Public Comments for 02/04/2026 Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources - Natural Resources Subcommittee
HB1152 - Carbon market participation; coastal and marine resources.
Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch
I urge you to support HB1152 to convene a work group to evaluate the benefits and impacts of establishing a Blue-Green Carbon Credit Fund. This will be useful information to guise future policies. These carbon credits may help reestablish and protect seagrass beds that are nurseries for blue crabs and other important species. We need to learn how Virginia can benefit or if there is any reason not to pursue this.
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
HB1266 - Environmental Justice in Permitting Process Guidance Memo; DEQ to publish an updated version.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law, on behalf of its client, the AMMD Pine Grove Project, appreciates this opportunity to submit comments in support of HB1266 (Tran). The AMMD Pine Grove Project is caretaker of the historic Pine Grove School in Cumberland County, Virginia, which opened in 1917. It was built as part of the Tuskegee-Rosenwald Schools initiative, a campaign spearheaded by philanthropist Julius Rosenwald and Tuskegee's Founding Principal, Booker T. Washington. There was an acute need to provide educational opportunities for African American children at a time when Jim Crow oppression barred them from attending most public schools throughout the American South. Thousands of Tuskegee-Rosenwald school buildings were constructed to help serve that need. Yet today, only a few of these buildings remain. Valiant efforts to preserve the historic Pine Grove School today are being led by the Agee, Miller, Mayo, and Dungy families, whose ancestral ties are deeply rooted in the historic Pine Grove School and the community that surrounds it. They founded the AMMD Pine Grove Project, an organization that now includes former Pine Grove students and current community members. As a result of the AMMD Pine Grove Project's efforts, the school has earned a place on the National Register of Historic Places and on the Virginia Landmarks Register. You can learn more about ongoing preservation efforts in the short documentary, "Pine Grove: More Than A School." Unfortunately, these efforts are now threatened by a proposed landfill on property adjacent to the school building on Pinegrove Road. Because of the proposed landfill, the Pine Grove School was included on the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s list of America's Most Endangered Places for 2021. Permitting processes for the landfill remain ongoing. The AMMD Pine Grove Project and neighbors continue to organize and advocate to preserve their history while opposing the landfill. HB1266 would provide an important framework for protecting valuable resources like the Pine Grove School. If this legislation passes, we would look forward to working with DEQ on the adoption of implementing regulations.
The Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic at the University of Virginia School of Law, on behalf of its client, the AMMD Pine Grove Project, appreciates this opportunity to submit the attached letter in support of HB1266 (Tran).
Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch
NAACP considers cumulative impacts as the aggregated long-term consequences of multiple environmental and economic stressors that disproportionately affect frontline communities. This bill is a vital instrument for addressing the historical overburden and systemic disinvestment in these communities, which have resulted in the deterioration of property values, quality of life, public health, and natural resources. By establishing a more comprehensive data-driven framework in the permitting process, this bill seeks to create a critical path to the restoration and revitalization of existing frontline communities while minimizing the potential for further damage. Therefore, we support this bill to consider cumulative impacts of pollution in the permitting process.
One helping of French fries probably won't hurt you, but a helping of French fries every day will have a cumulative impact. For too long, permits have been treated in isolation, as though nothing preceded this particular request and no further requests will be made. The reality is that the same communities suffer the cumulative impacts of many permitted activities that cumulate into a degraded environment. State agencies need to consider the cumulative impact before granting a permit. The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on proposals. HB1266 provides for this and I urge you to pass this bill.
Dear Chair and Members of the Committee, On behalf of Lynnhaven River NOW, I write in strong support of HB 1266. This bill would require permitting decisions to reflect how pollution is experienced – accumulating across multiple sources and stressors – rather than evaluating each facility in isolation. For communities in Virginia Beach and across Hampton Roads, cumulative impacts are not theoretical. Residents can face overlapping burdens from air emissions, water pollution, contaminated sediments, heavy truck and roadway exposure, and flooding-driven runoff that moves pollutants through connected waterways – ultimately affecting the Lynnhaven River and the Chesapeake Bay. HB 1266 provides a practical, science-based way to ensure that communities already carrying disproportionate burdens are not asked to absorb still more. HB 1266 aligns Virginia’s permitting with the best available science. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have emphasized that cumulative impact assessment helps account for the “totality of exposures” and supports more equitable, health-protective decision-making. Likewise, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has advanced guidance recognizing that permitting has too often failed to reflect the lived reality of overburdened communities facing multiple stressors at once. HB 1266 would move the Commonwealth toward that more realistic and protective approach. HB 1266 strengthens meaningful public participation. The bill requires early, accessible outreach – including multilingual notice within a defined radius, a public hearing, comment periods, and a documented response to community concerns – so engagement is not a box-checking exercise, but a genuine opportunity to shape decisions that affect health and quality of life. Research on cumulative-impact policies underscores that robust procedural protections and authentic engagement are essential to building trust and improving outcomes. HB 1266 supports responsible growth with clearer expectations. By setting a transparent framework – requiring additional mitigation when a project would cause or contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on an environmental justice community – HB 1266 encourages better siting, earlier problem-solving, and fewer downstream conflicts. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to report HB 1266 and advance it. Sincerely, Lynnhaven River NOW
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
Opposed to these bills
HB1375 - Pesticides; manufacture, distribution, use, or sale of paraquat prohibited.
Dear Members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources: I am writing in opposition of HB1375 regarding the ban of the herbicide paraquat. I am a 5th generation peanut farmer and the chair of the Virginia Peanut Board. Paraquat is a valuable herbicide in the fight against herbicide resistant weeds in our area. Not only is it a valuable herbicide, for certain weeds in peanuts, it is our only effective herbicide. The ban of this herbicide would be a huge blow to our industry where our farmers are already struggling with low commodity prices and high input costs. The lack of herbicides to control weeds can cause significant yield reductions in peanuts which would cost farmers income they can’t stand to lose with the current state of the farm economy. Many farmers are only one bad crop year away from going out of business. We surely don’t need anything else to make things even worse. The EPA already has strict regulations in place on how paraquat has to be handled and applied by farmers. Farmers are the best stewards of the land. They understand if they neglect the environment in which their crops are produced, their livelihoods are at risk. We only use certain tools when absolutely necessary and paraquat is one of those tools. The ban of certain chemistries with no regard for sound science to back it up sets a dangerous precedent of what could be next. I urge the committee to use some common sense and vote no on HB1375. The hard working farm families that painstakingly bring billions of dollars to Virginia’s economy each year are counting on you. Sincerely, Andrew Darden
I am writing as a full time farmer in the Commonwealth of Virginia to respectfully urge you to oppose HB1375, which would prohibit the use, manufacture, or sale of pesticides containing paraquat. This bill, while well intentioned, would create significant and unnecessary burdens for farmers like me without providing additional safety benefits beyond those already established through rigorous federal oversight. Farmers are deeply committed stewards of the land and environment. Our livelihoods depend on healthy soil, clean water, and sustainable production practices. We take that responsibility seriously, and we rely on science based tools and regulations to help us protect both our crops and the natural resources we care for. Paraquat is one of those tools—used carefully, responsibly, and only when necessary. Paraquat is already among the most tightly regulated crop protection products in the United States. Before any pesticide can be used in Virginia, it must first undergo the extensive federal review process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which typically spans 10 to 12 years. Only after federal approval does the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services register the product for use in our state. In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) completed a comprehensive re evaluation of paraquat and approved its continued use with strengthened safety measures. After additional petitions, EPA conducted another thorough scientific review, analyzing more than 200 studies related to potential links between paraquat and Parkinson’s disease. In its January 30, 2024 report, EPA concluded that the weight of evidence does not support a causal connection between labeled paraquat use and Parkinson’s disease. Most of the studies cited by petitioners involved direct injection into test animals—an exposure pathway that does not reflect real world agricultural use. EPA has already implemented some of the strictest safeguards in the world, including: • Closed system packaging to prevent spills or accidental ingestion • Mandatory paraquat specific training • Certified applicator requirements • Closed cab application to eliminate inhalation and skin exposure • Enhanced label warnings and PPE requirements These measures ensure that paraquat is used safely, responsibly, and with minimal risk. Importantly, no other U.S. state has banned paraquat. If HB1375 were enacted, Virginia would stand alone—placing our farmers at a competitive disadvantage and forcing us to rely on less effective combinations of herbicides. This would ultimately increase total chemical use, not reduce it. Paraquat plays a vital role in managing herbicide resistant weeds and is especially valuable in crops such as cotton, peanuts, corn, and soybeans. It works quickly, performs well in cooler weather, and remains effective even after rainfall—advantages that alternative products cannot fully replicate. As a farmer who depends on responsible land management and science based regulation, I urge you to continue relying on the established federal review process that has guided pesticide oversight for more than fifty years. Banning a tool that EPA has repeatedly reviewed and deemed acceptable under strict regulation would harm Virginia agriculture without improving public safety.
I am a resident of Surry County, 5th generation farmer, producing corn, soybeans, peanuts and cotton with my son on our family farm in Surry and Southampton Counties. I am contacting you asking you to oppose HB 1375 which bans the use of paraquat in Virginia. Paraquat is the active ingredient in several chemicals used to control weeds in many crops grown in Virginia and around the nation. It is used as a burn down herbicide (used to kill weeds and cover crops in the spring before planting) and also used to control weeds in peanuts. It is an effective alternative to Round Up, which is often used as a burn down prior to planting crops. There are several weeds that have developed resistance to Round up, so Paraquat is an effective alternative with no resistant weeds that I am aware of. If we lose the use of Paraquat, we would have to rely on tillage to control resistant weeds, which would require more time, money and equipment. Tillage to control weeds leaves the soil more susceptible to erosion and would undo years of progress Virginia agriculture has made in no till soil management and sustainability. This is especially important in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Paraquat is also very effective at controlling small weeds in peanuts. Without paraquat, we would have to use several other chemicals at a higher cost to control the same weeds that paraquat will control alone. This would put Virginia peanut growers at a disadvantage to neighboring states. Paraquat is a dangerous chemical compound, but is safe and effective when used as intended. It has been safely used for over 50 years. Use of Paraquat is highly regulated. It can only be purchased, handled and applied by Certified Pesticide Applicators. In addition to the required training to become a Certified Pesticide Applicator, there is specific training on the handling and application of products containing paraquat. Paraquat is only sold in special closed container systems that further reduces the chances of accidental exposure to the handler/applicator. I urge you to oppose this bill which would have a negative impact on many of your constituents.
Chair and Members of the Committee, I respectfully urge you to support HB1375 to end the sale and use of paraquat in Virginia. The Virginia Pest Management Association argues this decision should be left to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. But EPA registration is not a “proven safe” determination - it is a risk-management judgment under FIFRA’s “unreasonable adverse effects” standard, which explicitly weighs economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits. Just as importantly, FIFRA preserves state authority to regulate the sale and use of pesticides (so long as states do not permit what federal law prohibits). The U.S. Supreme Court has also held that FIFRA does not preempt local regulation of pesticide use. HB1375 is therefore fully consistent with the federal framework. VPMA also portrays the federal oversight system as comprehensive and self-correcting because of “mandatory adverse effect reporting.” EPA’s own Incident Data System cautions that it has limited confidence in incident report accuracy, and EPA does not guarantee completeness or adequacy of those data. This is not a reliable substitute for prevention—especially for chronic diseases with long latency. On the science: high-quality epidemiology has repeatedly raised concern that paraquat exposure is associated with higher Parkinson’s risk. One widely cited peer-reviewed study reported that Parkinson’s disease was positively associated with paraquat use (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4–4.7). Even if EPA states it has not found a “clear link” from labeled use, that is not the same as “no credible evidence,” and it is not the same as “safe.” Finally, “restricted use” controls do not eliminate community exposure. In November 2025, the EPA announced it is updating its analysis of paraquat’s potential to volatilize and increase bystander inhalation risk, and it will issue a data call-in to resolve key uncertainties. (EPA’s own action underscores that real-world exposure questions remain unsettled.) Internationally, many governments have concluded paraquat’s risks are not manageable: a systematic review found that at least 74 countries do not authorize paraquat, and that bans/phase-outs reduced poisonings and deaths more effectively than partial restrictions. Brazil’s Anvisa maintained a national ban effective September 2020, and Canada’s federal registry lists major paraquat products (e.g., Gramoxone 200 SL) as cancelled. For these reasons - credible disease risk signals, enforceability limits, EPA’s ongoing uncertainty on inhalation exposure, and strong international precedent - HB1375 is a prudent, science-based step to protect Virginians’ health. Respectfully, Lynnhaven River NOW
Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch
The VPMA strongly opposes HB1375 because it usurps the existing robust, scientific, & effective process of approving & regulating the use of pesticides by the EPA in partnership with VDACS. The process is comprehensive; it takes over a decade to test & review each new chemistry. It includes regular re-evaluation of each pesticide, using new data & mandatory adverse effect reporting. This process is governed by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the VA Pesticide Control Act, & the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The EPA is the only US government agency with the technical & scientific capability to independently integrate the data developed through mandatory scientific testing & conduct a comprehensive risk assessment that takes account of risk to the environment & to members of the public, with a particular focus on vulnerable sub-populations, such as infants, children, the elderly, & pregnant women. By process, the EPA works to identify each pesticide’s “safety threshold”, which is the dose that has been shown to cause no observable adverse effects (NOAEL) in the most sensitive species at the most sensitive development stage. The FQPA stipulates that the regulated dose must be 10-1000 times lower than the NOAEL to account for the fact that pesticides are tested on animals, that people across a population may vary in their response, & to address any potential risk to children. The EPA also accounts for situations where people who work with the pesticide will contact it, such as during manufacture, mixing, applying, or working in areas where pesticides have been applied. Only after this will the EPA decide whether the pesticide can be approved, and, if so, how it should be used. Paraquat is a Restricted Use Pesticide, a designation that provides additional protection on top of those already described. Members of the public cannot access this pesticide. In addition, it may only be applied by a licensed certified pesticide applicator. In 2021, after an extensive review of the most current scientific data, the EPA under the Biden administration re-approved the use of paraquat in the U.S., but with further safety measures & restrictions on how & by whom it may be used. Specific to Parkinson’s Disease, the EPA found insufficient scientific evidence to establish a direct causal link to the disease from paraquat. The EPA adapts as new evidence is provided, thus in late 2025, the EPA reversed portions of the 2021 re-approval decision due to heightened concerns with volatilization & is now reconsidering risks related to inhalation. The system being used for such assessment & regulation of pesticide use has been in place for decades. It is constantly under review, & pesticides are regularly reassessed based on new scientific evidence & mandatory adverse effect reporting. It is effectively protecting the general public, PMPs, & the environment from harmful chemistries while allowing the legitimate & necessary use of appropriate pesticides to continue. It’s the same system that banned DDT in the U.S. in 1972. It’s working right now to reassess the risks associated with paraquat. The EPA is an objective & highly competent assessor of pesticide risks & regulations. It collaborates with VDACS to ensure regulations reflect the needs of Virginians & the conditions in the Commonwealth. The VPMA urges the Committee to let the current system function as designed, & not to undermine it by adopting HB1375.
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
Please support HB402. It will allow small cottage foods producers to grow reach a larger consumer base, without the need to upgrade to a commercial kitchen, which is exceedingly expensive and lots of red tape for permitting. This is also a way to make it less restrictive for anyone wanting to get started with home produced uninspected foods which will support independence and community food resilience and keep revenue cycling within the local economy.
HB1425 - Geoengineering; prohibited, civil penalties.
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
Hallelujah! Thank you for introducing this important bill, and PLEASE PASS IT. The fact that this bill is presented, acknowledges that geoengineering takes place and is affecting our weather and biosphere. Who is spraying our skies daily and why? I am outdoors every day, and see a normally sunny day become overcast, and it is not from normal clouds. Every day I see the sky covered in streaks from west to east that dissipate and are not natural. They are even out there today, preventing the direct rays of the sun from melting the ice. My family farms, and we notice a difference in the yield in our crops since this spraying has been taking place. What is becoming to our beautiful Earth that is being taken over by madmen who think they are God?
HB1466 - Virginia Natural Resources Commitment Fund; extending application deadline.
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
HB1475 - Virginia Fungi Task Force; established, report.
I am writing in support of HB1475 to establish a Virginia Fungi Task Force. Fungi serve an important role as decomposers in our ecosystem, but they also servean arguably even more important role as mycorrhizal associates with trees and other plants. In this role they coexist with the root systems of pine trees, hardwood trees, grasses, legumes, and many other species, as key symbionts that allow these plants to survive. Despite the critical role they play in our ecosystem, very little is known about them. Mycologists in the eastern US are finding that we know much less than we thought about these organisms, it is imperative that we begin to take steps to better understand these species for the sake of our environment and economy. HB1475 is an extremely important first step in achieving a better understanding of the fungal kingdom and bringing the science of mycology up to speed with other similar studies such as forestry, botany, and wildlife studies. As an expert and life long professional in the field of ecosystems ecology, I implore you to support this bill - not only will it be important for the reasons listed above, but I believe it will be whole heartedly supported by the majority of the Virginia citizenship who care deeply for our green spaces. Thank you for your consideration.
I am strongly in support of HB1475. Fungi are critically understudied and underrepresented within state conservation practices. Implementing a Fungi Task Force would establish avenues for essential research on fungal biodiversity, expand public education on fungi, and hopefully create opportunities for community engagement and employment. Fundamentally, ensuring the health and longevity of our fungal partners will directly impact the future well-being of our forests and the native plants and animals that depend on them! Please vote yes on this bill! Fungi are the present, past, and the future!
Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch
I support the passage of this House bill. There is still so much to learn from the fungi in our environment. This is just a very necessary first step to help improve many aspects of the surrounding communities. From academics, to native plant protection, and local fungus education this bill is very important. Please vote yes
I am in support of HB1475 and would like to see the creation of a Virginia Fungi Task Force.
Please pass HB1475. There are fungi that sell for $100/ounce. Who knows what treasures we may be ignoring in Virginia.
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
HB86 - Mattress Stewardship Program; established definitions, report.
February 11, 2026 Delegate Alfonso H. Lopez, Chair House Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee Virginia General Assembly 201 North 9th Street Richmond, VA 23219 Re: SUPPORT – HB 86, Mattress Stewardship Program Dear Chair Lopez and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of HB 86, which would establish a sustainably funded, producer-run mattress stewardship program in Virginia for the collection, reuse, renovation, and recycling of unwanted mattresses. Nationally, fewer than five percent of mattresses are recycled each year, even though up to 90 percent of mattress components can be recovered and reused in products such as steel, carpet padding, animal bedding, and mulch. Much of this bulky waste ends up in landfills or is illegally dumped, resulting in significant costs for local governments and taxpayers. HB 86 addresses these challenges by: • Reducing the financial burden on municipalities; • Expanding convenient mattress collection opportunities for residents; • Increasing the recycling and recovery of discarded mattresses; and • Supporting jobs in the recycling and materials management sectors. The mattress industry, government, and stakeholders have worked together, with support from the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), to improve mattress end-of-life management. This collaboration has led to mattress stewardship laws in four states, with growing interest nationwide. The Mattress Recycling Council, a nonprofit established by the mattress industry manages the programs established by these laws. Over the past decade, it has recycled more than 15 million mattresses and diverted over 575 million pounds of materials from landfills. HB 86 incorporates several key elements of effective stewardship programs, including: • A producer-developed program plan that allows for operational flexibility; • Convenient access to mattress collection sites across the Commonwealth; • Dedicated funding for oversight and enforcement; • Comprehensive public education and outreach; • Annual reporting to promote transparency and accountability; and • Ongoing state oversight and periodic plan review. To build on this strong framework, PSI recommends the following enhancements: • Define “brand” to clarify producer responsibilities. • Provide reimbursement to collection sites to cover costs and improve convenience. • Set measurable performance goals to track progress and effectiveness. • Establish enforcement provisions for noncompliance. PSI is a national policy expert and consulting nonprofit that pioneered product stewardship in the United States. Since 2000, PSI facilitated dialogues, research, pilot projects, and policy development have helped shape more than 146 EPR laws across more than 20 product categories. PSI respectfully urges the Committee to support HB 86 as a cost-effective, proven policy approach to managing discarded mattresses in Virginia. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (617) 513-3954 or Scott@ProductStewardship.US. Sincerely, Scott Cassel Chief Executive Officer/Founder
Hello Delegates, I am writing in opposition of HB1396. This bill had been brought fourth by landowners groups that falsely claim to represent and maximize property owners rights when in fact they are property owners that want to end the tradition of hound hunting. This is proven by these groups comments on their own social media pages. These groups have made claim that only 8 states allow the use of hounds to hunt, a stat quoted by delegates in the subcommittee, that is simply a false statement, currently only 9 states allow hounds to be used to hunt deer but nearly every state allows the utilization of dogs to hunt other game species many not requiring an special license to do so. I ask the delegates to understand that the vast majority of the members of the hound hunting organizations are land owners as well in addition to all of the landowners who lease or allow hound hunting on their land support the tradition of hound hunting. This bill creates a permit allowing the DWR create and issue permits on a may issue criteria with visual permit requirements for hounds and vehicles. If Additional funding is needed to police game laws the bill should be amended to a license just like an archery or muzzleloading license that is a shall issue. Additionally the cost for said license should be reduced and required for all that utilize or partcipate in any type of hunting that utilizes a dog. Dogs are already required to have owner contact info on their collar and their vehicles have state issued license plates therefore marking is not necessary. Lastly the only ones who should be exempt from license purchase are those that utilize dogs to hunt on their own land. This simplifies the requirements and makes it fair for all parties. Basically if big game is harvested and checked in and the use of dogs is checked as a part of big game license registering process they should be required to have a dog hunting license or be exempt as a land owner. I hope that you find this as a reasonable comprise. Additionally there needs to be some sort of recourse for false complaints or accusations. If this bill continues as is it will create more tensions between those who utilize dogs to hunt and those who don't like the use of hunting dogs. False complaints will continue to increase cause additional hunter harassment and tension between hunters and those that oppose it. Thank you for your time. V/R, B. C. Bunch
If you’re tired of the 9-to-5 grind or just want a way to put some extra cash in your pocket every week, I have something for you. Companies are currently looking for remote writers to handle: Article Writing Blog Posts Social Media Content Live Chat Support No experience is necessary and full training is provided. But before you apply, you need to see which role you’re best suited for. Go here to take the Writing Job Quiz. ---> http://PaidToWrite.Online/ Once you finish the quiz, you’ll get a breakdown of the best opportunities available for you right now. Visit -----> http://PaidToWrite.Online/
Invasives should be pulled or killed by herbicide and not be permitted to be sold in nurseries
Dear Subcommittee Members, Used mattresses are impossible to donate or give away, as recipients don't want to risk sanitary issues. They are bulky and hard to transport. Delivering them to the landfill may require a tipping fee, which not everyone can afford. No one wants to see them dumped along our roads or in our woods. We urge you to require manufacturers to take them back to recycle. Sincerely, Patricia Mertz Esswein, Chairperson, Conservation & Sustainability Commission, Town of Vienna, Va.
I would like to emphasize the following point: HB86 should explicitly include mattress shredding as an approved and supported processing method. Additional comments in support of this position have been submitted previously for the record.
A provision should be included to establish a regulated licensing pathway for mattress collection and transport, administered through the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation (DPOR). This program should prioritize women-owned businesses for initial licensing opportunities to encourage economic participation and business development within this emerging sector of waste management. Under this framework, licensed junk hauling companies would be authorized to collect and transport mattresses for approved processing or recycling facilities. The licensing requirements should be structured to ensure accountability, safety, and proper handling of materials, while remaining streamlined and practical so that small and minority-owned businesses are not excluded by excessive administrative or financial barriers. Creating a priority pathway for women-owned businesses would support workforce growth, expand compliant collection capacity, and promote fair access to new market opportunities created by mattress stewardship programs. A DPOR-regulated but accessible licensing model would strengthen oversight, reduce illegal dumping, and ensure that mattress collection is performed by qualified, traceable operators operating within the law. Also, following up on a previous note: Illegal dumping and improper residential disposal at public transfer stations create significant financial, environmental, and operational burdens for local governments. These practices increase cleanup costs, strain landfill capacity, and undermine the integrity of regulated waste management systems. Addressing this issue requires a coordinated approach that combines enforcement, infrastructure, and public engagement.
I serve on my county solid waste advisory committee and I wish to voice my support for HB86. Mattresses present an especially challenging waste problem. Most mattresses end up in a landfill where they take up an out-sized amount of space, they often “float” to the top of the landfill, and get caught up in the machinery used to manage the landfill. Virginia landfills are running out of space. According to the 2023 Solid Waste Information & Assessment (SWIA) report, Virginia has approximately 236 million tons of remaining landfill capacity. At the current disposal rate of 11.7 million tons per year, this capacity is projected to last approximately 20.1 years. Additionally, mattresses are often dumped on roadsides, in private dumpsters or at donation drop off locations like the Goodwill Stores. As a result someone other than the consumer, manufacturer or retailer must ultimately pay the price for disposal. The DEQ draft of the Virginia Solid Waste Management Plan released last October placed a high priority on legislative action to expand Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) to include a broader range of products including mattresses. HB86 would do just that, keeping this bulky product out of our landfills and bolstering material recycling. Recycling recovers valuable materials therefore conserving resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also creates job opportunities. HB86 is an important step in moving Virginia toward a thriving circular economy.
Clean Virginia Waterways strongly supports HB86. Mattresses are consistently among the most commonly dumped household items we encounter during our large-scale cleanups. Their bulk and high disposal costs make them difficult for residents to discard properly, contributing to litter in communities and natural areas. Product stewardship programs are one of the most effective ways to address this problem. By placing responsibility on producers to design and fund recycling systems for their products, these programs ensure that items are managed responsibly at the end of their life. Closing this gap between product design and disposal has been shown to reduce litter, incineration, and landfilling, while strengthening recycling systems overall. The need for action is clear: according to the Mattress Recycling Council, more than 50,000 mattresses are discarded in the U.S. every day, even though more than 75 percent of a mattress can be recycled. HB86 would help make mattress recycling more accessible, reducing waste and protecting our communities and environment.
One important point I neglected to mention is the scale of mattress collection already occurring through private service providers. Our junk hauling company alone collects an average of approximately 600 mattresses and box springs per month from apartment complexes. Several other established junk hauling companies in the region report comparable volumes, and in some cases significantly higher. In addition, hotels represent a substantial source of discarded mattresses; however, many are reluctant to pay for proper recycling or hauling services despite being major contributors to the waste stream. To address this volume efficiently, a grant or incentive program would be highly beneficial to help fund the equipment and infrastructure needed to process mattresses more effectively. This would improve compliance, reduce improper disposal, and support responsible private-sector participation. Based on our operational experience, properties that rely on open dump containers or dumpsters for mattress disposal frequently become targets for illegal dumping. In one instance, we identified a private operator offering extremely low-cost mattress pickup. By using an Apple AirTag, we confirmed that these mattresses were being illegally redistributed to other properties rather than properly processed. This highlights the need for clear enforcement provisions and meaningful penalties within any program framework to prevent fraudulent or illegal handling of mattresses in the future. Incorporating these safeguards and support mechanisms will help ensure that mattress collection and processing systems are both effective and accountable.
I support HB86. Product stewardship programs are one of the best tools to reduce litter & increase recycling. Mattress recycling options are scarce in Virginia despite the fact that more than 75 percent of a mattress can be recycled. Convenient & free recycling locations will keep mattresses out of our landfills, roadsides, streams, parks & other places where people might want to dump them.
Chair and Members of the Committee, On behalf of Lynnhaven River NOW, the leading conservation and restoration organization in Virginia Beach dedicated to protecting clean water and healthy coastal ecosystems, I respectfully urge you to support HB 86, which would establish a statewide Mattress Stewardship Program and require producers, retailers, and renovators to participate in a certified mattress recycling organization approved by the Department of Environmental Quality. Hampton Roads is in the middle of a growing solid-waste crunch. The region’s primary waste authority has had to send substantially more material to the Regional Landfill in Suffolk since the local waste-to-energy option closed, and leaders have made clear that without meaningful diversion, the landfill’s remaining capacity is finite and increasingly constrained—especially because future expansion is limited by wetlands and permitting realities. In that context, HB 86 is exactly the kind of practical, producer-funded tool Virginia needs to cut landfill-bound tonnage and reduce illegal dumping. Mattresses are a prime target for stewardship: they are bulky, expensive to manage, and take up disproportionate landfill space—yet they contain recoverable, high-value materials like steel, foam, fiber, and wood. Nationally, more than 50,000 mattresses are discarded each day, and more than 75% of a mattress can be recycled. By requiring a stewardship plan and creating convenient, no-cost collection options, HB 86 will divert recyclable materials from disposal, reduce litter and dumping, and help build Virginia’s recycling and resource-recovery capacity—benefiting households and major mattress users alike, including hotels, hospitals, universities, and military installations. Product stewardship works because it fixes the disconnect between product design and end-of-life management: producers are best positioned to finance and manage responsible recycling systems, and stewardship programs in other states have already demonstrated large-scale diversion and measurable public benefits. For the health of our waterways, neighborhoods, and local budgets, we urge you to advance HB 86 and help Virginia take a meaningful step toward a more circular, less wasteful economy. Thank you for your consideration.
HB86 should recognize and authorize the use of qualified junk hauling companies and other appropriate private service providers as part of a comprehensive mattress collection and management strategy. These entities are already embedded in local communities and routinely operate under county contracts, state contracts, and private residential and commercial agreements. Leveraging existing junk haul and waste service infrastructure will expand collection coverage, reduce illegal dumping, and provide flexible, cost-effective logistics for retrieving discarded mattresses from apartments, retailers, institutions, and households. In addition to mattress recycling, HB86 should explicitly include mattress shredding as an approved and supported processing method. Shredding significantly reduces mattress volume, improves transportation efficiency, and enables material separation for downstream recycling or disposal. For landfills, shredded mattress material maximizes airspace utilization, reduces handling hazards associated with bulky whole mattresses, and improves compaction efficiency. Incorporating shredding alongside recycling creates a practical, scalable system that balances environmental responsibility with operational reality, ensuring mattresses are diverted from illegal dumping while being managed through the most efficient and environmentally sound methods available. Furthermore, mattress processing activities generate measurable economic value through service fees, material recovery, and contracted operations. This revenue stream creates an opportunity for counties to collect additional local taxes and fees associated with mattress collection and processing services. These funds can be redirected to support higher-priority public initiatives, including infrastructure improvements, environmental programs, and community services, without increasing the general tax burden on residents. A program that integrates recycling, shredding, and public-private collection partnerships will strengthen compliance, reduce overall waste management costs, and provide both environmental and fiscal benefits to local governments across Virginia.
Hey, We are a teeth whitening products supplier based in China, we offer OEM and ODM services. We would love to find a partner to establish a win-win relationship, we offer products you sell. If you are interested in, please reply to me at +86 199 1829 8630(Wechat)