermont would be helpful, but to show over time it's changed. But yeah, I think the credibility there just doesn't do it for me. Just try to... So the point of this is not for my farmers. I know. You know, are universally... I think this is a target on the right. The point is... And it's meant to be stark, right? It's not the same, right? It's not one-for-one. Managing a cow this way does not have these outputs. Managing growing an acre of corn on the left is not the same environmental impact as growing an acre of corn on the right. And the... So the other component of this, I don't know, representation is that there are also emission reduction coefficients, ERCs that can be associated with these particular management. And the state is not yet there yet for accepting or publishing what emission reduction coefficient is. So this big chart is just intended to show that from the same unit of land when you apply a conservation practice, for example, cover crop, right? There's not only an increase in soil carbon, right? Total CO2 across all of the categories 0.16 CO2 equivalent to an acre a year. However, there's also nitrous oxide emissions from the soil surface, depending on the management. So this actually shows an increase in emissions of direct nitrous oxide from the application of a cover crop, but the total net emission reduction coefficient is 0.15 with a range of net emission to net sequestration. And that's the whole point of this. You can dig into all the specifics, but managing land is not created equal. Applying a conservation practice can have a net sequestration, and it can have a net emission. It's not always the right application depending on the pre-existing conditions, but the point is it's not zero. It's not one to one. Management can affect outcomes. Well, that, I believe in, I mean, we done set up these practices to help farmers do the practices for this sole purpose. And are there certain crops that make a bigger difference? Because we could, you know, we could pay more if you plant A than if you plant B. And, you know, farmers are very good about adapting to different suggestions, but, you know, somebody's got to help them understand that. And is that your... So with the direction of the legislature, 6BSHR215 gives the agency the authority to run conservation programs. We partner with NRCS to pay for conservation implementation. Farm agronomical practices programs, proper rotation, wire buffers, increased grazing management, those are all predicated on water quality, but there is a climate benefit. And so articulating and tracking that climate benefit is, I think, the point of this whole two hours is to kind of share all of these. We can do both with the programs that exist. And you made an investment in those programs with the $4.76 million in additional arbor dollars that are going towards this over the next four years. And so that's a big infusion to support farmers to do more. And it pairs well with the Payment for Ecosystem Services group that's spent three years recommending that program, which is going to further do an assessment looking and kind of matches up with this slide, not just at the crop land, but looking at the land adjacent to the crop land. So the buffers, the managed land, they can enroll forest land. But the other point of this is, you know, the ag portion of the land use sector, farmers aren't just crop farmers in Vermont. They may do maple sugaring. They may have a woodlot. And so accounting for that is another thing to consider, right? If you have an acre, this is from the 2017 Ag Census. As soon as I have the 2022 Ag Census, I will be updating this to see what's changed over the past five years. But 47% of the land farmers manages woodland. 47% of the land farmers manages harvested crop land and permanent pasture. And so that's where my talking point, one to one, if you support farmers to have an acre of crop land, they're also stewarding an acre of forest land over here. And so the compounding benefit of keeping land and agriculture, you know, you're going to get the additional carbon benefit from the trees on the front. When you go to, you know, East Coast conventions or national conventions and you talk, you know, hear talks about the same issue, how do we compare like with other states in the country? Yes, so U.S. Climate Alliance is a great place to learn from how other states are approaching climate change. Maine, for example, has two inventories that they've instituted. One is the gross emission inventory that like Vermont does and the other is a net emissions inventory. You know, we think we're doing well with 73% forested. They're up in the 80s of forest cover that they have. And so they're gross, you know, at Paso Audit also count the net emissions within the state. You know, this is a big question, right? There's been a lot of, you know, you look at the agriculture global is 11% of emissions, right? It's not the largest driver of climate change and it provides important food security and other outputs from the land base. So a lot of focus and research has been on, in my understanding, you know, fossil fuel based sectors and how to have a transition to, you know, carbon free economy or it's still maintaining an economy while transitioning out of the use of fossil fuels. And so the maturity of the state inventory, the national inventory assessments for this question of Ag, forest and land use, how does the state deal with agriculture? Agriculture is a question that I feel is not answered on the national stage. And so this is not, I feel a reflection on Vermont or anything Vermont's been doing, it's just bringing up, hey, as you set this emission reduction target maybe there's this piece that's missed there about the whole sequestration potential that agriculture is separated from. Vermont's not the only state to be wrestling with this. So we're not alone in looking at this question and at this time there's no real solution. So you can just tell us if we're doing as good as Maine or New Hampshire, New York or if we're really down in the lower group of, you know, trying to get this done because we seem to spend an awful lot of money in time. I mean, we have in this committee to try to help all these things and are we doing as well as our neighbors, you might say. I like the point of graphs and charts and other people's data to be like, what are we doing? All I have for that is, you know, I don't know if there's really been a comparison of the progress states have made towards these goals but anecdotally speaking with colleagues and other departments of agriculture and other A&Rs, the system that Vermont has set up to deliver serviced farms based largely on water, right? It's not just we have a regulatory backstop, we have RAPs, but then there's also education areas, technical financial assistance and a lot of investment, a permanent funding source. A lot of states are jealous of Vermont and the system that we have set up, the permanent funding system for water is incredibly important for keeping this progress happening for agriculture. Last week there was a number right here that 95% of foster direction funding from agriculture, maintaining that funding is needed for, you know, agriculture's need to meet the TNBL but we also get all these chronic co-benefits and when I, you know, say statutorily, the 6GSA Chapter 215, there are components of that where, you know, the State Agency of Ag is directed to work with NRCS, right? There's a lot of states where those agencies don't really get along for some reason. I don't know how, but, you know, I think that some of the strength in Vermont is small states, a lot of people working together and a permanent funding source that is very effective at this time. So I think Vermont's doing pretty well on that space. So, again, in a broad sense, there are all overall areas where we can reduce sitting here as I put money towards this. But, and we talk about putting money. I really don't get a feel about where are the areas that we're spending money if we're getting the biggest bang for the buck for. And how would I sort that out? You know, I understand where the dairy cows are here, and I understand that within that whole realm, there's the whole levels. And then on the soils, there's the whole realm. But there's a number of different things you can do. If we did no-till-seeders versus other things, what do we get and how do I know that I'm putting my money where I can get the biggest bang for the buck in doing this? How can I, as a policy person, sort through this? I think that's a great question, and I am going to attempt to shorten for your answer. Well, good. Because there's so much here that, you know, it's like... Well, I mean, I don't know how many millions we've spent. Well, I get that, and I'm just trying to say, how do I measure that I've done the best? Well, you have no-till-seeder. 200,000, you're going to have to seed by hand. One seed at a time. Yeah, piece of... But I mean, when I look at the soils, I got the picture the other day from North Dakota when they're showing that it was pretty sad if you don't... It's pretty clear that that helps a lot. But versus other things, where's my biggest bang? Sure, so this is from the Nature Conservancy, Canada. And they... Oops, sorry. Did a study of just the natural working lens. So I can't compare this to... There's a whole... IPCC has a chart which can talk about the relative cost-effectiveness of different strategies, and agriculture comes out pretty well in that matrix. And I can share that with you as a orientation. I don't have that with me either off the top of my head or in the presentation. What I do have is a comparison of the natural working lens mitigation opportunities in Canada. So this is TNC Canada doing a nationwide analysis of the opportunity that exists by 2030. And they were surprised to find that agriculture was... The problem management was the largest single opportunity for... between protecting the existing land-based management changes and restoration. But the largest potential sources for mitigation were agriculture. And they were available for relatively cheap, right? 19.6 metric tons or a million metric tons in Canada available below $50 a ton. So... When you think about... So what I get from you just said is it's crop land management that is, for them, nearly a third of everything. And how can I translate... So is that where I should spend a lot of mine or worse than a lot of our money and... So in relationship to that I'm just trying to... Yeah. So... I shared in our last discussion the point of or the state of health, right? The opportunity for ax oils to provide a big sink. And the point I'm bringing up is in the emissions inventory with the targets... Oops, sorry. It started me up where I left off. And can I ask... Sorry to take up so much time, but in that and what the Canadians did in that study, is that what it's produced to get from here to the end of it? Or does it take out that a field of corn currently or a field of crops does eat up so much carbon itself in its growing? So is that a net number? Yes. And I think that's the whole point of this is the aggregate ecosystem subcommittee look through natural climate solutions look through agriculture management they're cost effective farmers already implementing them they're very effective, they provided a return benefit under the emissions reduction framework that the GW says promulgated on we can't count those towards agriculture's emissions because it's just the cows burping the storage of the manure and the spreading of manure that makes up and a little bit of fertilizer use that makes up that 16%. And so this is to a structural challenge that which is to review the agricultural sector greenhouse gas emissions sequestration and promulgation. How to set up a framework which is inclusive of how to meet net zero targets but also trying to wrestle with this seemingly intractable issue which is emissions on a gross basis for agriculture just look at cows and manure and aren't inclusive of those cost effective reductions and so the recommendations of the Agricultural Ecosystem Subcommittee I didn't share my screen so I apologize is focused on continuing to support those practices which are delivering water quality success like continuing to build on that there's already a functioning system literature shows they're cost effective and effective and eventually we'll figure out a way to count and track those for but that's the the I guess point of this next hour of the presentation is there's a lot of power in that soils it's not fully able to be counted in the emissions inventory at this time and so that's just one of the big gaps that the Ag Ecosystem Subcommittee wrestled with recommended research we've state through ANR received funding from US to engage in the contractor and do this research and so there's no recommendation yet and that's going to be forthcoming but I just want to make you all aware of some of the structural issues I think within the contract law for agriculture that we can't count those benefits towards that like it's not like farmers do more cover crop and then at 16% goes down it's not can't count that and when is that going to be completed so we have those numbers available the RFP was out it's closed it's being reviewed I'm hopeful that the work will start this spring and I believe the timeline is a recommendation in 2023 so a recommendation before next legislative session what bothers me about the whole issue is we don't have the data to be able to load on to the vehicle that's moving through here this year not next year but this year so how we as a representative of the people back up in the Northeast Kingdom how do I go home and sell them on the idea that we're doing much right yet we haven't got the studies all done to get there and they're going to tell me you better back school body I mean I don't know how you move forward with a plan without all the data that you need to put a good plan together with you're not here saying the same things only from different places I'm trying to say where's the biggest bang for the buck and you're saying I've got the studies done to tell you well they think they know there's a lot that's missing from the soils that we're producing and but we aren't sure it might turn out to be a negative that I didn't yeah so to you know don't let the hurricane be any good and you know we know something is directionally beneficial just so we do if you have a note for them you can give it to me I read that you called and you didn't know that I don't know I just bring it up have a good day have a good day so we know there's a lot of opportunity here we know there's positive sequestration if you run another module with an SIT we know that there's positive sequestration on an annual basis from all the agricultural lands and implementing those practices are needed for water quality so the message to farmers is keep doing the water quality practices there's benefits for climate we know there are positive benefits we can use this tool the comment tool to track the benefit what's the right tool for vermando is the research question like how specific can we get because we have very good data we're tracking on an acre by acre basis all of the implementation that's happening on farms the EC can use that geospatial data to apply a foxfish reduction coefficient and that's what gives us all of those ad reductions working on building that for climate is where we are so I'm hoping that the message isn't ambiguity it's keep using these good practices we'll be able to count them hopefully in the near future so it's not to say stop and throw it all away it's like no keep doing the water practices we know we get these benefits and this will be reconciled hopefully in the we've been at this since oh six or some eight or something I mean fifteen, eighteen years and why with the reports that we've been getting in the agri from you folks and farmers and they like what we're doing they're doing what we ask them or suggest to do the agencies are all working together so why would you tip the cart on its side some other stuff if everything is moving in the right direction the only thing we could do is speed it up a little bit make it go faster but so would you say we're doing pretty good I would I the main recommendation from the agri ecosystem subcommittee is a paraphrase keep using the existing state programs they're working, they're functioning farmers are participating and we'll count the benefit in the near future but we know it's real and tangible it's just finding the right model and the right assumptions to make sure that we're assessing all of those practices on an equal basis and we know that the development of digesters to use up even get more of this gas out of the manure it's coming but it doesn't hear you it hasn't been developed fully yes that is an area identifying the gaps the fee management research and programs a lot of people see opportunity there funding that research is important finding small scale digesters and technologies and implementation structure that works it's important because farmers are busy farming and to drop a digester that you have to manage and a new motor to generate electricity it's a lot to ask of a small farm that may not have additional staff and so how do you find a technology that is beneficial and adds to either the revenue stream or viability of a farm while also getting that emission reduction benefit from the destruction of that methane and manure pit there is no silver bullet at this point in time for the medium and small scale farm but we are working with partners and others in state government to try to come up with a framework and some technologies that will be appropriate for a lot of farms so there isn't anything from your professional point of view that you would recommend to us to do like during this biennium to help with your process rather than keep doing what we are doing and try to keep that funding yes senator I think that is a fair summary processes are working I think they are working well and no specific policy recommendations at this time on the climate front outside of that minor housekeeping provision in the SEAP program which kind of speaks to the term emissions reduction compared to mitigation right and trying to use that mitigation term from the global warming solutions act to be more inclusive of the sequestration as well as the emission reduction and so that would be the only I think tangible piece of policy the agency has proposed at this point isn't that housekeeping any other questions Don? Not a question just comment on this Mr. Chair I'd rather see money spent helping the small farmer buy a digester than do another study about how we are doing to me it gets a little bit I don't know what the right term is we seem to study and study and yet from what you are saying and I believe the agency does a great job I think you do a super job all the things we've talked about land management, feed management all those things are working I don't know what else we need to study just to count something as it mystifies me why we can't just say to the farmer here is something we know will work we are going to pay for it I think we are there do the cover crop do the no-till, do the grazing we know those work we know there is a benefit setting up you remember there was a bit of a lag time in the phosphorus world for we know that these practices are beneficial the exact degree based on soil type that is what is so challenging to get down to a process based model that isn't just acres of corn and numbers of cows it becomes very interactive very complicated based on soil type how can you get down to that level of detail is really where the nuts and bolts of the work is like directionally we know these are good and have a positive sequestration benefit exactly how much we know what the parameters are but making that fit for monts landscape is where that research stands so at this generally around $10 million between the clean water fund for agriculture and about this is a $75,000 grant from the U.S. Climate Alliance so it doesn't take a lot of resources to get there because a lot of work is done outside of Vermont it's just pulling together the right combinations of models and the existing statewide data that we have to really mesh it together in a reporting framework that's going to do justice to the opportunity that's there so next year you'll have that report that you come back to us it is I got to check in with James for a check on the timeline of that RFP my memory is we're going to have a final report in 2023 with some recommendations for next steps out of that Climate Alliance grant so my gut feeling is yes by the next time this biennium the next 24 right is it 23 right now yeah thank you hopefully we'll have some time during all the figuring on this stuff I don't know what what year it is oh goodness I don't right here for losing track we've been at this so long but anyways if there are no other questions you're doing a good job thanks a lot Ryan appreciate your attention for us to hear that what we have done in the past to move the stuff forward is working to the best it can from your knowledge and you're the bag expert on this so it's good thank you so I got a little job for you a message to deliver elsewhere in the building I'm sorry I had to get up twice on the page today it's a part time shit he just asked he just asked the page to return some phone calls maybe you'd be better on her first day right did they just start today I don't know what to do poor thing she'll never be back I wonder was Tom shitin' in his daughter it might have been very positive she's very yeah that last group of pages we had was good they were good well Michael good morning so can we chat a little bit about our right to firm stuff about what we're on you're gonna write up some some new stuff and the only question that that I've had sent to me in regards to our suggested changes was word reason yeah sorry you must have figured out a different word that we use there not sure about that but I'd like to talk about that it's on page 5 yeah so so Michael did some work on our right to firm and did you work in that mediation type deal I did so you want to run do you have copies I think you all have copies in front of you from what I can see yep I can put it on the screen in a minute but it's always recommended about to testify that an app has to update itself you want me to do that pardon if you want to it's taking longer to update okay so you heard test this is Michael Gray you heard testimony over the past couple of weeks about how the current standard in the bill that you were looking at that would prevent a person from bringing a nuisance action was in part based on whether or not they were complying of agricultural water quality requirements and you heard from a couple of different interested parties that might not be the best best standard in that it doesn't cover every type of activity that might generate a nuisance and then you heard from the agency about pesticide and pesticide drift about how if they're complying with the pesticide rules that there shouldn't be pesticide drift and that they're if they're complying with them they're basically shouldn't be creating a nuisance or a trespass but then that doesn't also if you include the ag water quality requirements and then complying with the pesticide rules that still doesn't get to all of the activities that potentially could cause a nuisance saying odor, flies, dust, etc so the chair asked me to look at how some of the other states do that and what the other states do is that they say that there's no nuisance action that can be brought to you at the time period it's usually one to three years that they've been there prior to the surrounding activity and then the farm has to be complying with good agricultural practices and generally those states that use that standard which include Connecticut, Louisiana Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee and a few others they define the generally accepted agricultural practices and you'll see this on page four so what I've done is I've added a definition to the right to farm while and it was defined generally accepted agricultural practices as complying with your agriculture water quality requirements in 6PSA chapter 215 including any permit requirements or requirements of the RAPs complying with the agency of agricultural market rule for control of pesticides and then this last subdivision see is how many states define what a good agricultural practice is practices conducted in a matter of consistent proper and subject customs and standards as established and followed by similar operations of agricultural activities in a similar municipality or region of the state under similar circumstances there's some variations on that and you could probably get some simpler language but basically that you are conducting your agricultural practice in a way that others in that municipality or state will be conducting those agricultural practices as well the issue with this type of language is it becomes a fact-based issue it becomes something that a court has to figure out and so the court would have to look at and take testimony on what the custom and proper accepted practices are in that municipality and region but it sets a baseline of what is acceptable and normal for purposes of a nuisance for trespassing. So what do you folks think about setting something like this up or at least I guess if you haven't got suggestions on how to fix this what we should do is where I think we have this back on the agenda about the variety I think and we hopefully could get some witnesses and are you going to have any witnesses available on Friday to I think I'm going to have a list for when the Monday of the day today. Yep, so we could hear from the witnesses that maybe that we've heard from before or even new people to give us some direction on language but there is an additional component and the chair stopped by my office one day and talked to me about testimony that you received. I think it was from Mr. Sanderson, I think his name was and CLA about how he identified an issue with the bill as taking away redress or an opportunity for a remedy from neighboring property owners and that was an issue that arose in the sport shooting range protection act 2005-2007 where there was a similar nuisance protection for the sport shooting ranges that they had been in operation for a certain amount of time they were combined with range practices, etc in the combined with municipal ordinances that they were protected from nuisance protection so what the general assembly did then is that you're not necessarily prohibited from bringing in nuisance action property but before you do you have to at least attempt to go to mediation once in sport shooting range and that is a that is not unique to the sport shooting range protection act. It is a process that's used in at least three states under the right to farm law and at least three states. We didn't figure that out on our own. No it was something that was brought to the senate judiciary committee when they were doing the sport shooting range protection act and said hey but at that time they focused on Iowa and said Iowa has this mandated you have to go to mediation before the nuisance suit can be brought Iowa has it, Maryland has it Louisiana has a different Louisiana encourages people to go to mediation but if they file without going to mediation a court can require mediation before the court takes up the nuisance. We've already Vermont already passed that the shooting range has helped down in judiciary if we get the bell out of here and it goes there so we're using Maryland it's very similar to the sport shooting range protection act. Thank you Mr. Chair. So Michael if it does go to mediation would the court well let me back up if it goes to mediation and is not resolved then eventually it's into a court hearing would the testimony taken in the mediation help to determine the facts in the court? You know basically I will need to check on this with the judiciary team but in certain mediation you are allowed to use record testimony that's produced so it's okay and this is a mediation going to court not mediation going to, do you appeal to Ag? No that's actually a great question because that's how Maryland does it Maryland has a mediation board built into their agency of agriculture and so that was my and so you apply for mediation to that board before you can bring a nuisance claim in Maryland and this envision is going to mediation in court? You can use a licensed mediator to do this it doesn't actually have to go to court but the results would then be recognized if agreed to would be recognized by a court as binding. See if sorry go ahead Scott was it? I mean if he would go along with the way we've got this Michael's crafted it I think an individual home that has a problem with a farmer I would think that they would would feel like it would be there if you went to a neutral mediation group or person but if you had it over in the department of ag they might feel that you're giving the farmer a leg up and and not feel it's very free or even to to appease the opposition to this if they go along with what we've got I would I would presume and feel better leaving it like we've got it then setting up a separate group in the ag agency to act as a mediator how would it work if one party just didn't want to mediate how does that all get figured out and how the mediators chosen the language here provides that if there's going to be mediation the party shall share the cost and if a priority doesn't want to go to mediation there's options right now the language basically says that they can agree to go to binding arbitration and you still can you have to basically the language requires you to attempt to resolve this through mediation it doesn't require it to be resolved so you would just need to show and you would attempt it and then if the other party would not go to mediation etc and then you would be able to bring it I just so I'm going to apply to a third party mediator where do I apply though you don't apply you basically the two parties agree to hire a mediator and to conduct mediation mediation results in an agreement and then that agreement formalized can be formalized by a court there's me there's people that do this professionally around the state a lot of teacher contracts some of them will get to a mediator court cases sometimes get to a mediator I believe what other finish if you go to the human rights commission you appeal to the human rights commission then a third party mediator is hired to sort out between but it's done under the umbrella there's just a number of ways to do this there are I'm just trying to understand and I think it's great to go to a mediator right divorce right when you're doing a voluntary divorce you go to court you have to follow the process in court for divorce but you can also their voluntary agreement between the two parties and that can include a mediation where you hire a mediator to resolve these like compensation for a house or the court can order that and remember this is a prerequisite before you go to file with the court for nuisance action so the intent is that it's resolved between the parties before it gets to the court but it still can go to the court sorry no that's not good now when you go get a divorce after 27 years just get your wallet out and after 27 years you're not the mayor being Bobby well we had it in any direction Irene with the current backup and the court system does that just mean that the blessing for mediation waits a few years or can that be done quickly you know a mediator comes to a conclusion can they represent it soon after or does that just mean the odor or the problem is going to go on for five years while they wait for the court system this is something I would probably want to check with the administrative judge about but I think likely what the courts would do is they would use an assistant judge to approve this because it is an agreement between the parties so I think that that is what the courts would do but I would check with the administrative judge first but if the side judge those could deal with something like this it would be a lot quicker cheaper you would get it resolved sooner because most of these issues you know the faster you can get it resolved the better the neighbors will get along afterwards and you know we are getting down to the point where you know we are getting fewer and fewer firms all the time and more and more neighbors all the time and the quicker you could get something like this resolved it would be better for everybody involved just when the CLF guy came in most people go and talk when it is conflict with the neighbors people avoid conflict so I think a mediator idea like this is a great idea to help bring people together thank you Mr. Chair I just have a question Michael on page 4 subsection C I'm reading it and I'm thinking to myself are there really that different customs and standards throughout the state or I'm trying to understand why we it seems to indicate that there probably are different accepted agricultural practices from county to county from geographic limitation all that kind of stuff I think that's a decision that you could make that it is you could limit it to similar practices within the law I don't think there's that much variation for helping municipality and region and the state anymore especially with farming practices becoming so efficient and based on a lot of technology that's being used I do think you could probably say within the states in this county region there was using another state as a standard actually four other states may have that similar region or municipality language I wanted to bring you something that you could say hey this is how they do it I'm just wondering if I live in Rutland County so are the practices in Rutland substantially different than they are in Essex or Orleans I think Addison might be different because they got all that heavy clay so they may have some different practices working that heavy clay land then you might over on the Connecticut river but we're still small enough so that should be pretty much the same Brian so where do the required agricultural practices come into this I know where's that for the definition so in order to you'll see on page five in order to provide that no use in suit can be brought it still has been in operation for more than one year and the activity was not a nuisance or pest test at the time the activity was initiated then we added we added something pesticide page four we added that so that's clear that if they aren't following those rules and rags they're in trouble and then the activity has to be conducted in a course with generally accepted agricultural practices that means it has to comply with the RAPs and its other ag water quality, relevant ag water quality permits has to comply with the pesticide rules and then it has to be conformity with the practices conducted by similar operators of ag activities in whatever geographic region so then why are we why are we saying generally accepted agricultural practices in some spots and not RAPs and others why don't we just do it consistently everybody help me kind of RAPs are very they are water quality and as you heard from Laura the teacher and Steve Collier they don't specifically address all forms of activity that can raise nuisance claims so pesticide application for example and drift that's not covered by the RAPs odor would not be covered by the RAPs it would be covered by the large form permit but not the RAPs dust etc not covered by the RAPs so that's where you get that third category of the generally practices that are consistent with similar is there something in statute that defines generally accepted agricultural practices a lawyer's tree I did reference that I do think it will be something where people would have to prove through evidence witnesses probably bringing somebody from extension or agency to say that the practice that's being brought is practice being addressed is something that's generally accepted practices see that thank you Mr. Chair does to see in any way hinder innovation on the farm like someone's afraid to try something because nobody else is doing it and yet it's it could reduce a lot of greenhouse gases or something but oh no wait a minute my neighbor might not like the sound smell outside of it and so they get nailed by that so on page 4 line 4 you'll see there's a definition of agricultural activities that is part of the activities that are protected by the right to farm fortunately you don't see the full definition here but when you go to 60 SA 4802 you will see that it includes the ability to to modify your farm to innovate etc so that innovative activity is already protected okay thank you I like it yep they are there other changes that that anyone would like to ask Marshall consider or think about changing at this point what we'll do is if there are I mean you don't have to think about right this minute but I'd like to if there are going to be more some more changes to get this as as good as we get it as a committee to have it for Friday for the participants in that hearing to be able to look at and talk about and thought we'd may mask them Friday during the hearing you know is there going to have some comments I'm sure as they live at you know Richie's the closest thing we've got to a farmer in here and that isn't much and that isn't much but so Brian what do you think you've got more I'm happy to look it over Mr. Chair I guess the one thing is just the generally accepted agricultural practices it seems like a definition would be needed there some greater understanding I don't know are there other statutes that we use that in other policy that say generally well I mean that's just the terminology that's going to use you could define that the term you could get rid of generally you could just say you know agricultural practices or come up with a definition well there is I'm sorry I understand generally accepted pretty broad but that's really just you could call it right and it's really just the term yes so there was a word reasonable that was in play that I got an email about a five but that has been changed I guess to generally accepted I'm just trying to remember I don't even remember am I dear to call where that was on the new draft I believe it's on page three line five reasonable but I'm not sure that well that's in statute now I guess page three line five yeah first work first work on mine is agricultural activity oh so funny very rich okay sure got it well honestly if you're if you're going to use a generally accepted agricultural practices those are reasonable agricultural activities because that's the standard in the state okay but that purpose section that hasn't changed that's been there since 2003 maybe that's existing line right yes would it make sense to change that to generally accepted I think that's a possibility I you might want to use some of the you might want to say reasonable agricultural activities but you're not making a value yet that's definitely a possibility as well you could say something like the the customs and standards but agricultural activities in the state instead of reasonable agricultural activities I think you have options there but again that line has been there since 2003 at least yeah and that I don't think anybody asked us to remove that they highlighted that as maybe we ought to look at and figure out if it should be there or not and and it's also a purpose section most purpose sections are not binding they're just instructive to a court okay any other suggestive changes that's good well I guess if you want to fool with that language on the page correct over further eliminate municipalities and the region I think so and make it on the spot that would be fine are you going to be able to I have to participate remotely just FYI for the committee my son's having surgery on us years tomorrow I don't know how significant it's going to be so yeah it's it's not cancer but it's a growth both of his years they don't know why it's there but there's something that they have inside that they have to cut out yeah well that's the place you need to be yeah if you're pretty I'm sorry to beyond I think it'll be fine they don't think the procedure is going to be that significant but I just want to that's where you should be yeah yeah that's why they can't understand like they thought it was an ingrown hair yeah yeah but it doesn't affect the surgery no it can ultimately if they don't get rid of it okay how old before was he 15 pretty strong well that'd be good to get that yeah yeah they well if there are no other questions is there anything else Michael what do you need no I think I'm in am I in this you're staying on the yeah see for the committee before town meeting I'd like to get that bill out of here and if we get this one done so everyone feels comfortable with it this one before town meeting and then the house would have plenty of time in the second do whatever they've got to do and they'll send us some of this would we move the right to the farm bill to the judiciary on the floor or well yeah hopefully and then Sears would work out hopefully he'll move it I'd like to get it in a position where he's comfortable oh absolutely it's possible with it I think you've made good great changes you know when so crossover is it the 17th we don't have one I don't think no we do it no crossover date oh I thought we did have the 17th I thought it was because I remember hearing it was late it's in the calendar it is a little late this year I don't ever worry about it don't need to think about it the senator it's probably a compliment for both of us I bet it is I'm the other lucky I'm not I win yes sir at least from my district it's after the town meeting break I think it is it's like yeah it's in yeah but it would be good to get those two the the housekeeping building have you gone through that Michael with you yeah we didn't we need to work on that make sure that it's where we want to be before we build it but we got a couple more weeks and more so we'll go through that a little closer and make sure we feel comfortable with what they are proposing yeah it is March 17th oh so that's a that's a week at couple weeks we go on the 7th or something right that week yeah it would be the week we come back and it's not good to get caught up in that one either before or do what I do do it the week after or two after because I'm supposed to speak at the Troy town meeting I think on that Tuesday they just want to update on things Troy they're coming he's the future speaker I've got an email about that you're the future speaker right I imagine he's the moderator yes he could ever do how long have you been the moderator since I was 21 really that's great that's a lot of time to go well it's for years so great thank you anything else from Michael well thank you good luck good luck for sure well I haven't seen in five years we'll be off we'll be off yeah