Legislative Update 4.16.25

On April 17, we mark the International Day of Peasant Struggles, an annual action day that brings rural communities together around the world to honor the ongoing struggle and resistance of agrarian workers everywhere in their pursuit of justice, dignity, and food sovereignty. 

In Vermont, we commemorate this day during a week where we have witnessed Palestinian man Mohsen Mahdawi detained in Colchester during a scheduled citizenship interview, despite his decade long status as a lawful U.S. permanent resident, an arrest that Vermont federal delegation Sanders, Welch, and Balint have called “immoral, inhumane, and illegal.” This detention occurred as protesters gathered to condemn the arrest and detention of Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk from Turkey, who was taken into custody by US Homeland Security agents in plain clothes and brought to Vermont before landing in an ICE detention center in Louisiana. 

Also this week, agrarians gathered for a Farmer Day of Action outside of USDA offices in Middlebury to speak about the impact of USDA program cuts, tariffs, and the immigration stresses on themselves as farmers and farmworkers. 

There is a continued need to stand up for ourselves, our friends, neighbors, and demand justice, dignity, and safety for our communities during a dangerous time where our constitutional rights are at stake. We encourage our network to show solidarity and for each individual to take mindful steps within your reach. Our work here in Vermont is part of and connected to an unwavering global fight for farmer and farmworker rights, and against genocides, wars, violations of people's sovereignty, constitutional rights, and the corporate control and domination over our food system. 

Rural Vermont stands with Vermont farmers and farmworkers, alongside La Via Campesina, the international movement of peasants, youth, women, men, and diversities, migrants, rural and landless agrarian workers, fisherfolk, and indigenous peoples, who come together in unity with hope, connection, and unwavering determination to confront the multifaceted crises agrarian communities face here at home and around the world.

It is unclear when the 2025 Legislative Session will wrap up, but we are working with the assumption that it will be at the end of April or early May. Read on for opportunities for action around: Cannabis, Cottage Foods, Future Agricultural Land Use Planning, Exempting Multi-Use Structures from Act 250, and Phasing out PFAS from Pesticides. Now is the time to make calls and write emails to legislators on the issues that are most important to you! Some of these issues might not gain traction without legislators hearing from their communities.  Your action this week and next could leverage change. 

Please  join us for our final advocacy training and Small Farm Action Day of this year - next week on April 22 (advocacy training) and 23 (Small Farm Action Day) RSVP here. 

Table of Contents

Fair Markets for Regulated Cannabis Producers 

S.321 - the miscellaneous cannabis bill - was introduced in the Senate Committee on Economic Development last week, and testimony will begin this week, on Wednesday the 16th.  

Rural VT and the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition have been organizing, educating, and advocating together with many of you, since prior to the adult-use market launching in Vermont.  The majority of our collective voices and recommendations are not being listened to or implemented by most policymakers, and rarely reported on by the media, despite being so broadly representative and being the predominant stakeholder voices that come before the committees in the statehouse that have jurisdiction over cannabis.  We anticipate the Senate being more receptive to our recommendations than the House, but we need your help now as testimony begins in the Senate.  

There are a few ways you can support:

 1. Contact your representative (locate their contact info here) by phone or email using the language in the sign-on for reference and your own sentiments to guide your comments. 

2. You can contact members of the Senate Committee on Economic Development in a similar fashion. 

3. In order to more broadly demonstrate the support in our communities, and across particular demographics, for essential reforms to the laws governing Vermont's adult-use cannabis economy, the revenue coming from it, and the medical cannabis program, we invite you to sign and share this sign-on letter.

This document is an opportunity for you to indicate your support for the recommendations of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition - all of which have been deeply informed by our work with a variety of affected constituencies over time.  Please read our recommendations and, if you are in support, take the opportunity to sign onto the following letter to Vermont State Senators and Representatives.

Ferments vs. Sugars - How should Cottage Foods be Regulated?

We have long been hearing from members and the community about the need to update Vermont’s Cottage Food laws, particularly the outdated and limited income caps for cottage food manufacturers operating below licensing requirements. Food manufacturing businesses are defined in 18 V.S.A. § 4301 (a) (7) as “all buildings, rooms, basements, cellars, lofts, or other premises or part thereof used, occupied, or maintained for the purpose of manufacturing, preparing, packing, canning, bottling, keeping, storing, handling, serving, or distributing food for sale.” Those who bake or manufacture foods from home are exempt from licensing requirements with the Department of Health when they sell less than a specific annual dollar amount. Currently, someone who adds value to raw agricultural products in their home kitchen needs a license when their gross annual sales exceed $10,000. Similarly, home bakers need licensing when they exceed $6,500 in gross annual sales. H. 401 proposes to update these income thresholds for the licensing requirements of these so-called cottage food producers to $30,000 gross annual sales. 

Good to know: Under the current  law, cottage food manufacturers need to go through the Department of Health to claim that they’re qualified for the exemption from licensing requirements. The broad definition of “Food manufacturing businesses” is inclusive of canned foods such as pickles and sauces and they are exempt from licensing below the income cap of $10,000. However, producers may need to provide documentation of their production process as required by rule. For example, the Department of Health may ask producers of low-acid canned foods or acidified foods to provide documentation to show there are no biological concerns with the food production process. Learn more about the Manufactured Food Rule here.

Update: H. 401 passed the House and is currently being considered by the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. The Department of Health (DOH) provided testimony on April 16 (recording here) with suggested changes to the bill that would create a different category of cottage foods for potentially more hazardous foods, specifically: canned foods like pickles, other fermented foods, hot sauces and any other sauce. The DOH suggests that producers of such canned foods should undergo a virtual training at no cost and that the income cap for those exempt products should not be raised above the current cap of $10,000 (See the recommended changes here.) 

The DOH cites scientifically founded health risks associated with preserved foods that require temperature and pH control as the reasons for their recommendations. Specifically, poorly manufactured canned foods can have a higher risk of botulism, salmonella and listeria. The DOH cited no recent cases for botulism, an average of 3 cases of listeria per year, and many cases of salmonella, though it was not clear if these cases originated from exempt food manufacturing businesses. In their testimony to the House Agriculture Committee the cases they referenced all originated from licensed catering businesses that didn’t properly store foods (see the DOH testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture here).

In the DOH’s proposal, the income cap would still be raised to $30K for baked goods and non-hazardous manufactured foods like candies, jams, jelly’s, dried herbs, trail mix, granola, mixed nuts, flavored vinegar, and popcorn. 


**To date, neither Rural Vermont staff nor members have been invited to testify on this bill in the Senate and it’s unlikely that it will be referred to the Committee on Agriculture as it needs to go through both money committees to make it through the whole process this year.

Action Alert!
If you produce pickles, sauerkraut, tomato sauce or other non sugary preserves from your garden in your home kitchen for sale, then the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare needs to hear from you! 

On April 16 the Department of Health recommended in testimony to create a new regulatory category for home-produced canned goods that wouldn’t benefit from the raise of the income threshold with H.401.

Do you make and sell cottage foods? Would you if you could? Want the ability to buy them from your local farmer?  Contact the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare and tell them that home scale production of cottage foods is a safe, important, and traditional aspect of feeding our communities; expanding the income cap on value-added, home-scale goods could significantly help diversify farm incomes.  The committee welcomes written testimonials, please email Committee Assistant Kiki Carasi-Schwartz at kcarasi-schwartz@leg.state.vt.us 

Here’s how to take action

Here’s a sample message for you to express your support for H.401:

“Dear Senate Committee on Health and Welfare,

Please vote favorably on H.401. Vermont needs to increase its supply of locally produced foods and H.401 would be an important step to support small-scale food producers and bakers by raising the outdated income thresholds for their exemption from licensing requirements and make them more in line with allowances in other states. 

Please oppose the creation of a new regulatory category for non-sugary home produced canned goods in H.401. Producers of pickled and fermented farm foods have been feeding their farms and communities for generations through traditional preservation methods. These foods help offer steady access to locally produced, preserved foods for rural communities, those who struggle with food access, and all.  Producers of these foods deserve to have the inspection income threshold raised to allow them to diversify their farm businesses, increase food access, and strengthen the agricultural economy. The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare has not heard testimony on this bill from farmers or producers. Please bring in farmer voices and hear about the importance of this bill for agrarian communities. 

I am a food manufacturer/ baker, we produce … seasonally/ year round. We produce our products at home and … (explain why you think home food production is safe). We sell our products … . For us H.401 is important because … . 

Please bring H.401 to a vote soon and please use your vote to move the bill favorably. 

Yours sincerely,

Your name/ business name/ town”

You can email this directly to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare members:

Sen. Virginia "Ginny" Lyons, Chair: vlyons@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. David Weeks, Vice Chair: dweeks@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Ruth Hardy: rhardy@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Martine Larocque Gulick: mgulick@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Terry Williams: tkwilliams@leg.state.vt.us

Future Agricultural Land Use Planning

Rural Vermont has been advocating with support from the Land Access and Opportunity Board for the Vermont General Assembly to mandate Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) to issue Future Agricultural Land Use maps. RPCs are revising the Land Use sections of their Regional Plans in 2025 to implement the Act 250 reform law Act 181 (2024). Unfortunately, those maps do not include agricultural land on their Future Land Use maps, nor does Act 181 (2024) include a mandate to show where agricultural land is at risk for conversion or available for future agricultural use. 

Update: The Senate Committee on Agriculture said that the legislature does not want to address this issue this year and that there’s reluctance to reopen Act 181 of 2024.

Action Alert! 

Reach out to the Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, Senator Anne Watson (awatson@leg.state.vt.us) and your Senator (find your Senator here). Here’s a list of talking points you can use in your outreach. Ask them to: “Include a mandate of Regional Planning Commissions to issue Future Agricultural Land Use Maps as an amendment to the miscellaneous environmental subjects bill H.319 in the Senate.”

  1. Planning without an eye towards protecting farmland from development is shortsighted! 

  2. Act 181 of 2024 is an example of continued underrepresentation, as farmers have not been considered in the making of Vermont's Future Land Use Plans because Act 181 of 2024 was never considered by the Committees on Agriculture, and farmers never testified on this Land Use law. 

  3. Now is an opportune moment to fix this void because Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) will be revising their Future Land Use maps. Emphasize the need to avoid redundant costs because RPCs will have to plan with all towns if they narrowly focus on the implementation of Act 181, and neglect planning for the future of Vermont farmland.

  4. Fixing Act 181 (2024) is a technical correction to an oversight, planning for future agricultural use, and not a new policy. 

Exempting Multi-Use Structures from Act 250

Agriculture is exempt from Act 250. However, recent changes from Act 181 (2024) now prescribe Act 250 permitting of Accessory On-Farm Businesses that make improvements for farm events or farm stays. The new language of the law (Act 181 of 2024, p. 25) did not mention multi-use structures at all. They are explicitly exempt from municipal zoning (24 V.S.A. § 4413 (d)(1)(a)). 

Update: The Senate Committee on Agriculture is supportive in addressing this issue with the House version of the miscellaneous agricultural bill that they are currently working on, H.484. While we haven’t seen the specific language they are considering to date, Senator Joe Major made remarks during a committee discussion on April 15 that the language might not be a blanket exemption of multi-use structures as Rural Vermont members are requesting but that they will rather consider some version of permitting each individual event in multi-use farm structures on a case by case basis as the Land Use Review Board recommends. Watch the committee discussion from April 15 here.

Rural Vermont is working with members to identify additional challenges brought about by Act 181 in 2024. Be in touch with caroline@ruralvermont.org to share your thoughts. 

Action Alert! 

Reach out to the Senate Committee on Agriculture to express your support for multi-use structures to be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting - without case by case event permitting.
Here’s a draft message for your outreach: 

“Dear Chair Ingalls and Vice Chair Major,

Please support Rural Vermont’s language to clarify that new or existing multi-use agricultural structures are exempt from Act 250 permitting through amending 10 V.S.A. 6081 (t) (1):

"No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements used as part of an accessory on-farm business as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412(11), including for hosting events, as long as the new or existing structure is primarily used as a farm structure as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(2)(A). This subsection shall apply to new or existing structures."

Agriculture has always been exempt from Act 250 permitting, and the current law is ambiguous with regards to multi-use structures. It is important to me that the legislature clarifies that farm structures are exempt from Act 250 permitting, just as they are exempt from municipal zoning. Farmers should not jump through hoops of a case-by-case permitting structure, but I favor for multi-use structures to be exempt from Act 250 permitting just as the multi-use of structures is exempt from municipal zoning.

This issue matters to me because…

I appreciate your support for clarifying this issue with the miscellaneous agricultural bill, H.484. 

Sincerely,

Your name/ farm name (if applicable)/ town”

You can email this directly to Chair Ingalls and Vice Chair Major:

Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair: ringalls@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major, Vice Chair: jmajor@leg.state.vt.us

Phasing out PFAS from Pesticides

The Vermont Pesticides and Poisons Action Network (VTPAPAN) and the VT PFAS/Military Poisons Coalition is advocating for H.238 on the phaseout of consumer products containing added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances in a nuanced way. The coalition supports the passage of the bill because of its imperative to eliminate PFAS in consumer products. 

However, the bill eliminates pesticides from the phase-out, whereas they previously had been included in Act 131 (2024). That is troubling, and we call to action to support these coalitions in their request to add pesticides back into the purview of H.238!

Action Alert!

Contact the Senators from the Committee on Health and Welfare (contact info on the committee webpage here).
Here’s a sample message: 

“Dear Senator…,

The omission of pesticides with PFAS from H.238 leaves a large, easily dispersed source of PFAS unregulated. It leaves important and difficult work on the table for the near future if we are to truly protect this state from PFAS. There are at least twenty-four EPA-registered pesticides with PFAS active ingredients used in Vermont at significant amounts. 

This issue matters to me because… .

Please uphold the legislative intent of Act 131 (2024) and make sure pesticides are included in the phase out of PFAS. 

Respectfully,

Your name/ town“

Farm Security Special Fund

S.60 - which proposes the creation of a Farm Security Special Fund for the purposes of supporting farmers and potentially loggers to recover from extreme weather events - is currently in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. Rural Vermont recently testified again in support of the bill, and we are continuing to join allied organizations in meetings to respond to progress and questions raised.

There is substantial support for the fund itself, but there are a number of questions being raised related to who and what are covered, and how money is dispersed, etc.  At this point, it would be helpful to let your representatives know that you support this bill, and that it is critical that enough money is appropriated for it to be effective (find your Representative here). The coalition is asking for $20 million, and we were told in the Senate that they are working to get $7.5 million.  The estimated need for agricultural operations alone (not including loggers or aspects of forestry operations) in full was more than $40 million based on past numbers.

We’ll continue to keep you updated on this bill and let you know if there are critical moments moving forward for you to act.  

Protections from Nuisance Suits for Farms (“Right to Farm”)

S.45 continues to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee.  There is a new draft of this legislation that was brought to committee by legislative council on April 9th which proposes significant changes to previous drafts, and which we are working to understand.  

We have in general not heard any suggestions this year, or in recent years, from our members to expand the current protections from nuisance suits that farmers have in Vermont.  We have heard some concerns from members about this legislation given how “right to farm” laws in states around the country (which are different state by state) have impacted communities’, and small farms’, abilities to hold large poultry and hog operations owned by large corporations accountable for the human and environmental health impacts they create, and to have a degree of local control over the impacts to local communities and how to respond.  We have been told by one organizational representative working in another state that the “right to farm” laws there were part of what supported large corporate hog farms pushing independent dairy out of their state.  We also recognize, and national allies fighting “right to farm” in their states have acknowledged, that (to our knowledge) even the largest dairy farms in VT are independently owned farms, and that we do not face the same non-local corporate actors and degree of threat posed by the operations they manage here right now, making this more complicated here.  We do have some basic concerns with the existing statute - such as only pre-existing farming operations being entitled to the “rebuttable presumption” to nuisance, and it being unclear what types of changes in farming practice or type, etc. may qualify something as non-eligible for the rebuttable presumption - which this bill has sought to address.  We also have concerns and questions about the draft which passed through the Senate.

We are working our way through the latest draft to understand its implications, in the process of hearing from members and other organizations about this bill, and determining how and whether to provide testimony.  Please reach out to caroline@ruralvermont.org if you have thoughts to share or if you’re interested in testifying on this bill.

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 4.2.25

This Legislative Crossover Update provides a comprehensive overview of current bills that are relevant to the agricultural community (our legislative team monitored 38 bills this year!). Check out the Table of Contents to learn about the bills that are of most interest to you. There are two sections in this legislative update: bills that made the “crossover” deadline and remain active this legislative session, and bills that did not make the deadline to complete the legislative process in this year. There are a number of House bills related to agriculture that were introduced late this session that could move next year. Because of the two year legislative biennium, bills that didn’t move this year still have a chance to pass in the 2026 session. Have questions, concerns, or want to raise your voice about particular legislation? Contact caroline@ruralvermont.org.

Table of Contents

Bills that did not make the 2025 Crossover Deadline (these bills are not “dead,” but will not be able to complete the legislative process this year)

Water Quality Oversight Bills

  1. S.100 - An act relating to the administration of the concentrated animal feeding operation water quality permit

  2. H.146 - An act relating to the administration and enforcement of agricultural water quality requirements in the State

Current Use Bills

  1. H.134 - An act relating to calculating land use change tax and creating new land use change tax exemption for developing affordable housing

  2. H.273 - An act relating to the Use Value Appraisal Program

  3. H.291 - An act relating to enrollment of posted land in the Use Value Appraisal Program

  4. H.70 - An act relating to the inclusion of use value appraisal land in the conserved land inventory

Conservation Bills

  1. H.343 - An act relating to making State lands available for farming by citizens of State-recognized Native American Indian tribes

  2. H.276 - An act relating to the designation of State wildlands

Misc Bills

H.229- An act relating to establishing the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund to provide grants for losses to farms and forestry operations due to weather conditions

H.94 - An act relating to events at accessory on-farm businesses

H.4 - An act relating to standards for the care of egg-laying hens

H.371- An act relating to the use of dynamic pricing by retail establishments

H.408 - An act relating to State purchasing of local food

H.372- ACTION ALERT! An act relating to application of neonicotinoid pesticides to nursery starts and herbaceous plants

H.326 - ACTION ALERT! An act relating to the regulation of the use of rodenticides

H.62 - An act to repealing the Global Warming Solutions Act

H.161 - ACTION ALERT! An act relating to the Vermont Fair Repair Act

Bills relevant to Farmworkers

  1. H.169 - An act relating to amending the prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations and housing

  2. H.333 - An act relating to collective bargaining for agricultural workers

PFAS Bills

  1. H.303 - An act relating to the use of septage, sludge, and biosolids

  2. H.292 - An act relating to the land application and sale of biosolids containing PFAS

  3. H.286 - An act relating to drinking water standards for perfluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl substances

H.328 - An act relating to compliance with the environmental justice State policy
H.67 - An act relating to legislative operations and government accountability

Bills that Continue to Move Through the Legislative Process

 

H.401- An act relating to exemptions for food manufacturing establishments

Description: This bill proposes to exempt food manufacturing businesses and those who produce baked goods in their home kitchens (cottage foods) with gross annual receipts of less than $30,000 from licensing with the Department of Health. Rural Vermont endorsed this bill in testimony and Rural Vermont member, The Baker Beth, provided testimony in favor of the bill during Small Farm Action Day on March 26. 
Status: H.401 passed the House on 3/20/25.

S.60- An act relating to establishing the Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions

Description: This bill seeks to establish an emergency fund for farmers who have experienced losses due to extreme weather events. The grants awarded would reimburse a farm for up to 50% of uninsured or uncovered losses due to eligible weather conditions, which would be capped at $150,000 total per year per qualified applicant farm. Applications would be reviewed by a Review Board established for this program, and the Board would have 10 days after receiving the application to vote and make a recommendation to the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets on whether the grant should be awarded. If recommended, the Secretary would then have to issue the award within 2 weeks of the Board’s recommendation.

Status: S.60 passed the Senate on 3/20/25. Before passing the Senate, some changes were made to the bill: extending the timeframe from 10 days to 15 for the Board to review an application, and for the appropriation for the program, which started as a request of $20 million, reduced to $7.5 million.  Rural Vermont provided testimony in support of S.60 to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry on 4/1/2025 (watch the recording here).

H. 493 - Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Budget: An act relating to making appropriations for the support of the government

Description: The State FY26 Budget includes many things; including a $300,000 appropriation from the General Fund to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets which will be granted to NOFA-VT for the Crop Cash program (page 102). This program matches SNAP/3SquaresVT funds, providing the participant with extra money to purchase fruit, vegetables, herbs, seeds and plant starts at farmers markets. Crop Cash supports both participants and farmers, enhancing food access and farm viability within the state.

The Governor’s proposed FY26 Budget included language to repeal the Universal School Meals law (starting on page 39 here), which passed as Act 64 (2023) without the Governor's signature. However, advocates received strong support from the legislature in keeping the Universal School Meals Program, and the Governor’s suggested repeal language did not pass the House. 

You can find the budget of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets starting on page 35, including their administrative, food safety inspection and agricultural development budget, and more. Here’s a summary of grant funds appropriated to VAAFM for FY2026:

  • $2,810,000 Food Safety and Consumer Protection Grants

  • $15,633,200 Agricultural Development Grants

  • $359,000 Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship Grants

  • $11,375,000 Clean Water Grants

Status Update: The FY26 Budget, or H.493 passed the House on 3/25/2025. The passage of the budget determines the variable length of the legislative session in Vermont. 

H.321- An act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments

Description:  To paraphrase a recent conversation with a member of the Cannabis Control Board (CCB), H.321, “has nothing terribly important to the industry in it”.  It contains a series of largely technical updates to the law, such as updates to background check policy, changing the definition of “hemp”, addressing a receivership policy for cannabis establishments and establishment holders, labeling requirements, and a trim and harvest license.  

It’s important to note what H.321 does NOT contain. This bill evidences ambivalence and disregard towards the Cannabis Equity Coalition’s recommendations and testimony, the recommendations of the CCB in recent legislatively mandated reports, the recommendations of the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the community of people affected by these laws based on the testimony they have provided this session and over time, and it defunds the Cannabis Business Development Fund at a time when the CCB and nearly all other advocates are calling for it to be expanded and base funded.  All of this as small farms and businesses in this sector struggle, some deciding to close, and the communities disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis are put under further duress by actions of the federal administration. 

Status: This bill passed the House on March 25, 2025.  After our last update, the bill was voted out of the House Committee on Government Operations. Our coalition asked and was denied the opportunity to testify in both House Ways and Means and House Appropriations prior to passage onto the House Floor, and the bill eventually moved to the Senate.  

Outlook: Despite the actions and limitations of the House, we are hopeful moving into the Senate as the Senate Committee on Economic Development is more willing to hear the concerns of the stakeholders affected, and it is willing to delegate subjects based on Committee expertise (for example, the Senate Committee on Agriculture will most likely deal with land use, outdoor siting, ag status, etc.).  At Rural Vermont’s March 26th Small Farm Action Day, Ethan Kramer of Tilia Hills and Chris Lillie from Green Mountain Sativa (two licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators) testified in both the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture - speaking in particular to the need for direct sales for small cultivators.  We are currently working with members of the House and Senate to advance direct sales language into H.321,  which was developed by a stakeholder working group.  The direct sales proposal contains two options, both of which we’d like to see become law: 1) A Supplemental Direct Retail Sales License, and 2) A Limited Direct Sales Temporary Event Permit (Farmers’ Market).  

H.167- An act relating to establishing the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters Grant at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets

Description: This bill would allocate an annual $2 million appropriation to the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets to administer the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters Grant Program. This program would provide grants to the Vermont Foodbank to purchase local food directly from farms to distribute through their distribution channels. It would also allow the Vermont Foodbank to offer subgrants to their community partners such as food shelves and food pantries to directly purchase food from local farms. 

Status: H. 167 passed the House on 3/27/25. Before passing, the House Committee on Appropriations stripped the $2 million appropriation from the bill and reworded it so that the implementation of the program is contingent on an appropriation in FY26 budget. This is a usual process, but the appropriation added to the FY26 budget was reduced to $500,000.

H.484 - An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

Description: This bill would amend the existing statute in 6 V.S.A. chapter 28 regarding Fertilizer, Lime, Plant Amendments, Plant Biostimulants, and Soil Amendments. It seeks to integrate the term“beneficial substances” in its title and provisions in place of the terms plant amendments, plant biostimulants, and soil amendments in order to align with national efforts to create consistency for the labeling and regulation of these substances. In addition to refining the terminology, this bill would adjust labeling requirements to include an expiration date for microorganisms within products as well as directions for use. It would also replace guaranteed analysis with a statement of composition. 

Status: H.484 passed the House on 3/25/25.

S.45 - An act relating to protection from nuisance suits for agricultural activities

Description:  The bill proposes to amend the protection of farms against nuisance lawsuits related to agricultural activities under the Vermont “right-to-farm” law by providing that an agricultural activity shall not be a nuisance or trespass when the activity complies with the required agricultural practices rule.  This protection would not apply when a nuisance or trespass violation results from negligent operation of an agricultural activity or from violation of water quality requirements.  An agricultural activity would not lose this protection due to change of ownership or cessation of operation of not more than 5 years; a change of crops produced; or change of farming method or conversion to another agricultural activity on a farm.  The bill also provides that no court action shall be brought forward unless the parties attempt to resolve the nuisance or trespass issue through mediation at least once. In contrast to the current right-to-farm law, this bill would shift the burden of proof from farmers to those who bring a nuisance or trespass claim. 

Rural Vermont has expressed concerns about expanding these laws in the past, and we are in the process of hearing from members about this bill.  We have not taken a position on it yet. Please reach out to caroline@ruralvermont.org if you have thoughts to share.


Status: This bill passed the Senate on 3/19/25.  It was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on Judiciary in the House on 3/21/25.

H.238- An act relating to the phaseout of consumer products containing added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Description: H.238 refines Act 131 (2024) with a goal to phase out a series of consumer products containing PFAS. In contrast to Act 131, H. 238 excludes pesticides that contain PFAS from its purview, effectively removing the mandate to phase out PFAS from pesticides. Advocates from the Vermont Pesticides and Poisons Action Network and from the VT PFAS/ Military Poisons Coalition have flagged this shortfall with a goal to keep pesticides included in the objective.

Status: H. 238 passed through the House on 3/14/25. It was read on the Senate floor on 3/19/25 and referred to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare. The version that passed the House did not include a phase out from PFAS in pesticides; advocates will focus on the Senate to get pesticides back into the bill. 

S.44 - An act relating to authorization to enter into certain immigration agreements

Description: S. 44 as introduced was identical to its companion bill, H. 81, which didn’t make the crossover deadline. It would require the Governor to have the approval of the General Assembly before entering into certain immigration agreements. S.44 as passed by the Senate, now proposes to amend 20 V.S.A. § 4652 to provide that the Governor, instead of the General Assembly, would enter certain immigration agreements arising out of a State or national emergency with the U.S. Attorney General. These agreements would govern the performance of immigration officer functions or State officers for purposes related to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of non-citizens.  

It seems relevant to compare S.44 to Act 5 of 2017 which finds that Vermont residents have a reasonable expectation that their government will not create a registry based on personal characteristics, including immigration status.  However, Act 5 of 2017 also enables the Governor, in consultation with the Vermont Attorney General, to enter or modify agreements to assist federal authorities in carrying out certain immigration functions. Insofar, S.44 is a clarification to Act 5 (2017).

Status: S. 44 passed the Senate on 3/14/2025. It was read on the House floor on 3/19/25 and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary where the bill was introduced the following day.

H.106 - An act relating to selling real property within a FEMA mapped flood hazard area

Description: This bill proposes to repeal the requirement that a seller of property needs to notify the purchaser whether the property is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency mapped flood hazard area.  This required disclosure is current law under 27 V.S.A. § 380(a)(1) and (2).  (1) applies to mapped special flood hazard areas, and (2) applies to mapped moderate flood hazard areas.

Proponents of this bill, like the Vermont Association of Realtors, testified that the current flood hazard maps are old (sometimes photographic) and that it would be difficult to determine where properties lie exactly and that it's hard to see if a parcel is in the mapped areas or not.  The challenging compliance would complicate effective buyer protection.

The bill proposes to keep the requirement under 27 V.S.A. §380 for sellers to disclose whether the property was subject to flooding or flood damage during the seller's possession, and whether the seller used flood insurance.  

Status: H. 106 passed the House on 3/28/25. 

H.319- An act relating to miscellaneous environmental subjects

Description: This bill proposes to amend multiple environmental subjects.

ACTION ALERT! Rural Vermont has been advocating with support from the Land Access and Opportunity Board for the Vermont General Assembly to mandate Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) to issue Future Agricultural Land Use maps. RPCs are revising the Land Use sections of their Regional Plans in 2025 to implement the Act 250 reform law Act 181 (2024). Unfortunately, those maps do not include agricultural land on their Future Land Use maps nor does Act 181 (2024) include a mandate to show where agricultural land is at risk for conversion or available for future agricultural use. H. 319 may be a vehicle to include an ask for Future Agricultural Land Use Maps in the Senate.

Now is the time to get in touch with your legislators and your Regional Planning Commission and request they recommend the protection of farmland when they rewrite regional “Future Land Use Maps” which currently don’t consistently delineate where food can be produced in the long-term vision of future land use.

Here's the links to testimonials submitted regarding the need for Future Agricultural Land Use Maps to both agriculture committees by the LAOB on March 26, 2025 (here the recording SAG; HAG) and by Rural Vermont to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry on March 12, 2025.

Status: H. 319 passed the House on 3/25/25 and is now in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy. 

H.481- An act relating to stormwater management

Description: This bill seeks to adjust requirements regarding the permitting of stormwater systems. It would extend the permitting deadline for landowners that are subject to the 3 Acre Rule, which requires landowners with property that contains 3 or more acres of impervious surface to obtain a permit and implement stormwater management techniques. Secondly, it would allow municipalities to assume full legal responsibility for a stormwater system to assess municipal impact fees on users of the stormwater system. The bill would also repeal the sunset of the clean water surcharge on the property transfer tax. Lastly, it would create the Study Committee on the Creation of Regional Stormwater Utility Districts. This committee would investigate the feasibility and benefits of creating regional stormwater utility districts to provide assistance and ensure compliance with the State’s water quality laws. 

To date, it does not seem that this bill includes specific implications for farms in Vermont, but please reach out to caroline@ruralvermont.org if you think otherwise. 

Status: H.481 passed the House on 3/26/25.

 

Bills That Did Not Make the 2025 Crossover Deadline

Water Quality Oversight Bills

S.100 - An act relating to administration of the concentrated animal feeding operation water quality permit

Description: This bill is the counter proposal to H.146 to address the lack of water quality oversight and permitting of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR). This bill was supported by ANR as well as the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and also received support from the Senate Committee on Agriculture, which adopted much of the bill in their miscellaneous agricultural bill (S.124), which they voted on in favor. The bill seeks to achieve clarity as directed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency where ANR has jurisdiction to oversee discharges into waters of the state from farms. 

We recommend farmers review the side-by-side of S.100 and H.146 (recording of walk through here).


For Rural Vermont and advocates from the Farm Bureau and the Vermont Dairy Producers alliance, S.100 is more favorable than H.146 because it doesn’t change the jurisdiction of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) to define and regulate farming with the Required Agricultural Practices Rule.

Status: Last meeting on 3/27/25. This bill did not make the crossover deadline but could be incorporated into the miscellaneous environmental subjects bill, H.319.

H.146 - An act relating to THE administration and enforcement of agricultural water quality requirements in the State

Description: This bill is being proposed by lawyers from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resources Council suggesting to move VAAFM jurisdiction on water quality oversight, rules and programming to ANR. This bill goes beyond what both agencies propose in their Corrective Action Plan and also exceeds what EPA requests of Vermont to address ANRs current lack of issuing CAFO permits.

Rural Vermont reported on and opposed this bill in our previous Legislative Update and via Action Alert earlier this session.

Status: This bill did not pass the House in time to make the crossover deadline.

 

Current Use Bills

H.134 - An act relating to calculating land use change tax and creating new land use change tax exemption for developing affordable housing

Description: This bill proposes to create a new land use change tax (LUCT) exemption for land withdrawn from use value appraisal (UVA or Current Use) to develop affordable housing. It also proposes a new LUCT calculation used when a portion of a parcel is removed from Current Use so that the calculation uses proration based on acreage instead of valuing the removed portion as a separate parcel. 

UVA is a well established program that aims to make farmland more affordable to farmers and to preserve an unfragmented, working landscape. Rural Vermont questioned H.134 in testimony on March 12, underscoring that the bill would lead to the development of farmland in absence of any legislative proposals that would better protect farmland from development or that would make farmland more affordable to farmers. The Department of Forest, Parks, and Recreation (FPR) testimony on the core purposes of the program urged thoughtful consideration of scenarios and impacts. On 3/13/25, the Tax Department testified echoing the FPR concerns around transparency, predictability, and implementation, questioning whether changing the LUCT actually incentivizes affordable housing. 

Status: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry reached a consensus not to vote on the bill this year on 3/14/25.  

H.273 - An act relating to the Use Value Appraisal Program

Description: This bill would make three distinct changes to the Current Use program. Firstly, it would change the land use change tax from 10% to 6% of the full fair market value of the changed land, making it easier to remove land from the program for development. The second change would expand the definition of farmer from someone who makes half of their income farming, to 25% of their income farming. The third change would expand the definition of farmer further to include people who manage equines.

Status: Similar to the other Current Use bills in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry, this bill has received attention but little movement this session. The committee has heard testimony regarding H.273, but did not vote on this bill to meet the crossover deadline. 

H.291 - An act relating to enrollment of posted land in the Use Value Appraisal Program

Description: This bill aims to raise the tax rate for posted lands that are enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal Program so that it is higher than the rate for enrolled agricultural and managed forest land. The bill directs the Current Use Advisory Board to recommend the rate for posted land be equal to 25% of the difference between a parcel’s use value and the grand list value.

Status: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry have met a handful of times and received testimony on this bill. The committee has not voted on this bill to meet the crossover deadline. 

H.70 - An act relating to the inclusion of use value appraisal land in the conserved land inventory

Description: This bill suggested to “count” land enrolled in the Current Use program towards the goals of Act 59 of 2023 (the law that enacted Vermont’s Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative, or 30x30 and 50x50 initiatives). Currently, land enrolled in the Use Value Appraisal Program is not in the purview of Vermont’s conservation inventory because legally, the Current Use program is not “C” conservation (read more about what “C” Conservation means here). Based on specific eligibility criteria, farm or forestland can be enrolled in UVA and also withdrawn from the program against a penalty. Even though that penalty accounts for a significant chunk of the fair market value, the fact that land may be disenrolled means it is likely not permanently conserved.

Rural Vermont had testified to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry that “counting” land alone doesn’t have any substantial meaning to the efficacy of protecting farmland to development or the affordability of farmland for farmers and that we need more policy discourses and ideas for how to change this trajectory.

Status: There was no movement on this bill.

Even though these bills may not be active again until 2026, Rural Vermont wants to hear from you about how changes in land use regulation would affect your farm and family. Please be in touch with caroline@ruralvermont.org to ensure any future changes to Current Use and other land use policies are in line with the needs of the wide diversity of agrarians who depend on this program.

 

Conservation Bills

H.343 - An act relating to making State lands available for farming by citizens of State-recognized Native American Indian tribes

Description: This bill would allow State lands that are owned or controlled by the Agency of Natural Resources to be leased for farming to citizens of State-recognized Native American Indian tribes. The bill outlines a framework for identifying suitable lands, and the application and leasing process. 

Status: No movement since introduction.

H.276 - An act relating to the designation of State wildlands

Description: This bill has been proposed by Standing Trees and would allow for ~nine percent of Vermont’s forest to become old growth forests through a newly created designation of “State wildlands” on State lands. These areas would be permanently protected from conversion per statute and allow only for minimal human interference. The bill does not allow for timber harvesting, pruning, cutting, herbicide application, the removal of diseased or infected trees, or the alteration of surface or groundwater on State wildlands. It would also by default include any future acquisitions of State lands as wildlands unless the Agency of Natural Resources justifies another determination. 

It is not clear to us at this time if and how H. 276 and H. 343 would intersect.

Status: There has not been any movement on this bill to date.

 

H.229 - An act relating to establishing the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund to provide grants for losses to farms and forestry operations due to weather conditions

Description: This bill is almost identical to S.60, as it also seeks to create an emergency relief fund for extreme weather related losses. Yet instead of the fund being just for farmers, this fund is designed for both farms and forestry operations. This is the most distinctive difference between the two bills, and the structure and administration of the fund would be very similar.

Status: There have been no hearings on H.229 since it was introduced in the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Resiliency on February 19th, 2025. 

H.94 - An act relating to events at accessory on-farm businesses

Description: This bill would determine that farms that pursue improvements for  their accessory on-farm business related to farm events or farm stays would not have to go through Act 250 permitting “if the farm is located in a municipality that has adopted performance standards and site plan review.”

Rural Vermont held two stakeholder group meetings on this issue and members determined that H.94 would not solve the Act 250 issues for farm events and farm stays raised by Act 181 (2024). We continue working with impacted farmers to develop a more comprehensive revisal of the AOFC statute over the summer. Contact caroline@ruralvermont.org to get involved in this work. 

In the meantime, we support Fable Farm and the Feast and Field Farmer Collaborative in their efforts to clarify in statute that multi use farm structures are exempt from Act 250 permitting - as they are from local zoning. Christopher Piana from Fable Farm provided compelling testimony during our March 26 Small Farm Action Day, inspiring a number of supporters to demand inclusion of the relevant language into a bill that will move this session. Watch Christopher testify to HAG here and to SAG here.

Status: No movement.

H.4 - An act relating to standards for the care of egg-laying hens

Description: H. 4 would prohibit a person from confining an egg-laying hen in a space that prevents the hen from fully spreading both wings without touching a wall or another bird. It would also define how much floor space laying hens should have access to, as indicated in the Guidelines for Cage-Free Egg Production.

Status: No movement since introduction.

H.371 - An act relating to the use of dynamic pricing by retail establishments

Description: This bill proposes to establish a moratorium on the use of electronic shelf labels or dynamic pricing by retailers selling consumer commodities in the State.  “Dynamic pricing” is defined as the use of artificial intelligence to adjust the prices of the electronic shelf labels of consumer commodities at any given moment.

Status: There have not been any hearings on this bill since its committee introduction and walk-through on 3/21/25.

H.408 - An act relating to State purchasing of local food

Description: This bill would create a state policy regarding institutional purchasing and local procurement to encourage local food purchasing by all state institutions, including universities and colleges, to increase the viability of Vermont farm and food businesses. The policy would mandate that institutions give preference to buy local when costs are comparable to foods not grown or produced in the state. More specifically, a price would be not comparable if local food would be more than 10% more expensive than out of state foods.  


Previously passed legislation (Act 67 of 2022) states a goal of 20% local food procurement in schools by 2023. Recently, the federal government canceled the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program that included $1,222,076 in LFSCC funding for Vermont schools (learn more about this here).

The policy proposed in H.408 would go further than Act 67 (2022) but does not include a needed appropriation to fill the void of the LFSCC.

Status: Introduction and walk-through on 3/18/25. This bill could gain more traction in the 2026 session.

H.372 - ACTION ALERT! An act relating to application of neonicotinoid pesticides to nursery starts and herbaceous plants

Description: This bill proposes to prohibit the application of neonicotinoid pesticides to nursery starts and herbaceous plants.  

Surrounding states, provinces and even some superstores are phasing out neonics because they are water soluble and attack the nervous system of many non-target insects.  This bill is modest in scope by addressing only the application of neonics to nursery starts and potted plants within the State. 

ACTION ALERT! An opportunity to reach out to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry to strengthen this bill.  Legislative counsel shared that a sales prohibition (of plants that had neonics applied to them outside of the state) could be added without violating the Constitution’s commerce clause.  The Legislative Council stated that a sales prohibition would be easy to do, but it’s not in the bill as currently written. 

Status: There have not been any hearings on this bill since its committee introduction and walk-through on 3/18/25.  This bill could gain more traction in 2026.

H.326 - ACTION ALERT! An act relating to the regulation of the use of rodenticides

Description: This bill proposes to prohibit the use by any person of both first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the State, including use by commercial applicators. The bill also would ban the sale, including internet sales, of anticoagulants in the State.  The bill provides an exemption when needed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to control pests or when no other pest control method would be effective.  The bill would also restrict the use of any other legal rodenticides near wildlife refuges, State parks, wildlife management areas, or other ecologically sensitive areas.

Background for this bill includes the recognized effects on non-target animals, such as pets and children.  During the bills committee introduction the committee further acknowledged concerns of bio-accumulation up the food chain. The EPA seeks removal of rodenticides from consumer products.  Related products are no longer available in stores.  

ACTION ALERT! An opportunity to provide testimony,  reach out to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry. The committee expressed interest in hearing from orchard growers who may or may not use such products.

Status: There have not been any hearings on this bill since its committee  introduction and walk-through on 3/19/25.  This bill could gain more traction in 2026. 

H.62 - An act to repealing the Global Warming Solutions Act

Description: This bill proposes to change the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction requirements to goals, and repeal the Vermont Climate Council.  It would do so by adding “whenever practicable” language to the 10 V.S.A. § 578 requirement. In consequence, all State agencies would only consider any increase or decrease in GHG emissions in their decision-making procedures “whenever practicable” with respect to purchases, construction, maintenance, and personnel assignment; and the planning, design, and operation of programs, services, and infrastructure. 

The bill would also repeal CVR 12-30-40 Vermont Low Emission and Zero Emission Vehicle Rules, effective August 29, 2024. 

Status: H.62 received no consideration since its introduction on 1/23/25.

H.161 - ACTION ALERT! An act relating to the Vermont Fair Repair Act

Description: This bill proposes to require original equipment manufacturers of certain agricultural, electronic, and forestry equipment to make available the parts, tools, and documentation necessary to repair such equipment to independent repair providers and owners of the equipment. Learn more about this bill in our Legislative Update from February 20, 2025 here.

Status: This bill has not received a single hearing since its introduction and remains in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development.

Action alert - if this bill matters to you, reach out to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry with the request to make a motion to take possession of the bill and to work on it in 2026. 

 

Bills Relevant to Farmworkers 

H.169 - An act relating to amending the prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations and housing

Description: This bill is a priority of farmworker advocacy champions Migrant Justice and was mentioned in testimony by the Land Access and Opportunity Board during Rural Vermont’s Small Farm Action Day (SFAD ) in March.  Similarly, Rural Vermont farmworker member Earnest “Buster” Caswell provided compelling testimony for the need of farmworker housing to both agricultural committees during SFAD (watch the recording here). This bill would be significant for supporting needed housing for migrant farmworkers. 


It proposes to prohibit a landlord from requesting a Social Security number (SSN) on a residential rental application and to accept all forms of government issued identification. It also proposes to prohibit charging a fee to apply for rental housing  (by amendment to 9 V.S.A § 4456a). Furthermore, it proposes to add citizenship and immigration status to existing discrimination prohibitions in public accommodations and unfair housing practices (by amendment to 9 V.S.A. § 4501). 

The Chair of the House Committee on General and Housing suggested that the bill draft may be amended to pivot from a ban on the use of applicant SSNs to an exception to landlords requiring an SSN.

Status: H.169 was read for the first time and referred to the House Committee on General and Housing 2/7/2025.  There was testimony and committee discussion on 3/28/25:  Chris Donnelly, Champlain Housing Trust said the bill commits the state to more inclusivity and  asserted that landlords can get the credit information they need without a SSN. The Vermont Landlord Association did not support prohibiting use of applicant SSNs for purposes of running a credit check and a criminal background check.  Further testimony is scheduled for this week. Want to get involved and take action on this important issue? Contact Migrant Justice.

H.333 - An act relating to collective bargaining for agricultural workers

Description: This bill proposes to provide collective bargaining rights to agricultural workers. Last year, The Vermont Pro Act was passed as Act 177 which made it easier for many employees to organize labor unions, but lawmakers scrapped farmworkers last minute from the bill.

H. 333  seeks to remedy this void by amending 21 V.S.A. § 1502 to repeal the inclusion of individuals employed as agricultural laborers from a list of other employment categories explicitly excluded from the relevant statutory definition of “employee.”

Status: There was no movement on H.333. It was read for the first time and referred to the Committee on General and Housing on 2/25/25.

 

PFAS Bills

H.303 - An act relating to the use of septage, sludge, and biosolids

Description: The bill proposes to ban the land application of biosolids on farmland and would also prohibit the sale of compost or other agricultural products that include the use of septage, sludge, or biosolids in their production, for example, fertilizer.


Like H.292, this bill doesn’t learn from similar legislation passed in Maine, which also includes a protection of farmers affected by the land application of sewage sludge and PFAS contamination, through the creation of a fund to compensate farms affected by providing financial resources for mitigation strategies, technical assistance, and ultimately, a comprehensive response that may include relocation (see the Maine law here). Massachusetts is currently considering legislation that would follow suit and proposes such liability protection for farmers (HD.3814). The Senate version of the farm bill, which is still in the making, included a Section 12514 on PFAS relief modeled after the Maine template as well (starting on page 1352-1362 here).

Status: No movement.

H.292 - An act relating to the land application and sale of biosolids containing PFAS

Description: The bill proposes to ban the land application of biosolids on farmland.


Rural Vermont previously reported that this bill falls short of comparable legislation because it doesn’t include any provisions that would help support farms affected by PFAS contamination (read more on our blog post here).

Status: No movement.

H.286 - An act relating to drinking water standards for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances

Description: This bill proposes to require the Agency of Natural Resources to amend their Water Supply Rule to establish a maximum contaminant level of “zero parts per trillion” for PFAS in the water supply.

Status: No movement.

H.328 - An act relating to compliance with the environmental justice State policy

Description: This bill proposes to add regional planning commissions to the entities required to comply with the environmental justice policy of the State. Regional Planning Commissions (RPCs) already comply with Vermont’s Open Meeting Laws. 

Read more about Rural Vermont’s recommendation to mandate RPCs to issue Future Agricultural Land Use Maps here and become active in reaching out to your RPC with this request. 

Status: No movement

H.67 - An act relating to legislative operations and government accountability

Description: This bill proposes to create the Joint Government Oversight and Accountability Committee (JGOAC). This bill strives to increase government accountability by focusing on how evidence is used to inform policy, how State laws are carried out, and how legislation can best achieve legislative intent through a new independent, objective, and fact-based process. 

Rural Vermont is interested in this legislation because our members affected legislation in the past that mandated Government action, like rule making processes, which were not carried out. Act 41 of 2021, for example, mandated the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to issue a rulemaking process for the composting of food residuals on farms, but no rulemaking process was launched to date despite multiple iterations of advocates submitting proposed rules. The lack of these rules delays the diversification of the markets of food residuals management and the ability of farms to invest in this practice. Likewise, the Agency of Natural Resources is subject to a moratorium for the issuance of new Solid Waste Facility Certification for food depackaging facilities by Act 170 of 2022 until rules that govern them have been issued. In contrast to this moratorium, Casella Waste Systems has received a renewal of their permit without the issue of rules that would govern their facility. Act 170 of 2022 and Act 41 of 2021 go hand in hand and these rules are essential to enforce source separation of food scraps from contaminants and to define markets for composting.   

Status: This bill did not make the crossover deadline. It was voted on by the  House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs on 3/11/25 as Favorable with Amendment, 10-0-1. The bill was then referred to the House Committee on Appropriations, which met for a walk-through of the bill on 3/18/25. It was recommitted to the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs on 4/1/25.

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 3.14.25

Many Ag Policy Issues Emerging in VT; Federal Resources and Concerns

Friday, March 14, 2025, marks the "crossover deadline" - the date by which bills with money attached need to be voted out of committee to have a chance to pass over to the other chamber in time and to pass into law this year. Bills without budget implications have another week, until March 21. 

The newly composed House and Senate Committees on Agriculture have spent a significant amount of time this year getting acquainted with the food systems landscape, and less time working directly on legislation. There remains a broad array of complex agricultural legislation that has been introduced, including bills related to Clean Water Oversight, Farm Security Fund, Right to Farm, Right to Repair, Rights of Farmworkers, Accessory On-Farm Businesses, Current Use Reform, Cottage Food Laws, PFAS in Sewage Sludge, Cannabis, the Miscellaneous Agriculture Bill, and more. Many bills were introduced only recently and a number of relevant bills are currently in other committees - so there is a bit of a scramble to get in testimony and encourage movement of legislation.  You’ll find information about these bills and conversations in our Legislative Update below. Contacting committee members and your representatives and asking them to address or take up specific legislation can be very effective; and we’ve included in many issues in the Update links to relevant committee pages where legislators’ contact information can be found .   

At the national level, we continue our work on On-Farm Slaughter with the National Family Farm Coalition, including a fly-in to Washington DC in February to meet with congressional offices with farmers from around the country.  On a more concerning note, the relentless attempts from the new federal administration to reduce the public sector's capacity to support our communities continues.  As a reminder, here is a page with updates and resources related to the funding freeze and its impacts on farmers and the food system - and we particularly recommend Dania Davy’s Land and Liberation site as well for staying up to date.  The ongoing attacks on “DEI”, the LGBTQIA community, immigrants, and the recent arrest, detention, and threat of deportation of Columbia University graduate student and legal resident Mahmoud Khalil, with no charges, based on his constitutionally protected rights to free speech and organizing - in this case in solidarity with the Palestinian people - are frightening actions which compel us to continue to raise our voices in support of all of our community members locally and globally, human rights, and our legal rights to free speech in the United States under the Constitution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. 60 & H.229 - Farm Security Special Fund

Rural Vermont and other agricultural stakeholders provided testimony in support of S.60, the Farm Security Special Fund, in the Senate Committee on Agriculture on February 27th.  Later that week it was voted out of the committee, and now it is on to the Senate Committee on Appropriations which will begin to hear testimony on the bill on Friday, March 14th. The most substantial change in the bill, and one which was discussed in committee, is shifting the initial recommended appropriation from $20 million to $7.5 million.  

We are hopeful that the bill will make it through the Senate before the deadline for “cross-over”, when bills must make their way from the House to the Senate, or vice versa. The deadline for that committee to work on that bill is March 21.

H.229 has not progressed in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry.  At this point, S.60 is the legislative vehicle of choice, which we will be focusing on.  

Action Steps!

There are substantial and justified concerns related to available funding in the legislature - and it’s important that we communicate to our representatives and particular committees the critical need for this investment in the agricultural community’s ability to respond to climate and weather related disasters given the tremendous impacts we have seen, and know we are going to see in the future.  In particular, members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations (find its members and their contact info here) who are now taking testimony on the bill.  If extreme weather events directly impacted you as a farmer or farmworker, if you were indirectly affected as a community member tied to producers, if you are just someone who supports this fund because you understand the vulnerability of farmers to these events in the context of an already very challenging farm economy - legislators need to hear your voice.

S.45 - Right to Farm

The Right to Farm bill S.45 has gained traction in the Senate Judiciary Committee. General Counsel from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, Steve Collier, did a good job in explaining to a committee that’s usually not entrusted with agricultural issues the significance and challenges that the existing law places on farmers (watch the 2-20 recording here), including how the law places the cost and burden of litigation on farmers, and how the law is currently inconsistent with State incentives on farming. For example, Vermont would be both pushing farms to diversify to stay viable, but in order to be protected from nuisance lawsuits farmers would also have to prove that they haven’t significantly changed what they’ve been doing. 

The Legislative Council underscored that the current law is falling short of the protections other states provide to farms - including nuisance protection if they trespass other peoples properties. In contrast to how litigation typically works, where the plaintiff has the burden of proof, the Right to Farm law places that burden on the farms that are subject to lawsuit to defend themselves through a so-called “rebuttable presumption.” 

The Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resources Council testified in opposition to S.45 stating nuisance lawsuits would be rare and not threaten the farming economy. You can watch the testimonials here. 

Outlook: So far there have not been any amendments to the bill as proposed. Questions were raised about the inclusion of trespassing in the nuisance protection as well as the section on mediation and if there’s enough detail to that provision for it not to derail due process of litigation. Legislative counsel shared that some states include trespassing in the protection and that page 7 of the bill would detail that a court action may be brought forward upon showing of a sworn statement demonstrating an attempt to resolve the issue through mediation. S. 45 was listed this week on the agenda with a possible vote so that there’s a likelihood of the Senate Judiciary Committee going to make a decision on whether or not to move S.45 favorably in time. 

H. 94 - Accessory On-Farm Business Law

2024 changes to the Accessory On-Farm Business Law (AOFB - Act 181) disadvantaged farms who facilitate farm stays or who organize farm events by requiring they now go through Act 250 permitting if they build improvements for those venues. H. 94 seeks to address this issue. This bill was referred to the House Committee on Environment, and despite confirmation from the committee that testimony would be taken from farmers affected by the changes, the committee has not yet considered the bill. 

Farmers who participated in recent stakeholder meetings determined that H.94 would not solve the issues raised by Act 181. Rural Vermont had a chance to testify to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry on March 12 to share our position on H.94 (watch testimony here), that the language as introduced is not the scale-appropriate regulation of farm events and farm stays that stakeholders seek, but that there’s an opportunity with the bill to clarify the Act 250 exemption for such AOFBs with multi-use structures. 

Outlook: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry is considering adding language to their miscellaneous agricultural bill that would clarify that multi-use structures are Act 250 exempt. 

Action Steps: Rural Vermont will continue gathering input and organizing around this issue. Please fill out our Accessory On-Farm Business Survey if you are affected by this issue and interested in offering input on future policies to resolve it. 

H. 321 - The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill

Rural Vermont and the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition, as well as the Land Access and Opportunity Board, testified in the Committee on House Government Operations on Wednesday the 26th of February addressing our priorities, proposed statutory language, and questions we had for the Committee - in particular, the ambivalence and disregard this bill evidences towards our recommendations, the recommendations of the CCB in recent legislatively mandated reports, and the community of people affected by these laws based on the testimony they have provided over time.  To paraphrase a recent conversation with a member of the Cannabis Control Board, H.321, “has nothing terribly important to the industry in it”.  A new version of the bill with amendments was introduced on Tuesday, March 11 which does eliminate a regressive moratorium on retail licenses.  

Despite the actions and limitations of the House Committee on Government Operations, we are hopeful moving into the Senate as the Senate Committee on Economic Development is both less biased and more willing to hear the concerns of the stakeholders affected, and it is willing to delegate subjects based on Committee expertise (for example, the Senate Committee on Agriculture will most likely deal with land use, outdoor siting, ag status, etc.). Unfortunately, in response to a request to delegate this bill to different committees in the House, the Committee on Government Operations suggested it would like to maintain full control on the House side, though it supports the delegation in the Senate.  Progress has not yet been made on our priorities thus far in the House, though we do feel that the integrity of our priorities is creating traction over time and continue to be raised through surveys, working group reports, growing coalitions of organizational actors supporting them, and the testimony of the majority of people going before committee.  This makes regressive suggestions made by particular market actors and representatives more clearly evident as lacking widespread support and not being in the interest of the broader community.

As we wait for H.321 to move from the House to the Senate, we continue to have conversations with lawmakers, members of the CCB, members of the cannabis community on the ground and more.  We have a farm based workshop coming up in early April - where we’ll be learning from one another about spring preparation and cultivation considerations and practices, as well as discussing issues people are facing, policy, and growing more support in the statehouse.  We remain focused on developing more detailed draft statutory language supporting direct sales with a cultivator working group.  This essential issue and need is coming more to the fore for lawmakers as it emerges as a pre-eminent need for small cultivators, manufacturers, and propagators and it’s important that we have options to present to lawmakers that we know stakeholders are comfortable with and have had a hand in drafting.

Call to Action!

This is an important time to be in touch with your representatives in the House and Senate (find them here) - in particular members of the Senate Committee on Economic Development, the Senate Committee on Agriculture (as relates to outdoor siting, agricultural status, direct sales, etc.), and the House Committees Government Operations and Agriculture.  Let them know that H.321 includes almost no priorities from the testimony of stakeholders and stakeholder organizations at a time of critical need, including:

  • The recommendations of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition 

  • The recommendations of the Land Access and Opportunity Board (mirroring the recommendations in the CCB report on Social Equity)

  • The recommendations from the legislatively mandated Cannabis Control Board working group reports related to social equity funding, outdoor siting and advertising, and medical

  • The testimony of the majority of people who came before committee speaking to the need to reduce the burdens on market actors, and to implement basic standards of equity for the market including: direct sales for small producers, ag status for outdoor producers, public consumption, tax revenue towards community reinvestment, technical support for small businesses, and medical reforms.

Legislators need to be informed about, and be held accountable to address, the real needs of the people affected by the work they do, and the ideas they have for meeting those needs.  Please support us in helping us to share this information, and supporting lawmakers in being accountable to their constituents and values. 

H. 401 - Cottage Food Law

Vermont was one of the first states to allow cottage food sales, yet according to the Institute for Justice, the state’s current laws rank poorly in comparison to how other states support making food for sale at home:“D+” for Home Bakers, “C” for Home Processors and “B” for Home Caterers. Outdated income limit thresholds are particularly in need of updating. 

H. 401 seeks to amend the current statute for food manufacturers and bakeries in Vermont by raising the outdated income gap thresholds that exempt them from licensing requirements from $10,000 to $30,000. In comparison, according to the Institute for Justice neither Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and New York have an annual sales cap at all. In Wyoming, the annual sales cap is $250K for cottage foods.

Currently, home kitchen food production is regulated by the Vermont Department of Health, which uses a multi-tier licensing system with separate rules for “home bakers,” “home food processors” and “home caterers.” Since August of 2024 there's a new labeling requirement in effect in Vermont, requiring cottage food businesses to update their labels, including the disclaimer "made in a home bakery and not inspected by the Vermont health department." Those affected by the new requirement claim that improvements to cottage food laws are overdue and needed so that producers are not discouraged from increasing the supply of locally produced foods. Rural VT has heard from a number of people affected by these regulations over the years who have supported increasing these annual sales caps among other aspects of Vermont’s “cottage food” laws.

Outlook: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry is taking testimony on H. 401, though there is little time to amend and move the bill. Rural Vermont testified in support of moving H.401 favorably after the committee heard from the Department of Health on Wednesday (watch the recording here).

Action Steps: Contact the assistant of the House Committee on Agriculture and share your thoughts on H.401 or request time to testify.

H. 292 & H. 238 - PFAS

H.292 PFAS in Sludge and Farmland

Introduced on February 20th and referred to the House Committee on Environment, where it has not received any hearings to date. The bill proposes to ban the land application of biosolids on farmland. It falls short of similar legislation passed in Maine that also includes a protection of farmers affected by the land application of sewage sludge and PFAS contamination through the creation of a fund to compensate farms affected by providing significant financial resources for mitigation strategies, technical assistance and ultimately a comprehensive response that may include relocation (see the Maine law here). Massachusetts is currently considering legislation that would follow suit and proposes such liability protection for farmers (HD.3814). The Senate version of the farm bill, which is still in the making, included a Section 12514 on PFAS relief modeled after the Maine template as well (starting on page 1352-1362 here). H.292 falls short by not providing protection or financial assistance for farms who find PFAS contamination. Rural Vermont does not support H.292 due to its lack of support for farms, and have instead lobbied for any legislation that bans land applications of “biosolids” to include a similar protection for farmers, especially given that sludge is still being spread and agencies have the authority to test for PFAS contamination. Learn more here about a Maine farmer who experienced sickness from PFAS and ended up losing their farm as a result of PFAS contamination. Farmers should not be an afterthought in the needed changes on how municipalities treat their land. 

Outlook: H. 292 does not have much of a chance to pass this year because it has not gained any traction so far, though it may still be a relevant subject later this biennium. 

H. 238 PFAS in Consumer Products

H. 238 is a revision of S. 25, which passed into law as Act 131 in 2024, to phase out a series of consumer products containing PFAS. It seeks to include the recommendations of a working group report on how to define PFAS and to further define what products would be included. The definition of PFAS that the House Committee on Environment suggests with H. 238 is a broader definition that would cover more PFAS chemicals. In contrast to Act 131, H. 238 excludes pesticides that contain PFAS from its purview, effectively removing the mandate to phase out PFAS from pesticides. Advocates from the Vermont Pesticides and Poisons Action Network and from the VT PFAS/ Military Poisons Coalition have flagged this shortfall with a goal to keep pesticides included in the objective. 

Outlook: The House Committee on Environment voted in favor of H.238 in time so this will be an important subject to follow in the Senate soon. 

Water Quality Oversight

One of the most important bills in front of the Senate Committee on Agriculture right now is a committee bill regarding water quality oversight among the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR)  (DR 225-0904). It would clarify what a current Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies outlines to satisfy the federal Environmental Protection Agencies mandate to ensure ANR inspects farms and decides whether a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation permit is needed or not. There’s a total of three bills on this issue.Lawyers from the Conservation Law Foundation and the Vermont Natural Resources Council suggest using H.146 to remove VAAFM jurisdiction on water quality oversight, rules and programming (read more in our previous update here). This new committee bill as well as S.100 are more likely to progress as neither of the agencies favor distancing farmers from accessing water quality support from the agency that’s designed to represent them and which they have an active relationship with - the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. S. 100 is currently in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy where it will receive testimony on March 13. Rural Vermont testified to the Senate Committee on Agriculture to share our concerns regarding H.146 that proposed to move the entire Required Agricultural Practices Rule to ANR (watch the testimony here).

Action Steps!

Reach out to the Senate Committee on Agriculture and tell them you want the Required Agricultural Practices Rule to stay with the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. It’s not farmers' fault that ANR didn’t do their job to regulate CAFOs, and that does not justify dismantling the support systems and Agency that farmers need and deserve. Email:

Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair), Essex District -  ringalls@leg.state.vt.us 

Sen. Joe Major (Vice Chair), Windsor District -  major@leg.state.vt.us 

Sen. Brian Collamore, Rutland District - bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us 

Sen. Steven Heffernan, Addison District - sheffernan@leg.state.vt.us 

Sen. Robert Plunkett, Bennington District - rplunkett@leg.state.vt.us

Universal School Meals

Governor Scott has proposed eliminating the Universal School Meals program in VT with the budget proposal, and actors in the agricultural, educational, food security, and other communities have been pushing back. Through coalition and relationship building led by Hunger Free Vermont, Action Circles, NOFA-VT and many more organizations there’s confidence that the strikeout proposal of the Universal Meals program in the Governors’ budget will not succeed so that the existing program and its existing funding can prevail. Rural VT has shared action alerts and information from Hunger Free VT about this topic throughout the session, and we will continue to keep you informed about any legislative updates on this issue.

House Misc Ag Bill

On February 25th, representatives from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM) gave testimony for a recent Miscellaneous Agriculture bill introduced by the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee. This bill seeks to amend existing statute regarding regulation of fertilizer and lime products. The key aspect of this bill is to integrate the term “beneficial substances” to the statute, replacing what is currently listed as plant amendments, plant biostimulants and soil amendments. The bill adjusts labeling requirements, replacing the guaranteed analysis with a statement of composition and a statement of directions for use. It would also include an expiration date for microorganisms within the product. Lastly, this bill includes a change to the definition of plant biostimulant to reflect what was approved by the American Association of Plant Food Officials, an organization that unifies plant food control officials and industry representatives across the United States.   

These changes would unify terminology and labeling standards across states for these substances, following a national effort to do so. There was some concern raised by committee members regarding the term beneficial substances and how that may be misleading to consumers, painting a positive and harmless image for these products. States such as California and Minnesota have already adopted these changes, and if Vermont chooses a different term it would negate the purpose of standardization that underlies this bill. The representatives from VAAFM assure that there are many protections in place to verify the safety of these products and emphasized the importance of consumer education.

Conservation

H. 276 - Old Growth Forests

The bill was referred to the House Committee on the Environment and would allow for about nine percent of Vermont’s forest to become old growth forests through a newly created designation of “State wildlands” on State lands. These areas would be permanently protected from conversion per statute and allow only for minimal human interference. The bill does not allow for timber harvesting, pruning, cutting, herbicide application, the removal of diseased or infected trees, or the alteration of surface or groundwater on State wildlands. It would also by default include any future acquisitions of State lands as wildlands unless the Agency of Natural Resources finds after public engagement that doing so would not be consistent “with the purpose of this chapter.” This could limit the public and the Agency's ability to determine other purposes that are not in the purview of this bill. 

Outlook: This bill has not received any hearings to date. Because it’s being championed by the Chair of the Committee of Jurisdiction (the House Committee on Environment), and because of its alignment with the goals of Act 59 (2023) it’s likely that it’s going to be a priority of that committee the week of March 18. It would have to be voted out of committee by the end of that week to make the crossover deadline. 

H. 343 - Making State Lands available for farming by Native American Indian Tribes

This bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry would allow State lands that are owned or controlled by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to be leased for farming by citizens of State-recognized Native American Indian tribes. Through this bill, the Secretary of Natural Resources would work with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets to pinpoint lands that are suitable for farming which would then be published in an inventory on ANR’s website. Outlined in the bill is a framework for the application and leasing process. It gives the Secretary of Natural Resources the authority to issue the leases, as well as the ability to establish guidelines or criteria for farming the land. As a baseline, farming activities on this land would have to comply with Required Agricultural Practices. 

Outlook: With only one brief meeting to introduce this bill at the end of February, this bill would need to get some significant attention the week of March 18th to move in time for the crossover deadline. 

H. 161 - Right to Repair

The Right to Repair bill, H. 161, had been referred to the House Committee on Commerce on Economic Development on February 7, 2025. The committee did not take any testimony on the bill to date and it’s also not on their agenda for the week. 

Outlook: This bill will not move anywhere this session because it will miss the crossover deadline. This is disappointing for many because the issue received a lot of work and attention during the 2023/2024 biennium when it almost passed into law. Just because this issue is not gaining traction right now does not mean that it won’t be considered later in the biennium. It would be more likely to move if the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry would make a motion to take possession of the bill.  Is this issue important to you? Contact the House Committee on Agriculture and ask them to take up the bill!

Farmland Development - Current Use Bills

The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry has been taking significant testimony on the Current Use Program as they consider three pieces of legislation that would amend the essential program. These three pieces of legislation are discussed below. 

Action Steps

You are always invited to reach out to committee members directly in support- or not - of relevant bills. Contact information for the House Committee on Agriculture below. They appreciate hearing from you! 

The first bill seeks to make it easier for land enrolled in Current Use to be developed if the development is for affordable housing. The second bill has some positive aspects to it that would help aging farmers afford staying on their land, though it would also make it easier for farmland in the Current Use program to be developed. The third bill is not directly related to agriculture, and seeks to increase the tax burden on Current Use enrollees who post their land from hunting, fishing, and trapping.  None of these bills comes from, or arrive at, a holistic and stakeholder driven reform of the current use program.

H.134

H.134 seeks to amend the way the land use change tax is calculated when a parcel is removed from the Current Use program based on acreage rather than valuing the removed portion as a separate parcel. It would also create a new land use change tax exemption when land is withdrawn from the Current Use program for the development of affordable housing; when the parcel withdrawn fronts an existing public road; and when the land withdrawn is within three miles from a downtown village center, planned growth area, or designated neighborhood for development. What’s the positive in this bill for farmers? In absence of any policy incentives that would facilitate farmland succession in a way that benefits farmers who are interested in selling some farmland at market value, this legislation helps those farmers cash out on their assets if they sell their farmland within zones designated for development.

Ryan Patch from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets estimated in a hearing on March 11 that this change would lead to the conversion of approximately 10,000 additional acres of agricultural land, including many prime ag soils (watch the recording here). 

Rural Vermont testified on this bill on March 12 and reiterated the need for policy incentives that make farmland affordable for a new generation of farmers and that protect agricultural land from development. Farming can’t compete with development. Creative legislation would mitigate these public interests, but unchanged, this legislation contributes to the sellout of prime ag land. We proposed to the committee to add a condition to the effective date of the proposed changes to the land use change tax for land enrolled in Current Use under the specific criteria. We recommended that condition to be a mandate to the Regional Planning Commissions to issue Future Agricultural Land Use Maps that would make a projection where agricultural land shall be protected in the future to meet Vermont’s local self-reliance goals and guide further policy considerations on land access policy development (watch the testimony here, read the testimony here). 


Among other things, H.273 would change the land use change tax from 10% to 6% of the full fair market value of the changed land. Upon development of the land, this land use change tax is calculated based on the fair market value of the changed land (without regard to the use value appraisal). This change would also make it more affordable to develop land that’s currently enrolled in Current Use. The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry heard testimony about an issue with the land use change tax that neither H.273 nor H.134 address and that is damaging to both - the farming community and the Current Use program. According to his testimony, if you are selling or dividing by sale properties in Current Use you will incur a substantial tax as the purchaser if you are not a family member and if the parcel is smaller than 25 acres - even if the agricultural status does not change (ie, there is no “change in use” away from agriculture). This was the experience with a subdivided parcel that was purchased and planned to be kept in farming as part of a Vineyard (watch the testimony here or read it here). Reason for the penalty was 32 V.S.A. § 3752 (5)(B), that defines a subdivision as development “regardless of whether a change in use actually occurs, where one or more of the resulting parcels contains less than 25 acres each”.  This aspect of the Current Use law is concerning as it does not reflect the current agricultural economy or needs in VT, and presents tangible inequities for small farmers, and farmers who don’t inherit land from a family member. The Vineyard parcel was 13 acres. The testimony recommended striking 32 V.S.A. § 3752 (5)(B) from the statute.

H.273 aims to change the definition of “farmer” as used in the Use Value Appraisal Program. Farmers who own farmland can currently be enrolled in the Current Use Program if they earn less than 50% from farming if they sell at least $2,000 in agricultural products or manage more than 25 acres, according to the existing eligibility criteria. However, if a landowner seeks to enroll farmland in the Current Use Program through leasing the land, then they need to lease it to a “farmer” and the definition of farmer includes the income threshold that the person needs to make at least 50% of their annual gross income from farming. That income threshold is also relevant when someone who owns farmland wants to enroll their farm buildings in the Current Use program in addition to their land. Many farmers don’t make 50% of their income from farming and still have their land enrolled in the Current Use program. For example - the farmer might make little to no money from farming and their partner makes the majority of the income off farm and taxes are filed jointly.  A farm business can also be the legal entity instead of the individual, so that only the farm makes money from farming, or at least 50% of the income. A person who leases farmland or owns farmland doesn’t need to make 50% of their income from farming as long as they create a business that focuses mostly on farming - and not through on-farm businesses, like weddings or events. Ryan Patch from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets sees value in the proposed change because many aging farmers who can’t hay their own fields anymore but rely on their Current Use enrollment might be able to lease their land to a neighbor who doesn’t farm but who is haying the property. This is one scenario where the change would be meaningful because many people might not be able to remain on their land without being eligible for the Current Use program.

The bill would also broaden the definition of “farmer” to include people who manage equines. 

H. 291

H.291, an act relating to enrollment of posted land in the Use Value Appraisal Program, seeks to raise the tax rate for enrolled lands that are posted against hunting, fishing or trapping so it is higher than that of enrolled agricultural or managed forest land. The rate would be equal to 25% of the difference between a parcel’s use value and the grand list value. This bill directs the Current Use Advisory Board to make the determination of the exact value of the tax when setting values for eligible land for the current tax year.

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 2.20.25

Impending Constitutional Crisis and Navigating the Shock and Awe

The new federal administration is unleashing a shock and awe campaign against the institutions and norms of US government and democracy, and is threatening and actualizing persecution of our neighbors and deep instability for our farms and communities.  Executive Orders and dehumanizing narratives have targeted immigrants, transgender and gender non-conforming people, communities of color, as well as people affected by Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives and programs. The January 20 Executive Order that placed a freeze on spending authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act has been broadly felt through the farming community.  Funding for many NRCS and USDA programs are funded by those laws, and the impacts have been compounded by the monumental overhaul in federal staffing and structure. Subsequent court rulings have stated that the funding freeze cannot continue, though uncertainty remains if court decisions will be followed or enforced. The New York Times reported that over 2,600 programs were temporarily paused. Sen. Welch, speaking at the NOFA VT conference this past weekend said, “I'm often asked if things are as bad as they look. I’m here to tell you they are much, much worse”.   

As we walk into what many are calling an impending “constitutional crisis” we are walking hand in hand with our community - near and far.  As steps are taken to overwhelm the checks and balances - we are here together to hold the breaches, to hold each other.  Given the fear and sense of overwhelmedness right now, we are being very careful to vet the information we are passing along to ensure we are spreading accurate and actionable information, and to support strategic response.  We are in communication with our friends and allies nationally at the National Family Farm Coalition and beyond, and locally with organizations like NOFA VT, Migrant Justice, and more.  We are in touch with NRCS officials and Conservation Districts - and encourage you to do the same to stay updated on how funding and programs are being affected.  We are also collecting stories of how this executive order affects the experiences, plans and contracts of Vermont farmers and community members.  It is important to document as best we can how existing USDA contracts are being impacted by new rulings - please be in touch with us and share your experiences.  

We have assembled current updates and potential action steps on our website here, and attorney Dañia Davy, keynote speaker at the NOFA-VT Winter Conference, has put together a toolkit to help navigate this moment.

You can access the resource here: https://landandliberation.my.canva.site/wtfederalfunding. 

Read about some local impacts in this VT Digger story, which features local grazier and farmer Jennifer Colby’s experience with USDA payments.   

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Water Quality Oversight Bill

Action Alert! New Bill, H. 146 - suggests moving the Required Agricultural Practices Rule to the Agency of Natural Resources. Please fill out our survey here if you are affected or would like to offer comment.

This bill has been proposed by the Chair of the House Committee on Environment, Representative Amy Sheldon from Addison County,  after hearing testimony from the Conservation Law Foundation on issues regarding clean water oversight on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This bill suggests moving administration and enforcement of the Required Agricultural Practices (RAP) rule from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets to the Agency of Natural Resources. It outlines over multiple pages what the new RAP rule shall include. It would repeal much of the current water quality program at VAAFM as outlined in 6 V.S.A. chapter 215. ANR would set new best management practices to prevent waste from entering the groundwater or waters of the State (p. 21) and would only need to “consult,” not consent, with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets. The bill also includes a popular action in Section 1367 where it gives any person the right to appeal to the Environmental Division for rule compliance - without being affected as a neighbor or likewise.

The bill does not just affect Medium and Large Farm Operations but also defines the term small CAFO (p. 7), which means the farm was designated as such by the agency after inspection due to its “significant contribution of pollutants to the waters of the state.” The bill would allow the Agency of Natural Resources to conduct on-site inspections and verify if there’s a man-made ditch or drainage system, or another way for pollutants to directly discharge into waters of the State. The bill suggests that “small farms” should verify with the Secretary of Natural Resources that they comply with the Required Agricultural Practices Rule once every three years. The bill defines “small farm” as a parcel using 10 or more acres for farming within a minimum and maximum number of livestock and poultry starting at the baseline definition of farming set by the RAP’s.  H. 146 is beginning its path having only gotten a walk-through from the legislative council so far.

It is unclear how such a shift in regulatory authority would affect the funding of VAAFM, its staff, grant programs for farms, technical service provision, and relationships with farms and farmers.  It is also unclear how such a shift would affect farms and farmers around Vermont at a moment when there is significant federal uncertainty and disinvestment affecting farmers.  How do you feel about the RAP rule and its enforcement moving to the Agency of Natural Resources?  It is very important right now for the farming community to become involved, to contact your representatives and share your voice, your questions, your experiences, your concerns, and to ensure that this process is stakeholder driven. 

Please fill out our short survey to be in touch with us and let us know what you think about this issue!


You can find all of the recordings of all legislative hearings on water quality oversight on the Rural Vermont website here.

Right to Repair & Right to Farm

These two issues both seek to improve the rights of farmers, and both issues have received consideration this past biennium despite not crossing the finish line. This session these bills seek reform on the right to repair and the right to farm as it relates to nuisance protections for farmers. The Right to Repair bill is in the House and the Right to Farm bill comes forth from the Senate. 

H. 161 - Fair Repair Act

This bill proposes to require original equipment manufacturers of certain agricultural, electronic, and forestry equipment to make available the parts, tools, and documentation necessary to repair such equipment to independent repair providers and owners of the equipment. 

It defines “repair” as to maintain, diagnose, or fix agricultural, electronic, or forestry equipment, resulting in the equipment being restored to its fully functional condition, including any updates. “Repair” does not include the ability to download or access the source code of any embedded software or code, unless doing so is required to restore the equipment to its fully functional condition, including any updates. It requires the original manufacturers of equipment to offer for sale or otherwise make available the parts, tools, and documentation that is available to authorized repair providers, to independent repair providers. The bill aims to prohibit unreasonable restraints, that are unnecessary within the ordinary course of business, and designed to be an impediment on the independent repair provider. The original equipment manufacturer and authorized repair providers are not liable for negligent repairs completed by independent repair providers or the owners themselves. The bill includes a clause on page 9 that states that despite pre-existing memorandums of understanding related to the right to repair of agricultural, electronic, or forestry equipment, original equipment manufacturers shall still be obligated to meet the requirements of the bill if it becomes the law. 

S. 45 - Right-to-Farm Law

From the bill: “This bill proposes to amend the protection against nuisance suits for agricultural activities under the Vermont right-to-farm law by providing that an agricultural activity shall not be a nuisance or trespass when the activity complies with generally accepted agricultural practices. The nuisance and trespass protection for an agricultural activity would not apply whenever a nuisance or trespass violation results from the negligent operation of an agricultural activity or from a violation of the State agricultural water quality requirements. The bill would also provide that an agricultural activity shall not lose nuisance or trespass protection due to a change of ownership or a cessation of operation of not more than five years; a change of crops produced; or a change of a farming method or conversion of a farming practice or agricultural activity to another farming method, practice, or agricultural activity on a farm. The act would also provide that a person shall not bring a court action based on a claim of nuisance or trespass arising from an agricultural activity unless the person and the operator of the agricultural activity, at least once, attempt to resolve through mediation the issue or dispute.” 

In some ways this bill is on the other end of the political spectrum as the proponents of H. 146 - on water quality (see the above update). H. 146 includes a so-called actio popularis - where anyone can file a lawsuit against a farm for compliance with water quality standards. S. 45 instead suggests that when it comes to nuisance, a lawsuit may only be filed after a mediation process has failed. Water quality standards and nuisance claims may not always overlap but S. 45 seeks to protect the rights and autonomy of farmers within their compliance with water quality standards from lawsuits. 

It would do so by defining a new statutory term “Generally accepted agricultural practices” as referring to any title 6 V.S.A. requirements - that is all requirements in the “Agriculture” title of the Vermont Statutes and the RAP and Pesticides Rule. It would rephrase the rebuttable presumption that an agricultural activity does not constitute a nuisance by simply stating that “No agricultural activity shall be or become a nuisance or trespass when the activity is conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices.” 

Previously the statute read that nuisance claims would have to show that “the activity has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare or has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property.” Instead of showcasing any personal affectedness, it seems like not only neighbors would have some right to prove “a preponderance of the evidence that the agricultural activity is not conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices.” Since the new language of the bill suggests to strike the reference to “the neighboring property” and since there’s no other definition of “nuisance,” it seems like also S. 45 is suggesting to broaden the circle of possible plaintiffs to anyone who can provide evidence that the agricultural activity is not conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practice. 

(Farm)land Conservation

Current Use Bills H.70 and H. 134; VHCB reports on Act 59 Conservation Inventory; Crafting Policies for farmland access at NOFA-VT Winter Conference  

Capital “C” Conservation is a term used to describe the sale of development rights of a parcel of land to achieve permanent protection from such development as layd out in the terms of the accompanying contract of the Conservation Easement. 

This legislative session, decision makers are interested in hearing from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) and a coalition that supports them about the inventory of Vermont’s 30x30 and 50x50 initiatives on “Conservation” as well as to listen to how the planning phase of this initiative (Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative) is projected. 

Trey Martin from VHCB reported to the House Committee on Environment on February 12 that Vermont currently has 27% of its landmass in Conservation with a “C.” He added that this would include agricultural and other open land that is subject to an easement (2.9% or 171,347 acres) based on the recommendations of VHCB and ANR. 

Lawmakers asked VHCB about the pending legislation H. 70 that suggests counting land enrolled in the Current Use program towards the goals of Act 59 of 2023 (the law that enacted Vermont’s VCSI or 30x30 and 50x50 initiatives). The response has to do with the fact that legally, the Current Use program is not “C” conservation. Based on specific eligibility criteria it enrolls farm or forestlands and against a penalty, that makes a significant chunk of the fair market value, the land may also be disenrolled and thus may not be permanently conserved.

Lawmakers introduced another bill this year, H. 134, that suggests removing the penalty to further advance the development of farmland near downtown village centers and better align the mandated vision for housing development with other statutory provisions.  

Rural Vermont collaborated with Liberation Ecosystems and the Land Access and Opportunity Board in the 2024 Farm to Plate Conference as well as at last weekend’s NOFA-VT Winter Conference on workshop titled “Crafting Land Access Policies for Farmers. ” It was underscored that:

  • The price of land continues to rise, and the cost of production and land are well above the return obtained from many farm businesses.  In 2022, 57% of all Vermont farms were unprofitable and lost a combined $85 million (2022 USDA NASS Ag Census: Vermont; Table 5).

  • Neither Act 59 of 2023 (strong focus on biodiversity), or land use legislation introduced this year, like H.70 (which only “counts” lands in an abstract way) or H. 134 (which eases development of land enrolled in Current Use without also protecting agricultural land with more longevity) nor another recent land use law is prohibitive to the development of farmland, Act 181 (2024, Act 250 reform law), Act 121 (2024, law on river corridor development), Act 47 (2023, housing development), Act 153 (2020, Global Warming Solutions Act).

    Participants in the workshop discussed how land use policies like Current Use, Act 250, conservation easements, and regional planning and zoning impact farms and communities and to better understand some potential leverage points of such policies. We are looking forward to continuing this important work with our partners and allies over the summer as a way of developing policy that is willing to question the status quo of current land conservation policies, including and beyond the “C.”

Now is the time to get in touch with your legislators and your Regional Planning Commission and request they recommend the protection of farmland when they rewrite regional “Future Land Use Maps” which currently don’t consistently delineate where food can be produced in the long-term vision of future land use. These plans are not enforceable, yet are an important part of policy development. Ryan Patch, Climate and Land Use Policy Manager at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets testified to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry that Vermont would need to double their agricultural footprint of food production even to meet the goal to produce 30% of what’s consumed in the State, in the state, by 2030. That would be more than an additional 500k acres of farmland. 

Many policy makers agree that no one policy or Conservation Easement are sufficient to facilitate much needed farmland access for farmers. Rural Vermont continues to work collaboratively to explore policy change increasing farmland accessibility for farmers. 

Please contact caroline@ruralvermont.org with questions, concerns, and ideas. 

Contact your legislator to discuss H. 70, which suggests counting land enrolled in the Current Use program towards the goals of Act 59 of 2023; H. 134, regarding the Current Use penalty; and the proposed repeal of the Global Warming Solutions Act, H.62.

You can find all of the recordings of all legislative hearings on (farm)land conservation on the Rural Vermont website here.

Cannabis

Rural Vermont and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have now introduced our coalition and our priorities in the Senate Committee on Agriculture (1/24), the House Committee on Government Operations (1/29), and the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Resiliency (2/7).  In each of these committees, we have also been joined by the Directors of the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB), Ornella Matta-Figueroa and Jean Myung-Hamilton.  We are collaboratively advocating for secure base-funding of the LAOB through an ongoing appropriation of 25% of the cannabis excise tax, as well as an ongoing appropriation of $1 million to continue supporting the Cannabis Business Development Fund and to expand it to include a program similar to the VHCB Farm Viability Program (this is critical support for cannabis businesses, because they are unable to access federal funds, grants, loans, tax write offs, and technical service support that most businesses would otherwise be able to access).   

There has not been any legislation related to adult-use cannabis introduced yet this session.  Chair of House Government Operations Matt Birong has stated that a Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill is being drafted.  As a coalition, we have also now met with the Lt. Governor, as well as representatives from VT NRML and CRAV (Cannabis Retailers Association of Vermont) to discuss some of the common and different priorities we all have.  There was a 1.5 hour long “cannabis roundtable” in the Statehouse on the morning of Wednesday, February 19th which the Lt. Governor organized - it provided a limited number of selected stakeholders the opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Government Operations, the Senate Committee on Economic Development, and the Cannabis Control Board.  Our coalition was notified about the event after it was organized and the testimony slots were full - but we appreciated hearing all of the testimony, and some are those testifying are members of our coalition.  We hope that there is opportunity to work together among all of these actors and more towards equitable outcomes that are mutually beneficial for the broader cannabis community.    

As it is the new biennium, legislators are becoming familiar with new issues, and voices and roles, and now is an important time to get your priorities and voice involved in the process.  If you have interest in testifying or just in sharing your ideas for supporting a just and equitable cannabis market and community for everyone - please contact graham@ruralvermont.org.

You can find all of the recordings of all legislative hearings on cannabis on the Rural Vermont website here.

S.60 and H.229: Acts relating to establishing the Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions

After many months of work, we have bills in the House and Senate - S.60, An act relating to establishing the Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions; and H.229, An act relating to establishing the Farm and Forestry Operations Security Special Fund to provide grants for losses to farms and forestry operations due to weather conditions.

The Senate bill is sponsored by Senators Hardy (D, Addison), Heffernan (R, Addison), Major (D, Windsor) and Plunkett (D, Bennington) - the latter 3 being current members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  Sen. Hardy walked the Senate Committee on Agriculture through the bill this Tuesday morning, 2/18.  The House bill is sponsored by Reps. Burke, Boyden, Bos-Lun, Burtt, Nelson, O’Brien, and Surprenant - the latter 5 all members of the House Committee on Ag, Food Resiliency, and Forestry.  H.229 will be introduced in the House Committee on Agriculture Wednesday, February 19th.

Here are some key features of S.60:

Grants from the fund shall be in an amount that reimburses a farm for up to 50 percent of uninsured or otherwise uncovered losses due to eligible weather conditions, up to a maximum award of $150,000.00 total per year per qualified applicant farm.

The Secretary shall establish criteria for the amount of an award based on the annual net income of the farm in relation to the median net income of all farms in Vermont

Losses reimbursable by a grant under this section include:
(A) wages or compensation;
(B) replacement of lost income from destroyed crops or impacted livestock;
(C) debt payments or other ongoing expenses;
(D) costs of replanting;
(E) livestock feed replacement costs;
(F) infrastructure or equipment repair and replacement;
(G) repair of farm roads and roads necessary to access farms; or
(H) other losses as determined by the Secretary after consultation

All administratively complete applications shall be evaluated by the Review Board. Within 10 days of receipt of an administratively complete application, the Review Board by majority vote shall recommend to the Secretary whether to issue a grant to the applicant. If the Review Board recommends an award under this section, the Secretary shall issue the award within two weeks of the date of the Review Board’s recommendation

The Farm Security Special Fund shall receive an annual appropriation equal to 50 percent of the average documented farm losses from eligible weather conditions, as defined in 6 V.S.A. chapter 207, subchapter 4, averaged over previous years.

There are some relatively minor differences between S.60 and H.229, a significant difference is that H.229 explicitly includes forestry operations as well as farms.

Rural Vermont is preparing to give organizational testimony in support of these bills. Contact graham@ruralvermont.org if you want to share your experiences, needs, and support for this climate disaster assistance being made available for farmers and farmworkers with us, and / or directly in testimony to the committee.  This amount of funding is a big ask - and it will be important to mobilize voices in support of this fund. You are also welcome to reach out independently to the respective Committee Assistant to request time to share your experience with the committee:

Action Alert! Speak Up for Universal School Meals

Action Alert! Speak Up for Universal School Meals

Governor Scott has proposed eliminating universal school meals, leaving tens of thousands of students without guaranteed access to the food they need to learn and succeed. This rollback is hidden in his budget under the guise of “Education Transformation” — but this is not the transformation Vermont families need.

After hearing testimony last week from the Agency of Education and the Joint Fiscal Office, the House committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry voted to support maintaining the Universal School Meals program as part of the budget. A resounding yes was given by all committee members present. 


1. Visit hungerfreevt.org/protect-universal-school-meals to learn more and take action today!

2. Email your legislators! Find your legislator here.

Subject: Urgent: Protect Universal School Meals in Vermont

Dear [Name],

I’m writing because Vermont’s Universal School Meals Program is under attack — and we need your help. Governor Phil Scott has proposed eliminating universal school meals as part of his budget plan, despite the overwhelming benefits this program provides to students, families, and communities.

Vermont’s Universal School Meals programs ensure that every child has the food they need to learn and succeed, without stigma or barriers. Replacing it with a means-tested system would leave many children behind.

📢 Take action today and make sure to protect Vermont’s Universal School Meals Program. 

Thank you,

[Your Name]

You can find all of the recordings of all legislative hearings on universal school lunch on the Rural Vermont website here.

Avian Flu Update

Last week a joint meeting was held with the House Committee on Health Care and the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry to hear updates on avian flu. Developments were shared about the outbreak as a whole and  the actions being taken to prepare for impacts to Vermont farmers and farmworkers.

VAAFM continues to test and monitor milk from Vermont farms and still to date no avian flu cases in cows have been reported in New England. A total of five backyard flocks and a low estimate of 100 wild birds have tested positive for the virus, plus one bobcat last January. Both departments are working together to outline procedures for a potential outbreak in humans and are connecting with farmers to offer guidance and personal protective equipment (PPE). The overall risk to the public remains low, yet the risk remains higher for farmers in the dairy and poultry industries. The department suggests hand washing, eye and mouth protection, keeping clean boots and contacting veterinarians for sick animals for preventative measures. More resources on avian flu available here. 

Additionally, the National Young Farmers Coalition has a brief survey to support farmers with questions about Avian Flu or who would like additional support or information around the issue. 

You can find all of the recordings of all legislative hearings on avian flu on the Rural Vermont website here.

Rural Vermontcannabis, PFAS, Raw Milk
Legislative Update 01.29.25

In D.C., the first week of the new federal administration has brought a series of executive orders that directly threaten our communities and the wellbeing of many. Rural Vermont is in close dialogue with our federal delegation and allied organizations while we witness many proposed changes coming forth at high speed. Many of our community members are not safe, some are threatened with detention and deportation, critical funds supporting businesses and federal programs may be discontinued, and more.  We encourage our members to be in touch about how these new federal policies impact you, your farm, and your community.

In Vermont, a new biennium has launched with many new legislators being assigned to new committees. The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry shrank from eleven to eight seats and welcomed four returning and four new members. The Senate Committee on Agriculture still has five seats and almost entirely new members, with the exception of Senator Brian Collamore from Rutland who has been serving on the committee for more than 20 years. At the beginning of a new legislative session, all committees typically invite relevant organizations and agencies to introduce themselves and their priorities. You can watch Rural Vermont’s introductions to both agricultural committees online (Senate; House). Check out our “2025 Legislative Bill Monitor” to track progress on some of the issues of most interest to the Rural Vermont community. Also check out our Activist Toolkit where we share tips and tricks to prepare you for your advocacy in the peoples’ house, and stay tuned for a Small Farm Action Day - announcement coming soon! Finally, we continue to offer audio recordings of our legislative updates so that you can get our briefing while you go about your farm chores or other daily duties. 

Tune in, be in touch, & speak up!

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CANNABIS

There has been a lot of activity related to adult use cannabis policy since the end of the last legislative session.  Rural VT and the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition (Rural VT, VT Racial Justice Alliance, VT Growers’ Association, Green Mtn. Patients’ Alliance, NOFA VT) were named members of 3 different legislatively convened working groups related to cannabis in the 2024 legislative session; the reports of which  were recently released: Outdoor Siting and Advertising, Social Equity and the Cannabis Business Development Fund, and Medical.  We also continue to meet as a coalition, with community members and industry stakeholders, and offer educational workshops for cultivators.  

With the beginning of the 2025 legislative session, we have been in touch with particular legislative committees about introducing our coalition, have been to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, and will be in House Government Operations this week.  The Cannabis Control Board itself is also just beginning its introductions and as committees begin to move through this early period of the biennium, we anticipate testimony on the working groups to arrive in the near future (though we are also aware of the pressures around addressing many important topics at the statehouse and in particular committees this year).  We have a 2025 Coalition Priorities document, statutory language we are looking for support in being drafted into a bill, and are excited to have some new allies and added traction on some of our key priorities, in particular around social equity goals and outcomes.

We are particularly excited as we move into this new biennium that we have our coalition, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, and the Cannabis Control Board all in agreement on the same social equity policy and program recommendations:  directing $1M of the Cannabis Excise Tax Revenue as an ongoing appropriation to the Cannabis Business Development Fund for grants to social equity licensees, and for technical assistance for small businesses in the industry in a model similar to that run by the Intervale Farm Viability Program; and directing 25% of the Cannabis Excise Tax Revenue to the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB) for community reinvestment.  This proposal is detailed in the Social Equity Working Group Report.  Cannabis businesses, and cannabis cultivators, are not entitled to the same access to business support, financial support, or other forms of assistance that other business types are eligible for from the state or federal levels and face immense barriers to success; expanding the Fund to incorporate a model of assistance like that offered to producers through the Intervale Farm Viability program is something we’ve discussed for many years.  Likewise, asking for a significant portion of the excise tax to fund community reinvestment is a founding goal of our coalition - and funding the Land Access and Opportunity Board and its work is a great opportunity to realize this.

Some of our other primary goals for this session and biennium include revoking the new municipal powers provided over siting of outdoor cultivation last year (“preferred cultivation districts” and minimum and maximum setbacks), and continuing to enumerate aspects of agricultural status for outdoor producers.  You will hear a lot more from us about this in response to the Outdoor Siting and Advertising Report when it comes before the legislature (our position has long been clear that outdoor cannabis should be regulated as agriculture - not by municipalities).  We continue to pursue direct sales allowances for small producers, manufacturers, and nurseries; as well as public consumption and the rest of the issues listed in our priorities document.

Find Legislative Hearings on this Issue here

Farm Security Fund

We are discussing the general need for a state based fund which can rapidly, and effectively support farmers and farmworkers in recovering from climate and environment based disasters.  The official bill language is almost complete and though a small amount of money for disaster relief was included in the Governor’s budget, the total appropriation we were looking for to shore up disaster relief funding specifically designed to meet the needs of farmers and farmworkers, was not included.  A statewide approach to addressing climate disasters and for supporting farms became even more important as the new administration announced plans to discontinue assistance provided through FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We’ll provide more information as it becomes available. If you are a farmer or farmworker who has been affected by extreme weather or climate events who is interested in getting involved in supporting this campaign, please contact graham@ruralvermont.org.

Find Legislative Hearings on this Issue here

CLEAN WATER OVERSIGHT

At the end of last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a directive to Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) to ensure VT’s agricultural water quality protections meet the Clean Water Act obligations. This directive was EPA’s response to a petition from the Conservation Law Foundation, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, and the Lake Champlain Committee alleging that VT was not meeting these standards related to Vermont’s CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) program. ANR and Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) had published a proposed Corrective Action Plan (CAP) to ensure ANR would better take on the permitting and oversight responsibilities regarding point source discharges from CAFOS. The two agencies also suggested that VAAFM would continue to oversee all farms that do not require a CAFO permit and that don’t discharge into the waters of the State. The agencies proposed to inspect medium and large farms moving forward jointly. In response, EPA issued a letter outlining several questions and concerns including the request that ANR should be the sole state agency “authorized to enforce Clean Water Act requirements, generally, and specifically concerning CAFOs. We appreciate the important role of the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (AAFM) in supporting Vermont’s agricultural sector. EPA would strongly caution against relying on AAFM to draw the distinction between discharging and non-discharging farms for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.” 

The House Environment Committee, the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee, and the Senate Committee on Agriculture have started taking testimony and to get an overview of this issue, which is currently not subject to legislation. 

Read ANR’s press release and Corrective Action Plan here.

Read EPA’s response here

Find Legislative Hearings on this issue here

(FARM) LAND CONSERVATION

Rural Vermont used our introductions to the new House and Senate committees on agriculture to flag the lack of policies that would facilitate land access for farmers by protecting farmland from development and making farmland more affordable to farmers. While land use has been a legislative concern in recent years, neither of the land use laws that passed the legislature centered the protection of farmland from development (namely the Act 250 revision in Act 181 of 2024, the River Corridor Legislation in Act 121 of 2024, the Home Act 47 of 2023, but also not the mentioned Act 59 of 2024 that centers biodiversity protection or the Global Warming Solutions Act 153 of 2020). 

Much of the political discourse on farmland access is happening outside of the legislative process. Last year, Rural Vermont engaged in the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative on the Agricultural Lands Working Group to discuss how 30% of Vermont’s land mass may be conserved by 2030 and, similarly, how 50% by 2050 may be projected. In committee, we shared our dissatisfaction with the process and its compliance with public meeting laws and the environmental justice policy that took effect in 2022. We reported that Vermont Law School’s Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (CAFS) had one of their students research the procedural shortfalls and suggested that: “Act 59 implementation — now known as the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) — has fallen short of compliance with the state’s Open Meeting and Environmental Justice Laws,” and the records posted under VHCB’s VCSI page are inconsistent and unorganized.” (Read the CAFS memo on public participation here.)

A second CAFS memo researched where 30x30 is coming from nationally and internationally and is exploring concerns that the initiative is intended to serve the development of carbon markets here in Vermont. In alignment with farmer-led organizations like the National Family Farm Coalition and global agrarian movements like La Via Campesina, we recognize carbon markets as false solutions to climate change because they are designed to commodify nature and enrich Natural Asset Companies instead of realizing the systematic changes farmers need to grow more food and manage land in resilient ways. The research indicates that some states use carbon markets as a funding source, but not all states anticipate carbon markets as a source of revenue to realize 30x30 (read the CAFS memo on the history and status of 30x30 here).

The research also underscored that conservation with acquisitions of land development rights (so-called Conservation Easements) would cost Vermont approximately a total of $375 million over the next five years to reach the 30x30 goal (not including administrative expenses and land management costs. Read the CAFS memo on implementation of 30x30 here). 

Expanding funding for conservation easements would contribute to property inflation, the unaffordability of farmland for farmers, and the lack of equitable housing access. Lawmakers expressed interest in the Current Use program (UVA) and asked if land enrolled would count towards Vermont’s 30x30 and 50x50 agenda. Currently, it does not, because legally the term “conservation” only includes such tools that permanently protect land from development, but land enrolled in UVA may be disenrolled from the program against the payment of a penalty. Approximately 30 legislators co-sponsored the introduction of legislation that seeks to change that, H.70. 

This change would do nothing more than “counting” land that’s already enrolled in UVA toward the 30x30 agenda. It would not protect more farmland from development or make farmland more affordable for farmers. Currently, 79% of farmland is enrolled in the Current Use program (543,200 acres or 8.8% of VT).  Farmland is at risk of being converted in a few different ways: 

  • Lost to development by 2040: 41,200 - 61,800 acres
    (that’s 6-9% of all farms, projection from New England Feeding New England (NEFNE))

  • Lost as a critical resource due to climate change: 257,898 acres
    (that’s 37% of farms, see Act 250 2019 Critical Resource Area Concept)

  • Loss of farmers to retirement by 2040: 3,758 producers
    (that’s 30.5% of farmers who were 65 years or older in 2017)

It is estimated that Vermont will need to bring approximately 24% more of its landmass into food production to secure just 30% of its own food consumption - that’s 64,833 acres (NEFNE report here). Currently, Vermont imports over 90% of its protein, fruit, and grains as well as over 70% of its produce and also over 50% of its dairy products (see the VT state brief). 

Join Rural Vermont, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, and Liberation Ecosystems from 2:15 pm - 3:30 pm at the upcoming NOFA-VT Winter Conference on February 15, 2025 for a workshop on “Crafting a Policy for Land Access for Farmers.” We want to hear from you about the policy changes you envision for farmland to be better protected from development and more affordable for farmers!

Find Legislative Hearings on this Issue here.

Rural Vermont’s written testimony here.

PFAS/ BAN of LAND APPLICATIONS of SEWAGE SLUDGE

Legislators have started to express interest in a Potential Ban on Sludge Land Application. EPA recently released a draft risk assessment on PFAS in biosolids suggesting high levels of PFAS in farm soil. WCAX reported legislative interest this year in working to ban the spreading of sludge, also known as biosolids, from land application to agricultural fields. Sludge is a known source for contaminating soil with PFAS. Vermont has the opportunity to learn from Maine around this issue and pair any testing of farmland for PFAS and the land application ban with a plan to support impacted farmers and communities, including a relief fund for farmers whose families’ health, farm products, and continued businesses’ operation could be impaired by contaminant loads.

Find Legislative Hearings on this Issue here.

FARM WORKFORCE/ IMMIGRATION & AFFORDABILITY OF LIVING

The rights and protections of farm workers have been subject to a study committee before the 2025 legislative session. This committee was convened because farmworkers had previously been excluded from the Vermont ProAct (Act 177) which made it easier for employees to organize labor unions. This study committee had several meetings and heard testimony from Migrant Justice and others. Migrant Justice recommended developing a proposal for collective bargaining that includes the right of farm workers to strike and an expansive definition of the bargaining unit to include small farm and sectoral bargaining. The study committee did not include the recommendation for farmworkers’ right to unionization. Instead, there seemed to be interest in regulating the minimum wage for farm workers directly and we might see legislation on this issue this session. Currently, agricultural workers are excluded from Vermont’s minimum wage and the median wage for immigrant dairy workers is $11.67. 

Dairy farms rely on migrant farm workers and the Trump administration's executive order to mass deport undocumented immigrants could affect ~1,500 community members in Vermont and impact the ability to sustain Vermont dairy farms, as reported by VTDigger. Part of the issue is that the H2A visa program allows legal immigrants to work in the produce sector on farms - but not in dairy. This policy may also affect workers in the food processing sectors, potentially causing grocery prices to “go through the roof.” 

The Vermont legislature passed a law in 2017 (Act 5) that prohibits state agencies from sharing identifying information with federal authorities - right now this law is being tested. 

Rural Vermont is in solidarity with migrant farmworkers, and in allyship with Migrant Justice. The American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont is an important resource for advocacy on this issue and has valuable resources to offer (Know Your Rights here). Read our solidarity statement here.

Interested in farmworker housing? 

The Champlain Housing Trust is accepting applications for the Vermont Farmworker Housing Repair Loan Program (FWH) and Farmworker Replacement Housing Loan Program (FWHR). The goal of this program is to preserve this important affordable housing resource and to help improve the health and welfare of the farm workforce.

More information here.

Stricter Act 250 REGULATIONS for ACCESSORY ON-FARM BUSINESSES since 2024

Did you know that at the very end of the 2024 legislative session, the Vermont legislature passed a law (see Section 18, Act 181 of 2024, starting on p.25) that exempts farm stores from Act 250 permits but not farm events or farm stays - functionally implying these types of accessory on-farm businesses will need act 250 permits?  It also addresses and affects the development of value-added products (the preparation or processing of farm products) as an Act 250 permit is now required unless that aspect of the farm business will make at least 50 percent of the total annual sales from products of the farm itself - without outlining how that is going to be monitored or enforced. 

Rural Vermont tracked and reported on the 2024 legislation, which was introduced as H.128 with support from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM). We expressed concern about the impacts these changes would have on the farming community to VAAFM, as farms that operated Accessory On-Farm Businesses (AOFBs) of all types were previously under the impression they were exempt from Act 250. H. 128 did not pass, but the critical language was adopted last minute into a major land use bill, H. 687, that did pass (Act 181, Section 18 on p. 25). 

Several legislators now seek to amend this issue and introduced H.94 that would further clarify that “no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements related to hosting events or farm stays as part of an accessory on-farm business [...] if the farm is located in a municipality that has adopted performance standards and site plan review.” 

We are building a stakeholder group committed to informing and shaping this new pending legislation to ensure that it works for the farming community. We started to hear from members that the 2024 changes negatively impact their farms and disadvantage the development and continued operation of their accessory businesses. We want to hear from you  - please take a few minutes to fill out this form if this change or this law more broadly impacts you! Hearing from our members is the first step in developing a different legislative proposal that better serves the agrarian community. 

Take Action! 

  1. Farmers! We are interested in hearing from you about how the new law (Act 181, Section 18 on p. 25) and H. 94 impact your farm viability and your ability to continue to operate or to develop your accessory on-farm businesses. Please fill out this Google form to share your thoughts and be in touch.

  2. Call your legislator to speak up about your concerns as a farm with an accessory on-farm business needing an Act 250 permit because of the changes from Act 181 of 2024. Find your legislator here and let us know if your legislator is interested in addressing this issue!

AVIAN FLU

On January 10th, the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry brought in staff of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to provide an update on the avian flu and the new strain that is affecting cattle. Cases have since been confirmed in Vermont. At this time it is unclear if legislative action will be taken, and testing and monitoring will continue. 

Find Legislative Hearings on this issue here 

OTHER RELEVANT BILLS TO DATE

Additional bills that have been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry (HAG):

  • H.4 regarding the standards for the care of egg-laying hens

  • H. 14 relating to prohibiting the use of animals in product testing

H. 4 would prohibit a person from confining an egg-laying hen in a space that prevents the hen from fully spreading both wings without touching a wall or another bird. It would also define how much floor space laying hens should have access to, as indicated in the Guidelines for Cage-Free Egg Production. 

H. 14 would prohibit the use of any animals in product testing when there are alternative testing methods available. In the absence of alternative methods, animals would still be used in product testing with the bill suggesting to use the fewest animals possible and to take precautions to reduce pain and stress. This is the first bill HAG is starting to hear testimony on this week. 

The bill drafting request deadline in the House is January 31, 2025.  Afterward, legislation in the House may still be introduced by a committee or as an amendment to pending legislation. In the Senate, a bill may be introduced by a senator or standing committee at any time.

The Joint Rules Committee already established “crossover deadlines” for 2025 - dates by which a bill needs to have passed one chamber for it to have a chance of also passing the other. This deadline  dictates the pace and chances for legislation to either pass or die. All Senate/House bills must be reported out of the last committee of reference on or before Friday, March 14, 2025.  All Senate/House bills referred from one committee of jurisdiction to the Committees on Appropriations and Finance/Ways and Means must be reported by the last of those committees on or before Friday, March 21, 2025. 

Questions, concerns, or have information or experiences to share? Please be in touch!


Rural Vermontcannabis, PFAS
2025 Course of Action

2025 marks 40 years since Rural Vermont’s founding by farmers and allies in 1985. It is also a new legislative biennium in Vermont, with many newly elected legislators joining the General Assembly. This Course of Action forecasts some of our priorities in upcoming policy, organizing and education work for the next year. This is a living document, and given the recent elections, we will adjust our strategies & tactics accordingly as we learn more about the new administration and government federally, the makeup of VT’s legislative committees, and their priorities.

Check out Rural Vermont’s 2025 Course of Action!

Learn more about Rural Vermont, our Board of Directors HERE, or become a Rural Vermont MEMBER. 

Rural Vermont
9/19 Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local (LOCAL) Foods Act Introduced!

WE HAVE BIG NEWS! Please join us in celebrating a huge milestone toward protecting on-farm slaughter at home in Vermont and nationwide. Last week, the Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local (LOCAL) Foods Act was introduced in the US Senate!

On September 19th, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) led Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Cory Booker (D-NJ) in introducing S.5106 the LOCAL Foods Act, which codifies current USDA guidance and allows consumers to buy live animals from producers and designate agents to handle the slaughter and processing of their meat.

In 2022, Rural Vermont launched this federal campaign after on-farm slaughter practitioners were subject to mixed messages and punitive requirements from state officials, even after the legislature had secured on-farm slaughter in Vermont law in perpetuity and doubled the allowances for animals slaughtered on the farm as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since then, we have been working closely with our core coalition partners National Family Farm Coalition, Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance, and Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund to align USDA guidance and federal statute.

Thank you to everyone who has made calls, left messages, and testified in support of on-farm slaughter over many years. It's because of this people power that we've made it this far. We've got plenty more to do, but for now, let's celebrate what we've already accomplished together!

What's Next? THANK YOUs!

Show some appreciation to Senator Welch* for introducing the LOCAL Foods Act, to Senators Sanders & Booker for co-sponsoring it, and to Secretary Tebbetts of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (VAAFM) for endorsing this pathway to seek clarity in federal law. We are grateful for their leadership and support of this federal change that will protect farmers, itinerant slaughterers, and their customers!

  • Email Senator Peter Welch here.

  • Email Senator Bernie Sanders here.

  • Email Senator Cory Booker here.

  • Call Secretary Anson Tebbetts through the VAAFM Meat Inspection Division at 802.828.2426.

*From Senator Welch's press release:
“For generations, Vermonters have depended on their neighbors for locally-grown produce and farm-fresh meat. However, regulations tailored toward large-scale farms have made it harder for smaller farms to sell in their own communities. Keeping our small-scale producers competitive means cutting through red tape to help them compete with companies that have massive operations,” said Senator Welch. “This bill will update federal guidelines to better support Vermont-sized producers, keep our food local, and strengthen our food systems.”

Rural Vermont
2024 End-of-Session Recap


Table of Contents

Section 1: Executive Summary

Dear Rural Vermont Community,

Check out this 2024 End-of-Session Recap for a summary of changes in policies that may affect you. Short on time? Read the executive summary below where we capture the highlights, or listen to the full audio recap here.  Many thanks to our wonderful communications intern Melissa MacDonald who recorded all legislative updates and to Noah Lafaso and Sadie Farris for their tireless coverage of committee proceedings for Rural Vermont. 

Sale of Poultry Parts & Pieces - It’s the law! Inspection is not required for the slaughter or preparation of raw poultry products in whole or in parts of the producer’s own raising on the producer’s own premises under the 1,000, 5,000, and 20,000 bird exemption (read the new Vermont law as passed by House and Senate here, read the USDA guidance here). This law took effect on passage on Apr 25, 2024. Thank you to all of the farmers who offered guidance on this issue, and to the many activists who called or wrote their legislators in support of the bill. Please celebrate this new law with us and send us pictures of you with your parted birds and happy customers throughout the year to info@ruralvermont.org.

Neonicotinoid Pesticides - The legislature has overridden Governor Scott’s veto of H.706, and Vermont has joined the state of New York as one of only two states in the US to commit to a phase out of most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”). The legislation passed in Vermont prohibits the sale or use of neonic coatings on corn, soybean, wheat and cereal seeds by 2029; prohibits some outdoor uses by 2025; and requires best management practices for permitted neonic uses. The bill contains an exemption for agricultural and environmental emergencies, the terms of which will need to be developed in the coming years. This was a very close vote for override, coming down to one vote in the Senate.  Thank you to everyone who reached out to their reps and supported the passage of this bill! 

Cannabis - It was a dizzying end of the session for this year’s adult-use and medical cannabis legislation as many parties worked at odds to negotiate a final outcome.  The final bill, H.612 / Act 166, contains many changes, some of which are related to priority areas for our coalition (the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition) such as expanding aspects of agricultural status for outdoor cultivators, municipal authority over outdoor cultivation, where and how medical patients can access cannabis, funding for social equity licensees through the Cannabis Development fund, and working groups and reports related to medical, social equity, and siting for outdoor cultivators.  We need the legislature, and committees of jurisdiction in the legislature, to bring more attention, equity, respect, and investment to the stakeholders directly affected by their legislation, and the communities harmed by criminalization over time.  

Right to Repair - H.81 did not pass into law after the House didn’t concur with the Senate’s amendments and instead presented more amendments in the veto session that the Senate didn’t approve.    

Land, Capital and Housing - The Agricultural Lands Working Group (ALWG) to Vermont’s 30x30/50x50 process, of which Rural Vermont is a member, has temporarily concluded for the summer. Rural Vermont has continually expressed concern regarding the overall lack of transparency around this process, as well as the meaningful incorporation of stakeholder input, and as a result did not sign on to the final report from the working group, along with multiple other groups. Learn more about this process on our website here or virtually at the June 27 public meeting from 4-7pm, register here.

Changes were made to H.687, Act 250, Vermont's Conservation Law. It allows a long list of designated municipalities to ease their zoning rules for new housing development. As part of this bill, lawmakers included language from a bill on Accessory On Farm Businesses (AOFBs) that had died in committee. What was supposed to be a clarification that Act 250 permitting is not required for AOFBs now requires Act 250 permitting for improvements to accessory businesses that focus on farm events and farm stays. 

In 2023, Rural Vermont had written an amicus brief during an Act 250 lawsuit related to a farm's accessory on-farm business. As so-called “Friends of the Courts,” amicus briefs lay out an organization's take on the affected law which can give insight into the legislative history and be helpful to the court's judgment. The Environmental Division of Vermont’s Superior Court denied Rural Vermont’s amicus brief stating that Vermont law explicitly wouldn’t allow for them in land use cases. It was part of our 2024 course of action to work with the Vermont Natural Resources Council, attorney Jeffrey Bernstein, and Todd Heyman from Fat Sheep Farm and a series of legislators to fix this equity issue and we succeeded with Section 44 in H.687.

Vermont’s double digit property tax increase veto was overridden by the legislature during the veto override session. The tax hike is causing distress in communities across the state. The Legislature did approve to continue the pandemic-era emergency motel housing program with new eligibility requirements.

Tax increases, price inflation, development and land conservation all affect the gap between the price of farmable land and the ability to qualify and pay for a loan on that land with farm income. The New England Feeding New England regional partnership centers the importance of farmland access for farmers in the context of food security, local self reliance and climate change in the legislative context. Rural Vermont urged the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry in testimony to introduce policies that would facilitate farmland access while conserving farmland from development and opposing carbon markets in agriculture. 

This year's legislative session did pass a relevant new funding mechanism and policy: Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act that was spearheaded by VPIRG and that creates a funding mechanism in which polluting industries pay into a superfund that is being used for climate mitigation efforts. S. 259 (Act 122) became law without the Governor's signature (read Governor Scott’s letter here). This climate mitigation effort creates important new funding streams that could gain significance for agricultural financial needs in upcoming years. The act includes language to support climate adaptation projects that respond to toxic algae blooms, loss of agricultural topsoil, crop loss, and other climate-driven ecosystem threats to forests, farms, fisheries, and food systems.

Right to Unionize for Farmworkers - The Vermont Pro Act passed as Act 177 and makes it easier for many employees to organize labor unions, but lawmakers scrapped farmworkers last minute from the bill. Thereby lawmakers failed to fix in State law the continued exclusion of farmworkers from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 which forbids employers from firing workers for joining, organizing or supporting a union. Rural Vermont had worked with the Vermont State Labor Council on endorsing the bill when it was endorsed by Migrant Justice and still included farmworkers (watch testimony here). Farmworkers haves’ been put on the bench to wait for PR. 3, which would amend the Constitution of the State of Vermont to provide that all employees in the State have the right to collectively bargain. While PR. 3 was passed by the House and Senate (Senate Journal 4/30/24), both chambers have to approve the measure again in 2026 before the people of Vermont will need to ratify directly with a majority of votes as well. 

Budget items - The budget for fiscal year 2025 does not include a fraction of the $10M that were requested to provide assistance to fruit producers despite revenue losses at that scale equalling up to 99% of crop losses in 2023.  

Nofa-VT received the $300K in funding requested to continue the Crop Cash, Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share programs that increases food access for Vermonters and farmers market sales for farmers. 

Much appreciation to everyone who took time out of their busy lives to tune into what’s happening in the policy arena in Vermont, especially to those of you who advocated for  change and who reached out to your legislators. 

Please read on for a full update below,  or listen to our audio recording of the same content. There are important hyperlinks in the written version and in our policy blog at www.ruralvermont.org. If you like our work, please help us grow our community by sharing this email with your friends and contributing to our summer fundraising drive. 

In solidarity,

Caroline & Graham 

On behalf of the Rural Vermont staff

 

Section 2: Priority Issues

H. 706 - An act relating to banning the use of neonicotinoid pesticides

The House (114 yays to 31 nays) and Senate (20 yays to 9 nays) have overridden the Governor’s veto of H.706 during the veto session of the legislature on June 17, 2024.  In doing so, Vermont has joined the state of New York as one of only two states in the US to commit to a phase out of most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”), a class of pesticides which comprehensive research has shown to be highly toxic to many organisms and not of agronomic or economic benefit to farmers.  The legislation passed in Vermont prohibits the sale or use of neonic coatings on corn, soybean, wheat and cereal seeds by 2029; prohibits some outdoor uses by 2025; and requires best management practices for permitted neonic uses. The bill contains an exemption for agricultural and environmental emergencies, the terms of which will need to be carefully developed in the coming years.  See more details below.  

All in all, the bill acknowledges and faces the significant negative environmental and biological impacts that neonics are having, their resilience and mobility in the environment, the need to provide time and support for those using the pesticide in transitioning, and the need to protect the vast majority of VT’s farmers and community members who are choosing not to use the pesticide from exposure and impact (these people are currently being non-consensually exposed given what we know about the spread of neonics in the environment away from the immediate location of use, and their far-reaching and systemic impacts).  

Governor Scott vetoed H. 706 on May 20th 2024, stating in his letter that it was more “anti-farmer” than “pro-pollinator”. But many of VT’s member based farming organizations have directly disagreed throughout the session and worked in support of this bill:  Rural VT, the Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT, the VT Beekeepers Association, and more.  The Champlain Valley Farmers’ Coalition gave testimony in support of the bill if it were to mimic NY’s (which the legislation in VT significantly now does).  Rural VT and NOFA VT co-authored a letter to the editor in response to the veto, and we submitted a letter to all members of the House and Senate from more than 140 farmers / farmworkers / agricultural organization representatives / and food professionals in support of the legislation.  In the Senate the override narrowly passed by one vote - the final affirmative vote being that of Sen. Irene Wrenner, who is a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  Her vote stands in contrast to at least two other members of this committee, Vice chair (Senator Collamore) and chair (Senator Starr) who both voted to sustain the Governor’s veto.

It’s worth noting that work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for several years, by Rural VT and many other organizations.  There is precedent for neonic phase-out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, Ontario, Quebec, and now in New York.  Data and farmer testimony from those regions that have transitioned has shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  Farmers in Vermont who currently use treated seeds have expressed their concerns in testimony before the legislature - and it is important that the legislature, the VAAFM, and organizations work to hear and meet these concerns as we approach the implementation dates for the various aspects of the bill.  We also know that we cannot continue to use these pesticides given their well documented impacts, and that the concerns related to alternative seed and treatment sourcing for farmers currently using neonics is not about the availability of seed varieties - it’s about to the willingness of the purveyors of the seed to return to their former policy allowing choice for farmers, and now States, and not universally treating all conventional seed with neonics.  It is unacceptable that seed companies’ commitment to proprietary products and profit would threaten our State’s, and our farmers’, ability to practice democracy related to how we farm and what we - and the places we inhabit - are exposed to.

There are multiple important next steps outlined in H.706 which we will need to monitor and be actively involved with to ensure this law will be effective and impactful.  In particular how the exemption processes for prohibited uses are developed and defined (Sections 3 and 4), and how best management practices (BMPs) are developed and defined (Section 6).  Exemptions are written by the Secretary of the Agency of Agriculture in consultation with the Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, and will require the development of specific “integrated pest management” (IPM) training and protocols including a “pest risk assessment”.  The Secretary of Agriculture and the Agriculture Innovation Board are tasked with developing BMPs for the use of neonics before the phase-out, as well as for use under an approved exemption once the phase-out has taken effect, as well as “criteria for a system of approval” of neonics after the implementation dates have passed.    

Here are some points to outline what’s specifically included in the bill:

  • Uses of neonics banned after July 1, 2025 (section 4)

  • the outdoor application of neonicotinoid pesticides to any crop during bloom

  • the outdoor application of neonicotinoid pesticides to soybeans or any crop in the cereal grains crop group (crop groups 15, 15-22, 16, and 16- 22)

  • the outdoor application of neonicotinoid pesticides to crops in the leafy vegetables; brassica; bulb vegetables; herbs and spices; and stalk, stem, and leaf petiole vegetables crop groups (crop groups 3, 3-07, 4, 4-16, 5, 5-16, 19, 22, 25, and 26) harvested after bloom

  • the application of neonicotinoid pesticides to ornamental plants.

  • The use of treated article seed is prohibited after January 1, 2029 (Section 3)

  • The bill also contains a “contingent repeal” (Section 8)  in relationship to the neonic legislation in NY.  This means that the implementation dates, and the legislation itself, will be changed if the legislation in NY is repealed or changed.

    **Note:  The inclusion of turf grass for entities such as golf courses was struck in the Senate Ag Committee late in the process, though it is likely its inclusion will be pursued in coming years… 

References and Resources: 

On February 21st, Rural Vermont testified (beginning minute 38), along with the Champlain Valley Farmers’ Coalition to the House Agriculture Committee.  Rural VT’s testimony is here in written form.

Act 93 - The sale of uninspected poultry in parts

It’s the law - inspection is not required for the slaughter or preparation of raw poultry products in whole or in parts of the producer’s own raising on the producer’s premises under the 1,000, 5,000, and 20,000 bird exemption within Vermont, at farmers’ markets and to restaurants, in addition to selling directly from the farm (read the new Vermont law as passed by House and Senate here, read the USDA guidance here). 

Poultry products will have to be labeled correctly with the product's name. The Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is currently working on revising its guidance document that lays out details of the on-farm slaughter processing of poultry into parts that will be available on the agency’s website here.

By striking the “whole birds only” language from Vermont law and adding the word “raw”, H. 603 allows for the sale of poultry in parts in alignment with the USDA’s guidance on the term “processing.” While parting of birds is now allowed, the new law does restrict what’s permissible under USDA guidance around processing poultry products only raw. The limitation to raw poultry was added by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to the bill in the House to effectively narrow the broad USDA understanding of processing, which also includes “canned, salted, stuffed, rendered, or otherwise manufactured or processed.” The USDA definition of “processing” applies to de-feathering, eviscerating, cutting up, or deboning raw poultry. The new law took effect on 4/25/24 with the Governor's signature.

The Vermont law does not define “raw poultry products” but the agency pointed to the federal law definition of ready-to-cook poultry for more clarity. The definition “ready-to-cook,” see below, lays out some of the steps of processing poultry that are broad enough to allow for the sale of the meat in parts as well as for the sale of other parts and organs, as long as they are suitable for cooking without the need of further processing for human consumption.


Relevant Definitions

“Ready-to-cook poultry” in 7 CFR Part 70 Subpart A - Definitions:

“means any slaughtered poultry free from protruding feathers, vestigial feathers (hair or down as the case may be) and from which the head, feet, crop, oil gland, trachea, esophagus, entrails, mature reproductive organs, and lungs have been removed, and the kidneys have been removed from certain mature poultry as defined in 9 CFR part 381, and with or without the giblets, and which is suitable for cooking without need of further processing. Ready-to-cook poultry also means any cut-up or disjointed portion of poultry or other parts of poultry as defined in 9 CFR part 381 that are suitable for cooking without need of further processing.”

Giblets can be sold and include the following poultry organs when properly trimmed and washed:
“The liver from which the bile sac has been removed, the heart from which the pericardial sac has been removed, and the gizzard from which the lining and contents have been removed.”

Thank you to all of the farmers who offered guidance on this issue, and to the many activists who called or wrote their legislators in support of the bill. Please celebrate this new law with us and send us pictures of you with your parted birds and happy customers throughout the year to info@ruralvermont.org.  

References

  • Vermont law as passed by House and Senate here 

  • Federal law in 7 CFR Part 70

  • USDA guidance for on-farm processing of poultry here 

H.612 Miscellaneous Cannabis

Rural VT continued its work with the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition (Vermont Growers’ Association, VT Racial Justice Alliance, Green Mtn. Patients’ Alliance, and the Northeast Organic Farming Association of VT) this session.  Rural VT and the coalition provided testimony - and organized stakeholder testimony - in multiple committees (Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senate Committee on Economic Development, House Committee on Government Operations) throughout the session advocating for our broad priorities and specific recommended amendments.  The primary bill that emerged from the legislature related to cannabis, H.612 / Act 166, contains many changes, some of which are related to priority areas for our coalition (the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition) such as expanding aspects of agricultural status for outdoor cultivators, municipal authority over outdoor cultivation, where and how medical patients can access cannabis, funding for social equity licensees through the Cannabis Development fund, and working groups and reports related to medical, social equity, and siting for outdoor cultivators.  The overall process this session revealed again that the legislature is struggling to provide the attention needed to the regulated adult use market and the voices and needs of its direct stakeholders, that there is little appetite for devoting portions of the excise tax to community reinvestment outside of the framework of “prevention”, and that there is significant bias related to cannabis and fundamental aspects of an equitable marketplace such as direct sales for licensed cultivators and manufacturers.  We will continue to work to bring the voices of cultivators and other licensees directly to policymakers, and to advocate for the changes we need to see an economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and racially just regulated cannabis economy in Vermont.  

Here’s what’s in the bill related to some of our primary areas of focus:

Agricultural Status for Outdoor Cultivators  

We were able to support multiple licensees (cultivators, manufacturers, retailers) in providing testimony - but we also were not able to bring their testimony to all of the committees we would have liked, and very little of their recommendations and ours were acted on.  Here the focus is on what is in the bill - you can read more about what we feel has been left out in the above linked priorities and recommendations.

One of the primary positive aspects of this bill, and a recommendation of our coalition and of cultivators directly in committee, is the new allowance for outdoor cultivators to use existing farm buildings for basic production activities such as trimming, drying and storage without having to bring them up to the full spectrum of commercial building codes under Title 20 (Section 12).  This dramatically lessens the need for large capital expenditures for producers by regulating buildings used by outdoor cultivators as farm buildings are typically regulated, and loosens employee limitations for licensees with fewer than the equivalent of 10 full-time employees who are not family members and who do not work more than 26 weeks a year.  

Unfortunately, paired with this gain, is the imposition of regressive language affecting the exemption of outdoor cultivators from most municipal oversight.  After fending off an attempt to entirely remove this exemption, as well as an attempt to remove the application of the rebuttable presumption to nuisance / “right to farm” laws from outdoor cultivators, the bill ultimately allows municipalities some authority to create preferred siting districts for outdoor cultivation with maximum setbacks established for areas within (25') and without (50') those districts, and an automatic setback of 10' for unzoned municipalities (Section 16).  These provisions do not go into effect until January 2025, and in the meantime there is a CCB report being mandated (Section 18), and which our coalition is statutorily required to be consulted in relationship with, which will make recommendations around siting, aspects of agricultural status, municipal authority, scale appropriate regs, etc. to the legislature for 2025.  

Social Equity

There continued to be a discouraging lack of engagement with doing what most states regulated cannabis programs have done - investing in social equity and directly in community needs with portions of the excise tax on an ongoing basis.  The bill, at the very least, continues the legislature’s trend of yearly one-time funding of $500,000.00 from the Cannabis Regulation Fund to the Cannabis Business Development Fund in Section 15 (CBDF - a fund supporting grants and assistance to social equity licensees and applicants which is administered by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development).  And though we were unsuccessful in gaining ongoing funding from the excise tax for either the CBDF or for investment in communities disproportionately or directly harmed by criminalization and enforcement - we were able to influence the commission of a report (Section 15a) related to aspects of this.  The legislation requires the Cannabis Control Board to work in consultation with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, the Vermont Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance (a member of our coalition), the Office of Racial Equity, and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development for the purpose of making recommendations (included in the Cannabis Social Equity Programs report) to the General Assembly about a percentage of the cannabis excise tax which should be appropriated to the Cannabis Business Development Fund. 

Medical

The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare continues to have significant influence over these portions of the bill, and there are strong feelings among some members of the legislature that cannabis is not medicine and should not be treated as such. Despite requesting to provide testimony before this particular committee, our coalition partner the Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance (a member based organization working for the needs of patients, caregivers, and medical professionals around cannabis) was not invited in, nor were patient, caregiver, or local medical stakeholders who specialize in cannabis and work with people in the cannabis community to support its appropriate medicinal use.

The legislation does undertake a significant step in moving away from the centralization of medical cannabis provision by providing the opportunity for licensed cannabis retailers to apply for a medical endorsement (Section 4) which would enable them to serve medical patients and their caregivers.  The Cannabis Control Board is tasked with developing rules for this endorsement related to privacy, delivery, etc.

The medical registration renewal period is extended from one year to three years for patients with chronic pain (Section 8). Ulcerative colitis is added to a list of qualifying medical conditions in the Medical Cannabis Registry (Section 7).  Patients who are under 21 years of age must now have at least a three-month prior relationship with their health care provider, “in the course of which the health care professional has completed a full assessment of the applicant’s medical history and current medical condition, including a personal physical examination” (Section 7). There are identified circumstances in the legislation for when this three month requirement can be waived.

Lastly, the legislation requires the CCB to consult with the Vermont Department of Health, the Vermont Medical Society, the Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance (one of our coalition members), the Cannabis Retailers Association of Vermont, and other interested parties “to assess the efficacy of the Medical Cannabis Program in serving registered and prospective patients” (Section 11). The CCB must provide recommendations for the Medical Cannabis Registry to the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare and the House Committee on Human Services on or before November 15, 2024.

Resources and References

  • See Rural Vermont, other members of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, and community stakeholders testify on H.612 on February 22nd (prior to these changes) in the House Government Operations Committee here (Coalition begins at 1:14, Rural VT at 1:40), and here (more coalition and community member testimony).

  • Rural VT written testimony in Senate Committee on Agriculture on February 8th

  • VT Cannabis Equity Coalition’s broad priorities and specific recommended amendments

Accessory On-Farm Businesses

In Section 17 and 18 of H.687 you can find all the changes to accessory on-farm businesses (AOFBs) law that passed this session (starting on p. 25). After the bill from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets on AOFB’s died in the House Committee on Energy and the Environment (H.128), lawmakers decided to include changes to the Accessory On-Farm Business law in H.687. They clarified that many AOFBs don’t need to undergo Act 250 permitting. However, not included in the clarification have been businesses that do farm events or farm stays. Farms that are creating minor structures for camping, Air B’n’Bs, or likewise will now technically have to go through Act 250 permitting. It is unclear how the new law will affect existing structures that may or may not have been created or improved with a permit for the purpose of functioning as a farm event or rental site.

The second change is also only a gain on the surface, as the definition of AOFBs was changed so that farm stores and other accessory businesses that store, sell, prepare, or process qualifying products don’t have to make at least 50% of the revenue from farm products anymore but AOFB’s are allowed to exceed the revenue of the farming operation. It’s now legally possible to make more revenue from an AOFB off-farm products like other farms’ products, merchandise or apparel, bread or baked goods, and be Act 250 exempt.

The grain of salt here is that AOFBs that focus on preparation or processing still need to make 50% of that revenue from products produced on the farm to be Act 250 exempt. This may be interpreted as a disincentive to a farms own diversification and farm scale value-added production as it privileges the sole sale and distribution of other farm products with being Act 250 exempt over improvements a farm could make to facilitate their own value-added production line, let’s say a sandwich shop with the farms’ veggies, which only qualifies for the Act 250 exemption if 50% of the total annual sales come from products produced on the farm. 

Altogether the changes in H.687 related to AOFBs are a mixed bag and we want to encourage you to get in touch with us to express how these changes affect you, what your concerns are and what changes you would like to see. Reach out to info@ruralvermont.org. 

New AOFBs definition, meaning: “activity on a farm, the revenues of which may exceed the revenues of the farming operation, and compromises one or both of the following:

  1. The storage, preparation, processing, and sale of qualifying products, provided that the qualifying products are produced on a farm; the sale of products that name, describe, or promote the farm or accessory on-farm business, including merchandise or apparel that features the farm or accessory on-farm business; or the sale of bread or baked goods. 

  2. Educational, recreational, or social events that feature agricultural practices or qualifying products, or both. Such events may include tours of the farm, farm stays, tastings and meals featuring qualifying products, and classes or exhibits in the preparation, processing, or harvesting of qualifying products. As used in this subdivision, “farm stay” means a paid, overnight guest accommodation on a farm for the purpose of participating in educational, recreational, or social activities on the farm that feature agricultural practices or qualifying products, or both. A farm stay includes the option for guests to participate in such activities.”

New AOFB exemption from Act 250 permitting in 10 V.S.A. § 6081 (t):

“No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on-farm business for the storage or sale of qualifying products or the other eligible enumerated products as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412(11)(A)(i)(I). No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on-farm business for the preparation or processing of qualifying products as defined in 24 V.S.A. 18 § 4412(11)(A)(i)(I), provided that more than 50 percent of the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located. This subsection shall not apply to the construction of improvements related to hosting events or farm stays as part of an accessory on-farm business as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412(11)(A)(i)(II).”

Additional resources

  • If you have questions or need support for your specific business, please contact Julia Scheier at the Vermont Agency for Agriculture, Food and Markets at Julia.Scheier@Vermont.gov. 

Amicus in Land Use Cases

In 2023, Rural Vermont had written an amicus brief during an Act 250 lawsuit related to a farm's accessory on-farm business. As so-called Friends of the Courts amicus briefs lay out an organization's take on the affected law which can give insight into the legislative history and be helpful to the court's judgment. The Environmental Division of Vermont’s Superior Court denied Rural Vermont’s amicus brief stating that Vermont law explicitly wouldn’t allow for them in land use cases. Legislators now fixed this equity issue with H.687.

Based on a member-supported initiative, Rural Vermont has been working with the Vermont Natural Resources Council, attorney Jeffrey Bernstein, and Todd Heyman from Fat Sheep Farm as well as a series of legislators to add a provision to H.687 to clarify the ability to file amicus briefs in land use cases this session. Amicus briefs in land use cases may become more important in the future as climate change, housing needs, migration, and price inflation all spark land use disputes.

Rural Vermont was denied the right to file an “Amicus brief” in early 2023 during a member’s Accessory On-Farm Business case regarding an Act 250 permit. The denial was based on an argument that current Vermont statute wouldn’t allow for amicus briefs in land use cases. Fixing this issue legislatively was part of our 2024 course of action and late in the session, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy amended H. 687 with language that included the desired clarification that allows for amicus briefs in land use cases. You can find the legal language that passed the Senate in Sec. 44 starting on page 31 here.

Land, Capital, and Housing

Long-term secure access to land, capital, and housing are some of the most pressing issues faced in the agricultural community. We’ve been working locally, nationally, and internationally to ensure that U.S. farmland stays in farmers’ hands. As a (board) member of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC), we are advocating in DC for the Farmland for Farmers Act that addresses the alarming rise in corporate farmland grabs by restricting future farmland ownership and leasing by corporate investors. We remain strong in our opposition to carbon markets and recently endorsed a letter by NFFC and the Indigenous Environmental Network opposing International Carbon Trading Schemes. The letter addressed John Podestra, President Biden’s lead negotiator at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and calls out big ag and other polluting industries to establish a global carbon offset market pursuant to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including the statement that: “carbon markets also impact food and agriculture. Carbon credit schemes on farmland have been associated with land grabs (The World 03/08/24; NYT 02/20/24), often benefiting polluters more than farmers [...]. Providing carbon credits for methane digesters incentivizes an increase in herd size resulting in more manure, thereby creating additional emissions along with water and air pollution.”

Our concern extends around discussions of the future of conserved agricultural lands in regard to the State’s goal of conserving 30% of Vermont’s land by 2030 and 50% by 2050. The Agricultural Lands Working Group to Vermont’s Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI or 30x30) was formed to gather information. As a working group participant, numerous experiences throughout this process have caused us concern, particularly around transparency of and accessibility to the process, and the representation of stakeholder input and feedback, particularly the farming community. The VCSI will resume the planning phase in January of 2025, where recommendations to the legislature will be set to specify how to conserve 50% of the Vermont landscape. Those recommendations may or may not need legislative approval, and equitable outcomes will depend on proactive engagement from the Vermont public.

Take Action!

  1. Support this work locally by showing up at the public meeting of the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative on June 27 from 4-7pm (Register here; limited farmer stipends available: request a stipend here). Please listen carefully and ask for recommendations that are equitable and informed by the voices and needs of those who work the lands.

  2. Oppose the development of carbon markets nationally and globally by signing on to this letter from the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the National Family Farm Coalition and Food & Water Watch. 

  3. Finally, please share about this work with your network!

References

  • New! 30x30 list of references here

  • Agricultural Lands Working Group to the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative Final Report here

  • Rural Vermont Issue page on 30x30, including a glossary of terms here

Rural Vermont, White River NRCD and Franklin Grand Isle Farmer Watershed Alliance testimony to the Vermont legislature about Vermont’s 30x30 process (this was one of the most viewed videos of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee during the 2024 session)

 

Section 3: Monitoring Issues

TABLE OF CONTENTS

H. 81 - Right to Repair

H.81 Right to Repair

The bill related to the Fair Repair of Agricultural Equipment underwent some level of poker during the veto override session. After the legislative session had already adjourned and mourning arose about the missing passage of H. 81, the House chose to discuss an amendment of the version of the bill that passed the Senate, instead of concurring and passing the bill. Representative Templeman and members of the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development and the House Committee on Agriculture and Food Resiliency and Forestry presented an amendment on the floor during the June 17 veto session that was adopted by the House. The Senate then got the message from the House in time but didn’t take action as requested to approve their amendment. The Senate’s journal record simply ends with a note about the received message from the House. In other words, the bill died in the Senate with the end of the 2023/2024 biennium in lack of a shared agreement in time. 

The House amendment included:

  • Restoring the private rights of action to hold manufacturers accountable

  • Restoring aspects of the definition of “repair” to allow owner to restore to it’s fully functioning condition

  • Restoring House version of the definition of tools that manufacturers need to make available to equipment owners 

Resources

S.25 - PFAS in cosmetic and menstrual products and in pesticides

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances or other chemicals can cause developmental delays in children, reproductive harm, increased cancer risk and other negative health effects. S. 25 (now Act 131) bans the production, sale or distribution of cosmetic or menstrual products that contain PFAS. The bill was signed into law on May 30, 2024. 

Language around pesticides and PFAS passed in Act 131 that charges the Agency of Natural Resources to consult with the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to propose a program that would require the State to identify and restrict the sale and distribution of “consumer products” containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including restricted and non-restricted pesticides that may contain PFAS. We will be curious to see if agencies will use this charge to reconsider how pesticides are regulated or whether their consideration will be narrowly focussed on those pesticides that also contain PFAS. 

In the meantime, our friends from the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners organization challenged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with a potential lawsuit for their failure to regulate PFAS in sludge under the Clean Water Act. Farmers in Maine and across the country have been affected by the legacy contamination of sludge spreadings that include PFAS. Maine is leading the charge to better regulate PFAS in sludge and consumer products as well and has set up a PFAS Emergency Relief Fund and more. 

Relevant websites and articles:

Act 177 - Right to Unionize Yes, but not for Farmworkers

The Governor allowed the VT Protect the Right to Organize (VT Pro Act or S.102) to become law (Act 177 of 2024) without his signature. Act 177 makes it easier for many employees to organize labor unions but lawmakers scrapped farmworkers last minute from the bill. Thereby lawmakers failed to side with CT, ME, MN, NJ, NY and OR and fix in State law the continued exclusion of farmworkers from the protections of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) of 1935 which forbids employers from firing workers for joining, organizing or supporting a union.

Governor Scott emphasized his position that farmworkers should not have collective bargaining rights in his letter: “S. 102 is a slippery slope to future disruptions in the employee-employer relationship in agriculture [...].” A study will examine how existing labor laws apply to agricultural workers or need to be changed. Rural Vermont had worked with the Vermont State Labor Council on endorsing the bill that was also endorsed by Migrant Justice to the House Committee on General and Housing in testimony when it still included farmworkers as the beneficiaries of the bill. 

In the meantime, PR. 3  would amend the Constitution of the State of Vermont to provide that the employees in the State have the right to collectively bargain. It's positive that farmworkers are not specifically mentioned in the constitutional amendment. By instead including farmworkers under the term “employee”, they are not specifically excluded like in federal law.  

The procedure to amend the Vermont constitution is in Section 72 of Chapter II of the constitution which allows for such amendments to be introduced only every fourth year during the second year of the biennium. Even though PR. 3 is now passed by the House and Senate (Senate Journal 4/30/24) both chambers will have to approve the constitutional amendment again in the second year of the next biennium. The constitutional process then also requires the people of Vermont to ratify the amendment directly with a majority of votes. 

References

H. 687 - Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Through Land Use

The 2024 veto session started with the House’s override of the Governor’s veto on H.687, one of the main housing bills this session. Governor Scott had previously reasoned his veto (p. 6443 of House veto session calendar) stating that the bill didn’t do enough to address the affordability of housing and that it instead would slow down current development efforts through Act 250 expansions. The chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, Representative Durfee, and the Chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, Representative Sheldon, voted against the veto override. The result of the House veto override was 107 yays (97 was the ⅔ majority of the 145 members present) and a total of 38 nays. In the Senate, the veto was also overridden with 21 yays and 8 nays (20 being the ⅔ majority).

H. 687 will now become the law and is an effort to compromise housing needs with the goal of protecting environmental integrity. It addresses housing needs, flood recovery, and conservation goals in one piece of legislation and focuses on significant reforms to Vermont’s conservation law, Act 250.  It eases the rules for new housing development in development centers and lays a foundation to protect ecologically sensitive areas from development through barriers to development. Plans with actual delineations will be part of future mapping and rulemaking efforts with public participation. 

To ease development efforts now, the legislation includes interim exemptions from Act 250 to develop up to 50 new units for 24 designated downtown areas and dozens of village centers. These new measures set a new planning framework for less Act 250 regulation in areas that meet conditions for housing development.

Furthermore, the legislation includes increases to Vermont’s property transfer taxes for properties over $750,000 and for second homes paired with a modest tax break for owner-occupied homes. Flood assistance for newly constructed and rehabbed homes included a property valuation freeze for those affected by the 2023 flood events. 

Given the democratic shortfalls of information-gathering processes, like Vermont’s 30x30 process, it is possible that the legislative process and planning processes with true public engagement (like Act 250) could be seen as more democratic ways of negotiating and mitigating land use needs in a way that respects the rights of rural communities and its people. 

Relevant articles:

S. 213 - Flood Safety Act

The Flood Safety Act is about the development in river corridors which will undergo a new state permitting system with S. 213 (now Act 121). The Governor allowed S. 213 to become law without his signature and commented on his decision in a letter. The findings of this legislation point to a statistic from the Department of Environmental Conservation that 80% of all flood-related damages occur in river corridors and affect the valleys where people, infrastructure and agriculture are concentrated.

Act 121 establishes a policy that wetlands will be regulated and managed to produce a net gain of their acreage to protect existing wetlands and to restore wetlands that were previously adversely affected. Projects with a larger than 5,000 square feet of adverse effects that cannot be avoided will require a permit that either restores, enhances or creates wetlands or buffers to compensate for the adverse effects on the wetland (Section 15). 

The Act also requires creating a statewide Mapped River Corridor rule and base map to identify areas suitable for development within existing settlements. The Act requires outreach and education to collect input from the public, including recommendations for changes to the proposed rule  (Section 3). The act includes a section on setting flood hazard area standards needed to reduce flood risks through new development with a goal to prevent adverse impacts to adjacent pre-existing development.

The legislation also includes changes to Act 250 for this purpose in multiple sections, including the new definition of “mapped river corridors” (Section 4). 

Relevant articles:

Act 141 - Senate Miscellaneous Agriculture Bill

The Senate’s miscellaneous agriculture bill, S.301 (now Act 141) was signed into law and adds rodenticides to the list of restricted use pesticides that contain brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone.

It adds farmworker housing and farmer housing to the definition of farm ownership loan criteria at the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program and thus might improve financing in those areas. 

The bill also strikes a requirement in Chapter 85 of 6 V.S.A. that requires the secretary to consult with the Agricultural Innovation Board in addition to the Agency of Natural Resources when designating acceptable pest control products. 

H. 877 - House Miscellaneous Agriculture Bill

H.877 (now Act 160) is making various minor changes to agricultural statutes.  It changes the eligibility requirements for the agency's Farm Agronomic Practices Program to include agricultural service providers and agricultural nonprofit organizations who may now receive funding under the program for related education, training, or instruction activities. 

The second section affects rules for weights and measures that will now explicitly need to adopt national standards for evaluation as uniform regulation. 

A couple of sections thereafter allow the use of online tests to license pesticide applicators. Similarly, an update to the definition of “distribution” makes sure that online sales of fertilizers, limes, biostimulants, plant or soil amendments are captured in the laws and regulations on pesticides.

The act also adds ordinances to control livestock running at large to the police powers of municipalities explicitly. The act now defines “livestock running at large” in law as: “any livestock found or being on any public land or public way, or land belonging to a person other than the owner of the livestock, without the landowner’s permission.” Furthermore, the new law raises the minimum fine for animals running at large to $50 per animal. That’s more than a 160% increase from previously $2-3 per animal. The fee per animal is capped at $100/animal.

Finally, the act updates Vermont’s Hemp regulations to distinguish hemp from cannabis products. Thereafter hemp is not a regulated cannabis product under the CCB’s rule and is not allowed to contain more than 0.3 percent total tetrahydrocannabinol on a dry-weight basis.   There’s also a section to clarify that outdoor cannabis cultivation does not occur in public buildings. 

H.877 was signed into law and will take effect on July 1, 2024. 

H. 626 - Animal Welfare Bill

H.626 establishes a new Division of Animal Welfare at the Department of Public Safety to develop, implement, and administer a centralized program for investigating and enforcing animal welfare requirements on and off farms in the State. The Commissioner of Public Safety will appoint a new Director of Animal Welfare who will develop a comprehensive plan that will also recommend changes to best management standards for the operation of animal shelters and animal rescue organizations. In addition, the plan is going to recommend standards for the importation or transportation of animals into the State. Advocates from the Humane Society, the American Kennel Club and other organizations hope that H.626 will resolve the current shortcomings of the fragmented system so people will know better who to call about animal cruelty cases so that they can be dealt with in a more timely and effective manner. 

More information

H. 614 - Land Improvement Fraud

H. 614 (Act 153) regarding the unauthorized harvest of timber was signed into law on June 4, 2024. This issue was brought forward by victims of land improvement fraud, who have been actively pursuing their claims at times for decades. In the legislative process, testimony was given about successful court cases that didn’t stop on-the-ground issues in an accountable way. The measures of the bill seek to address enforcement measures to effectively change the operations of violators that have tainted the reputation of the whole industry. 

This new law:

  • Renders “land improvement fraud” a new criminal offense in addition to timber theft

  • Includes increasing fines and jail time for timber theft

  • Adds loggers who have stolen timber to an existing, public, home improvement fraud registry and limit the offenders’ employment opportunities

  • Report to the Legislature in January 2025 about the law’s implementation from the Attorney General’s Office 

Relevant articles and resources

H. 887 - The Yield Bill

H. 887 is called the “Yield Bill” and includes a hefty property tax increase this year hitting about 13%; causing distress in communities' ability to afford living in Vermont. The Governor had vetoed the bill and the House (103 yays to 42 nays) and Senate (22 yays to 7 nays) each successfully did override the veto on June 17, 2024. 

A one-time budget surplus of $25M had been used to buy down the property tax hike that originally was projected to be an increase closer to 20%. Changes in how Vermont’s education system is financed will be explored by a study committee over the summer to avoid similar tax hikes in future years. Among the new taxes that will raise revenue are a 3% additional tax on short-term rentals and new taxes on sales of software apps that were previously exempt.

The budget includes a continuance of the pandemic-era emergency motel housing program with $44M in funds and with new eligibility requirements that cap rooms for emergency housing in the summer months and lift the cap on rooms for the winter. 

Relevant articles and resources

H. 883 - The Big Bill includes Food Access Program Funding

In contrast to the “Yield bill,” the “Big Bill” meaning the state’s fiscal year 2025 budget in H.883 (now Act 113), was actually signed into law by the Governor who appreciated that the budget “meets the needs of Vermonters without adding to their tax burden.”  

It includes a $240,000 grant and additional $60K in contingent appropriation for NOFA-VT to continue the Crop Cash, Crop Cash Plus and Farm Share programs. It also includes grants over $100K to each of the 14 Natural Resources Conservation Districts for their locally led work to support conservation practice. 

Relevant flood and natural disaster mitigation funding include $12.5M to match FEMA grants; 1M for local grants to address economic damage and $3.5M for the Community Resilience and Disaster Mitigation Fund for structure elevation grants. The budget also appropriates $1.3M to the Vermont Foodbank. 

The Big Bill also includes a $30M appropriation to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board to invest in affordable mixed-income rental and homeownership housing units, including emergency and homeless shelters and housing available to farm workers, refugees and for eligible community based housing services. 

As far as we can tell, these budget appropriations do not include any additional/ new/ specific appropriations for supporting farms or agriculture beyond what the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) is receiving. Thereof, about half is going to farms as grants: $26,454,498 of $54,574,099. 

In recent years, orchards, vineyards/grapes and other fruit producers got awarded over $4M in grants, mostly through one-time grant funding at VAAFM. In testimony, VAAFM stated to the legislature that they didn’t include specific emergency funds for fruit tree farmers in their FY25 budget. The fruit and apple industry experienced about $11M in revenue losses in calendar year 2023 and production losses up to 99% due to late frost conditions. 

The House discussed a bill that would have allocated $10M from the FY25 budget for this purpose but VAAFM staff testified that “this program is not in our budget and we don’t have any unobligated funds to redirect to support this effort.” H.813 later died in the House Committee on Appropriations. Together, the apple and cider industry make between $18 and $30 million dollars revenue, making apples the second-largest specialty crop behind maple syrup according to UVM Extension (read more on Vermont Public). 

Governor Scott didn’t mention fruit producers and their extreme losses in his 2024 State of the State Address from, January 4, 2024; neither did he consider agriculture once in his speech (keyword search terms like “fruit”, “frost”,”farms” or “agriculture”). 

Altogether the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Market budget is comprised as follows:

  • $3,404,743 for administration (Sec. B222)

  • $9,129,474 for food safety and consumer protection (Sec. B223)

  • $20,307,512 for agricultural development (Sec. B224) 

    • includes $15,307,498 earmarked for grants 

  • $2,763,640 for agricultural resource management and environmental stewardship (Sec. B225)

  • $3,261,516 for the Vermont Agriculture and Environmental Law (Sec. B225.1)

  • $15,708,214 for Clean Water (Sec. B.225.2)

    • includes $11,147,000 earmarked for grants 

Relevant resources

Act 122 - Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act

Vermont passed a relevant “first state in the nation”  climate mitigation legislation: Vermont’s Climate Superfund Act. Spearheaded by VPIRG, Act 122 creates a new major funding mechanism and policy in which polluting industries pay into a superfund that is being used for climate mitigation efforts. S. 259 (Act 122) became law without the Governor's signature (read Governor Scott’s letter here). 

Through a mechanism modeled after the federal superfund law, the world’s biggest oil companies will be held jointly liable for a share of the costs of climate change adaptation as a payment for damages that their products caused in Vermont through climate change. The cost of this liability will be calculated by the State Treasurer based on relevant costs to the State of Vermont and its residents for the emission of covered greenhouse gas emissions that occurred between 1995 and 2024. The calculation of incurred costs to the state can be derived from various cost-driving effects on housing, public health, natural resources, biodiversity, agriculture, flood preparedness, and more. 

This climate mitigation effort could gain significance for climate related financial support needs in agriculture in upcoming years. Specifically, the act includes in its definition of climate adaptation projects: [...] “and responding to toxic algae blooms, loss of agricultural topsoil, crop loss, and other climate-driven ecosystem threats to forests, farms, fisheries, and food systems.” 

The new fund will be administered by the Agency of Natural Resources. The agency is tasked to go through rulemaking by January 2026 and to engage the public in areas and communities that have the most significant exposure to the impacts of climate change, including disadvantaged, low-income, and rural communities and areas. In addition, the State Treasurer is tasked with reporting in January 2026 to designated legislative committees on a series of climate change related costs for the State. 

As Vermont is taking a brave step forward towards Making Big Oil Pay, the Governor is worried deep oil pockets will take this to court and harm Vermont with expensive litigation costs. 

References

H.875 - Establishes a Municipal Code of Ethics

This new law establishes a consistent code of ethics for municipalities so that it would apply to local officials such as selectboard members, planning commissioners, town clerks and others working on the municipal level statewide. The new code of ethics sets baseline standards (which cities, towns and villages may exceed) on what constitutes conflicts of interest, preferential treatment, gifts and other issues of such kind. The measures also require county sheriffs and other officials to disclose their financials while in office or campaigning. State-level officials will be required to disclose any stocks they hold in addition to what’s already been required of them to disclose.

The State Ethics Commission is tasked to provide more guidance to municipalities that receive complaints but will not be responsible for dealing with complaints or enforcing the code of ethics. The legislation leaves it up to municipalities to be the first resort to define how to resolve such conflicts. However, alleged violations of state officials can be brought to the State Ethics Commission that would be able to investigate, issue warnings and penalties. Governor Scott allowed this legislation to become law without his signature. 

Relevant articles

Act 133 - Updates to Public Meeting Laws

This legislation reverses the policy that was enacted during the pandemic to allow public bodies to convene only online. The new policy sets a hybrid format for public meetings such as school board or select board meetings as the standard to allow for online and in-person participation. This will also affect some state-level bodies, including the Green Mountain Care Board and the Cannabis Control Board. Meetings must also be recorded and the recordings must be made available online for at least 30 days. All online meetings can still be an option for some local bodies such as park commissions or when there’s a local incident. The term “local incident” is defined in the new law and includes dangerous weather, a power outage, a public health emergency or a credible threat to meeting participants’ physical safety. 

Relevant articles

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 05.22.24

Cannabis / H.612: Piecing Together the Results

As of this writing, there is no final version of H.612 posted online at the legislative website, so we are piecing things together from our understanding of what occurred.  

Outdoor cultivators will retain their agricultural nuisance status (the “rebuttable presumption”) and gain a similar status as farms for structures used in production related to fire and building code and employee limitations.  However, beginning in January 2025 municipalities will be able to create preferred siting districts for outdoor cultivation, limited to a maximum of 25’ setbacks within the preferred zone, and 50’ outside of the preferred zone.  The Cannabis Control Board has been tasked with authoring a report of recommendations for the legislature for 2025 related to outdoor cultivation, siting, agricultural status, municipal authority, etc.  Our coalition has been named in the legislation as a stakeholder which the CCB must consult with in its report process.  

We hope that another $500,000 has been allotted to the Cannabis Development Fund (social equity funding within the cannabis economy), and that there is also a report required by the Cannabis Control Board related to how much of VT’s excise tax should be allotted towards the Cannabis Development Fund (and ideally, as we’ve been advocating, greater investment towards repairative work at the community level).  A number of organizations are required to be consulted with, including our coalition member the VT Racial Justice Alliance, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, and more.

This bill reaches into a number of other areas as well, and our coalition will offer a comprehensive update when we have the final text.

Neonics / H.706:  Gubernatorial Veto 

Governor Scott has vetoed H.706 - the legislation significantly limiting the use of and exposure to neonicotinoids. We are hopeful that there are enough votes in the House and Senate to override the veto - this was a very popular bill in the statehouse and across Vermont.  In preparation for the veto override session over the next few weeks, we’ll be encouraging folks to reach out to their representatives to express their support for this bill.

H.687 allows for Friends of the Courts in Land Use Cases

With climate change, an influx in lawsuits with a focus on land use can be expected. When land use disputes go to court it can be helpful for the courts to hear from advocacy groups about the laws and policies they affected through their advocacy that are subject to the litigation (so called amicus briefs or “friends of the court”). 

Rural Vermont was denied the right to file an “Amicus brief” in early 2023 during a member’s Accessory On-Farm Business case regarding an Act 250 permit. The denial was based on an argument that current Vermont statute wouldn’t allow for amicus briefs in land use cases. Fixing this issue legislatively was part of our 2024 course of action and we’ve been working with the Vermont Natural Resources Council, our attorney Jeffrey Bernstein, and Todd Heyman from Fat Sheep Farm as well as a series of legislators to add a provision to clarify the ability to file amicus briefs in land use cases within pending legislation this session.

Status update: Last week, the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy amended the biodiversity/ land use bill, also called big housing bill, H. 687, with language that included the desired clarification that allows for amicus briefs in land use cases. You can find the legal language that passed the Senate in Sec. 44 starting on page 31 here.

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 04.30.24

Table of Contents

FULL 04.30.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING (24 minutes)
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)

SPECIAL

Long-time Senate Ag Chair Senator Bobby Starr is Retiring 

Senator Bobby Starr officially announced his retirement after serving for 46 years in the Vermont Legislature. At 81 years old, Bobby chairs the committee on agriculture primarily with humor and patience. Still today he shows an incredible ability to steer his committee through hours of hearings and discussion without shying away from raising his voice to stress new directions that better balance the needs of those affected on the ground. His humor and charm will be missed and memorized long into the future as one of the most outstanding politicians from the Northeast Kingdom, who made it into the Agricultural Hall of Fame in 2022, will pass on the chair position in the Senate Committee on Agriculture. 

Rural Vermont thanks Bobby - you were our Star in an abundance of policy initiatives over the decades where you supported farmer-led initiatives. Though we haven’t always seen eye to eye, many small-scale farmers, consumers, and local economies benefit from more scale-appropriate regulations that were made possible with his support, like selling and marketing raw milk, passing and defending the Vermont on-farm slaughter of livestock law; the allowance for the sales of poultry in parts; the foraging of chickens on compost; the protection of pollinators; GMO labeling; the growth of a hemp industry and the recognition of aspects of agricultural status for outdoor cannabis cultivators in Vermont.  

Thank you Bobby and may you enjoy many relaxing years of visiting diversified farms and eating farm fresh products!


HIGHLIGHTS

H. 603 Poultry Parts signed by the Governor April 25, 2024 *effective immediately

It’s the law! Inspection is not required for the slaughter or preparation of raw poultry products produced on-farm under the 1,000, 5,000, and 20,000 bird exemptions. Now also parted birds can be sold under these exemptions within Vermont, at farmers’ markets and to restaurants, in addition to selling directly from the farm. The processing is limited to raw poultry, of the producer’s own raising, and on the producer’s own premises. It can but doesn’t have to be for use as human food. Read the new Vermont law as passed by the House and Senate here, and read the USDA guidance here. 

By striking the “whole birds only” language from Vermont law and adding the word “raw”, H. 603 allows for the sale of poultry in parts in alignment with the USDA’s guidance on the term “processing.” While parting of birds is now allowed, the new law does restrict what’s permissible under USDA guidance to processing raw poultry products only. The limitation to raw poultry was added by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to the bill in the House to effectively narrow the broad USDA understanding of processing that also includes “canned, salted, stuffed, rendered, or otherwise manufactured or processed.” Within the USDA’s definition of processing poultry, it is our reading of the guidance that processing raw poultry includes poultry that is de-feathered, eviscerated, cut-up, skinned, or deboned. The new law took effect on passage which was marked on Apr 25, 2024, with the Governor's signature.

Please celebrate this new law with us and send us pictures of you with your parted birds and happy customers throughout the year to info@ruralvermont.org.  

H. 706 Pollinator Protection - passed the Senate Floor Vote, back to the House

 H.706 prohibits the sale or use of neonic coatings on corn, soybean, wheat, and cereal seeds by 2029; prohibits outdoor uses that risk significant harm to pollinators by 2025 (flowering crops, ornamental plants); and requires BMPs (best management practices) for permitted uses of neonics.

On Friday, H.706 was overwhelmingly passed on the Senate floor with an amendment bringing the date of implementation for treated seeds back to 2029 from 2031 (aligning with the date of implementation in New York). We anticipate the exemption process being the primary focus of amendments going forward and will provide more details and options for action in the coming days.    

Status Update: Because the bill was amended from the version passed by the House (namely to remove turf grass as a prohibited outdoor use, to tie VT’s treated seed provision to NY’s, and to provide a new exemption process for treated seeds), it will now return to the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Resiliency for consideration of further amendments and/or it will go to a committee of conference including members of the Senate and House in order to determine a compromise.  

Contact Graham@ruralvermont.org if you have questions or comments.

H. 612 Miscellaneous Cannabis - seeking equitable representation and opposing additional municipal oversight and setbacks for outdoor cultivators

ACT NOW!!! SEE RURAL VT’S ACTION ALERT FROM APRIL 23 FOR MORE INFORMATION!

The VT Cannabis Equity Coalition is a coalition of 5 member-based not-for-profit organizations (Rural VT, NOFA VT, VT Racial Justice Alliance, the VT Growers Association, the Green Mtn Patients’ Alliance) collectively representing thousands of constituents of VT lawmakers, individuals in the legacy and regulated cannabis community, farmers, farm workers, medical patients, caregivers, and more.  We have struggled to be heard in committee this session or have our recommendations acted on -and this session we have seen the narratives of independent lobbyists, the largest and most capital-intensive licensees, and a single conflict between one cultivator and one municipality dominate the conversations in committee and consequently what ends up in proposed amendments to H.612.  We need your support and help to amplify our voices.

The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill (H.612) contains changes to existing law which could have a substantial negative impact on outdoor cultivators; and does not contain recommended substantive changes supporting an equitable adult-use marketplace, medical patients and caregivers, and reparative social equity investments which Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have been advocating for for years.  

At this point, our primary focus is removing the regressive language affecting outdoor cultivators in Sections 16 and 17 of the bill.  This section proposes restricting outdoor siting by local select boards by enabling local municipalities to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The setback is a maximum of 100 ft if outside the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 10 ft minimum if there is no zoning. This language was developed without any research about potential impacts on, or input from, the community of cultivators it would directly affect. It is regressive in the sense that it directly opposes original legislative language protecting the smallest scale of outdoor cultivation from municipal oversight, and legislative changes made last year (based on our advocacy) which were made as a result of testimony provided by multiple producers and organizations supporting them related to extreme barriers and prejudice they were facing as a result of municipal oversight.  It directly opposes the intention and trend of treating the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in the same manner as agriculture. This language emerges as a result of one situation brought into the legislature related to a conflict between a single outdoor cultivator, his neighbors, and the municipality in which he resides. If this language goes into effect, the over 200 actively licensed outdoor and mixed-use cultivators in Vermont will be introduced to significant risk and uncertainty which could affect the viability of their businesses, and aspects of the entire marketplace.  

The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process that directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law. Dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change.

We have included language and concepts in our recommendations this year that we have now been advocating for years:  from foundational investments in Social Equity and Community Reinvestment, to direct markets for small cultivators and manufacturers, to patient and caregiver-centered medical reforms, to public consumption and further expungement.  We now have an adult-use and medical program in which there is no ongoing investment from the Cannabis Excise Tax in social equity and repair (unlike most other states, given the racialized criminalization of cannabis and its enforcement), in which the very cultivators of the plants and manufacturers of the products are not able to directly sell their products to the public and must go through middlemen (concentrating market power in the hands of retailer licensees), and in which the consumption laws essentially only allow legal consumption for people who own their own land and/or homes.  It is past time to make changes like these and to create a truly equitable cannabis economy in VT.

S. 102 The Vermont Pro Act - possible Committee vote 4/30

The VT Protect the Right to Organize "PRO" Act (S.102) would balance power in the workplace and make it easier for marginalized workers to form a union.

S.102 would improve worker protections for organizing by making it easier for workers in the public sector to form unions, expanding collective bargaining rights to agricultural and domestic workers, and protecting workers’ freedom of speech by preventing employers from forcing employees to attend captive audience meetings.

Rural Vermont shared a statement of support on S.102 (here) in the House Committee on General & Housing on Wednesday, April 17 (watch recording here) - you can express your support for farm workers' right to unionize in S.102 by signing on here.

Proposal 3 Right to Unionize, constitutional amendment  - adopted by the House in concurrence

PR. 3  would amend the Constitution of the State of Vermont to provide that the employees in the State have the right to collectively bargain. The procedure to amend the Vermont constitution is in Section 72 of Chapter II of the constitution which allows for such amendments to be introduced only every fourth year during the second year of the biennium. The House voted 129 yays to 8 nays in concurrence with the Senate's proposal of the amendment. Even though PR. 3 is now close to its final version and passed by the House and Senate - both chambers will have to approve the constitutional amendment again in the second year of the next biennium. The constitutional process then also requires the people of Vermont to ratify the amendment directly with a majority of votes. Read more about Proposal 3 on Vermont Digger here. 

The Senate Committee on Agriculture took more testimony on the Right to Repair bill and discussed feedback from the House on their proposed changes to the bill. At last week's hearing, Senators showed some confidence in their edits while acknowledging that they continue to work on many remaining open questions. You can still express your support for the passage of this bill by reaching out to the committee members - more info in this action alert.

Legislative hearing on 30x30 - House Agriculture Committee listens to stakeholders about tokenization and procedural shortcomings

The inventory phase of Vermont’s 30x30 process has concluded. Rural Vermont was a member of the Agricultural Working Group in this process. Only in the final meeting were concepts like Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) based on metrics of soil health introduced to the group to justify the inclusion of agriculture in this process under Act 59 (2023). Rural Vermont is disappointed that feedback and proposals from the Small Farmer Cohort group who worked closely on PES were not adequately discussed or taken into consideration by the 30x30 Working Group, including opposition to some of the frameworks currently being discussed about 30x30. The final “Report” offered by VHCB and other facilitators of the group does not represent the full context of the conversations had in the group - in particular conversations in opposition to the preferred direction of the leaders of the group - and even expands the use of language related to PES that was never discussed by the group, and openly opposed by some members. 

Rural Vermont, alongside the Franklin Isle Farmer Watershed Alliance and the White River Conservation District, submitted statements to voice these and other shortcomings of the undemocratic Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) process, as well as in testimony to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry.  Rural VT withheld its signature from the final Report.

Read the Final Report of the Agricultural Lands Working Group For the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative here

Read Rural Vermont’s testimony here

Read Franklin Grand Isle Farmer Watershed Alliance testimony (attached in ALWG final report)

Read White River Conservation District testimony here

Read Stephen Leslie testimony here

Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) Public Roundtable on Draft Inventory Report
Join on Zoom on June 27th at 4pm-7pm - Register Below

Join the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board for a virtual public meeting to review the draft Conservation Inventory. This will be a culmination of all work to date: a data inventory of existing conservation, working group reports, and stakeholder input through surveys, focus groups, interviews, and roundtables. 

This will be a great opportunity to review the inventory and share your thoughts and perspective. If you are unable to make it, a recording and notes will be available after the meeting and a feedback form will be available. We look forward to seeing you there. Register here!


STATUS UPDATES

H. 721 Expanding Access to Medicaid and Dr. Dynasaur - Senate Health and Welfare

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] H. 721 would expand the eligibility to these healthcare programs for low-income Vermonters.

Status update: This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.

H. 614 Land improvement fraud and timber trespass

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] H.614 seeks to codify the crime of land improvement fraud, including fraud of forestry operations. It proposes to require offenders to submit a surety bond or letter of credit with the Attorney General if they knowingly commit multiple violations of timber trespass or are subject to unpaid civil judgments of the same type. Finally, it would make equipment used in land improvement fraud subject to seizure and forfeiture.

Status update: This bill is on the notice calendar in the Senate and will be up for a second reading on the floor 5/1.

H. 877 House miscellaneous ag bill 

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] H.877 proposes to make various changes to agricultural statutes, including amendments to eligibility requirements for the Agency’s Farm Agronomic Practices Program to extend to agricultural service providers and agricultural nonprofit organizations; the adoption of national standards for weights and measures; the adoption of an online testing option for the licensing of pesticide applicators in the state; and the inclusion of language relating to online vending of fertilizers, limes, biostimulants, etc.

Status update: H. 877 is currently in the Senate Committee on Agriculture with a possible vote scheduled for 4/30

S. 301 Senate miscellaneous ag bill

Description: [From 03.06.2024 legislative update] S.301 proposed to make changes to various agricultural statutes. A majority of the changes were designed to conform to new standards of writing, including gender-neutral language and the elimination of “would” before verbs. The bill also included suggestions to strike the requirement in Chapter 85 of the Agricultural statutes that requires the secretary to consult with the Ag. Innovation Board in addition to the Agency of Natural Resources when designating acceptable pest control products. The bill also proposed to modify the Agricultural Credit Program to allow for the assistance of non-resident farmers.

Status update: possible vote in  House Committee on Ways and Means on 4/30

S.213 River corridor land use

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] Up to 70 to 80% of flood-related damages occur in river valleys. S.213 proposes to establish as State policy that wetlands be regulated and managed to produce a net gain of their acreage to protect existing wetlands and to restore wetlands that were previously adversely affected. Projects with a larger than 5,000 square feet of adverse effects that cannot be avoided will require a permit that either restores, enhances, or creates wetlands or buffers to compensate for the adverse effects on the wetland. The bill also requires updates to certain wetlands rules (which will incorporate the net gain rule into permitting requirements), inventory maps, and an amendment to the Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule to better conform with environmental best practices when issuing development permits within a flood hazard area or a mapped river corridor in the State. The Department of Environmental Conservation is charged with doing outreach and education involving anyone affected by these projected changes and gathering input on the new requirements for permitting requirements within river corridors that will be developed. The bill also proposes amendments to the Dam Safety Revolving Fund to provide loans for funding dam repair. 

Status update: possible vote in House Committee on Appropriations on 4/30

H.687 Community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use

Description: This bill seeks to reform the name, functioning, and composition of the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to review appeals to Act 250 permitting in the future as the Environmental Review Board. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would then accept the Board’s findings unless clearly faulty. The new board would retain the current duties of the NRB and also review applications of the planned growth area designations, and review future land use maps or regional plans - including those that establish rural and working lands areas.

Status update: referred to Senate Committee on Appropriations 4/30

S. 25 Relating to regulating PFAS in cosmetic, menstrual products, textiles, athletic turf fields and more

Description: A bill that would ban the production, sale, or distribution of cosmetic and menstrual products made with PFAS passed the Senate last year and made its entire way through the House only in the month of April: S. 25 would regulate the use in cosmetic, menstrual products, textiles and other consumer products, athletic turf and firefighting agents. Read more about S. 25 here.  

Status update:  S.25 has moved through both chambers and is now in its final stages. The Senate is scheduled to vote today, April 30, on the House proposal of amendment. 

H.626 Animal Welfare

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] This bill proposes to establish a new Division of Animal Welfare at the Department of Public Safety to develop, implement, and administer a centralized program for investigating and enforcing animal welfare requirements on and off farms in the State. The bill would also amend or establish best management standards for the operation of animal shelters and animal rescue organizations. In addition, the bill would amend or establish requirements for the importation or transportation of animals into the State.

Status update: the Senate Committee on Government Operations is taking testimony 4/30.

H. 128 Accessory On-Farm Businesses

Description: [From 04.02.24 legislative update] H.128 clarifies definitions related to "accessory on-farm businesses" and exempts those businesses, as well as small forest products manufacturers, from needing an Act 250 permit. 

Status update: The bill, H. 128, died in the House Committee on Environment and Energy. Senator Bray, chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy is now proposing an amendment to include some of its language in H. 687. Specifically changes to the definition of Accessory On-Farm Businesses and the clarification that improvements to AOFBs are exempt from Act 250 permitting.

H. 883 Budget, funding for Food Access Programs

Description:  [From 04.02.24 legislative update] NOFA-VT is seeking an appropriation of $478,500 in base funding in FY25 to support two local food access programs, Crop Cash (Plus) and Farm Share, that enhance food security while supporting farm viability. 

Status update: The Senate passed its version of H.883 on 4/24/24 - the next step will be a conference committee to negotiate both versions of the budget. 

Final note: the legislature is currently scheduled to adjourn Thursday, May 9th, 2024.

Rural Vermont
Legislative Update 04.08.24

In this legislative summary, we are sharing the latest status updates on the bills we’ve been reporting on so far and introducing you to additional bills that are relevant to the agricultural community. Those include legislative priorities of the migrant farmworker community, the Senate’s river corridor legislation, and a couple of bills from the House related to financial assistance to the forestry sector, land improvement fraud, and miscellaneous agricultural subjects. 

Table of Contents

FULL 04.08.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING (16 minutes)
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)

RURAL VERMONT PRIORITIES

H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides

NEW RELEVANT BILLS

H. 219 The Vermont Pro Act

STATUS UPDATES ON BILLS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ON

H.81 An act relating to fair repair of agricultural equipment

Rural Vermont Priorities

H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Modeled after legislation that passed in New York last year, H.706 would prohibit the use of field crop seeds (corn, soy, wheat, and cereal) treated with neonicotinoids ("neonics") starting in 2029; restrict outdoor uses of neonics that are harmful to pollinators; and require best management practices for allowed neonicotinoid uses.

Status: H.706 has been passed by the House and the Senate Committee on Agriculture started to hear from Representatives who sponsored and reported the bill in the House.  There will be substantial testimony on this bill in the Senate Committee on Agriculture over the next number of weeks, including testimony from Rural VT.

Please see our current ACTION ALERT here…

H.603 Selling Uninspected Parted Poultry

This bill proposes to allow for the sale of poultry in parts and would boost direct-to-consumer margins and sales. Vermont statute limits the marketability of uninspected poultry to whole birds only. The Poultry Map and Chart of the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund shows what’s legal state by state regarding on-farm processing of poultry without inspection. It shows that many states allow for the sale of uninspected poultry in parts in alignment with standing USDA Guidance. H.603 passed the House and the Senate Committee on Agriculture received good farmer testimonials in favor of the bill but also recommendations from larger producers who are under inspection to advance the higher tiers of the exemption with more safety requirements. 

Status: After discussing multiple options for changing the language of the bill, the Committee voted on Friday, April 5th, unanimously in favor of the bill as passed by the House.

H.612 Cannabis

H. 612  is the miscellaneous cannabis bill and H. 549 is a bill around outdoor cannabis production. The Cannabis Equity Coalition is continuing to advocate for a number of changes to existing law, and to this bill; including: advocating funding to fund the funding of racial and social equity initiatives and investments directly with money from the cannabis excise tax, and to change how the Cannabis Development Fund is administered and how that relates to ag, land, housing, and food; the need to address fundamental aspects of market equity for producers and manufacturers, including related to direct sales of plants, seeds, and the products they produce; and a number of ways in which the committee could work to further institutionalize outdoor cultivation as agriculture in VT in order to support producers and address substantial barriers.  In particular, H.612 currently carries regressive language related to municipal regulation of outdoor cultivators and required setbacks.
Status: H.612 passed the House and has been referred to the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs.

New Relevant Bills

H. 219 The Vermont Pro Act

H. 219 is related to miscellaneous employee and collective bargaining rights. This bill would allow farm workers the right to unionize. This is a priority bill for the migrant farmworker led advocacy organization Migrant Justice and could include the request to define immigration status as a protected class and explicitly add “actual or perceived citizenship” to the listed protected classes of the Vermont Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. The amended statute would say the following: “An owner or operator of a place of public accommodation or an agent or employee of such owner or operator shall not, because of the race, creed, color, national origin, actual or perceived citizenship and immigration status, marital status, sex, sexual orientation,or gender identity of any person, refuse, withhold from, or deny to that person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of the place of public accommodation.”

Status: This bill has not seen any committee activity since its introduction last year. In solidarity with this effort, Rural Vermont and Nofa-VT invited advocates from Migrant Justice during Small Farm Action Day to lobby for H. 219 and other priority bills in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry, watch the recording here.

H.721 An act relating to expanding access to medicaid and doctor dynasaur

H. 721 would expand the eligibility to these healthcare programs for low income Vermonters.

Status: This bill passed the House and is now in Senate Health and Welfare.

H.614 An act relating to land improvement fraud and timber trespass

H.614 seeks to codify the crime of land improvement fraud, including fraud of forestry operations. It proposes to require offenders to submit a surety bond or letter of credit with the Attorney General if they knowingly commit multiple violations of timber trespass or are subject to unpaid civil judgements of the same type. Finally, it would make equipment used in land improvement fraud subject to seizure and forfeiture.

Status: This bill passed the House. Early in April the Senate Committee on Agriculture got introduced to the bill.

H.877 An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

H.877 proposes to make various changes to agricultural statues, including amendments to eligibility requirements for the Agency’s Farm Agronomic Practices Program to extend to agricultural service providers and agricultural nonprofit organizations; the adoption of national standards for weights and measures; the adoption of an online testing option for the licensing of pesticide applicators in the state; and the inclusion of language relating to online vending of fertilizers, limes, biostimulants, etc.

Status: The House heard testimony from various experts on February 29th expressing their approval of the bill. The bill passed the House on March 26th and since has been referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture where the committee received a brief overview about the bill two days later. Since then, the Senate committee has not started to work on this bill yet.

S.213 An act relating to the regulation of wetlands, river corridor development, and dam safety

This bill is the Senate's response to the extreme flood events of 2023 and the fact that north eastern States have seen a 60% increase in extreme precipitation events since 1958. Valleys  and the people, infrastructure and agriculture that are concentrated here are the most affected in Vermont. Up to 70 to 80% of flood related damages occur in river valleys. S.213 proposes to establish as State policy that wetlands be regulated and managed to produce a net gain of their acreage to protect existing wetlands and to restore wetlands that were previously adversely affected. Projects with a larger than 5,000 square feet of adverse effects that cannot be avoided will require a permit that either restores, enhances or creates wetlands or buffers to compensate for the adverse effects on the wetland. The bill also requires updates to certain wetlands rules (which will incorporate the net gain rule into permitting requirements), inventory maps, and an amendment to the Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule to better conform with environmental best practices when issuing development permits within a flood hazard area or a mapped river corridor in the State. The Department of Environmental Conservation is charged with doing outreach and education involving anyone affected by these projected changes and to gather input on the new requirements for permitting development within river corridors that will be developed.The bill also proposes amendments to the Dam Safety Revolving Fund to provide loans for funding dam repair. 

Status: The bill has been passed on the Senate floor and has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Environment.

H.624 An act relating to providing financial assistance to the forest economy

H.624 would require the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation to establish and administer the Forest Management and Climate Resilience Grant Program to provide financial assistance to logging contractors in order for them to have enough funds to implement effective water quality protection and climate adaptation practices on harvest sites. Additionally, the bill would require the Commissioner of Forests, Parks and Recreation to begin a study on economic impact and workforce availability focused on professional logging and trucking in the State and a program of free safety training for logging contractors and timber truckers.

Status: The bill has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

STATUS UPDATES ON BILLS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ON

H.81 An act relating to fair repair of agricultural equipment

The House passed H.81 in 2023 (vote 137-2), known as the Right to Repair. It ensures original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) offer for sale or otherwise make available parts, tools, and documentation to independent or authorized repair providers and equipment owners. OEMs must also provide information that’s necessary to unlock or disable a function and to reset a lock or function after the repair is complete. OEMs may also not impose an additional cost or burden that isn’t reasonably necessary on the independent provider or owner, and must offer for sale or provide tools, parts, and documentation at a cost that is fair to both parties and does not discourage repairs by an owner or independent provider. H.81 does not require an OEM to divulge in trade secrets to an owner or independent service provider and does not allow modification of equipment to deactivate a safety notification system or access a function or tool that would take a piece of equipment out of compliance with federal, State, or local safety or emissions law, except as necessary to provide a repair.

Status: Rural Vermont did an action alert on the Right to Repair last week to encourage anyone who would benefit from this legislation to contact Senators on the Agriculture Committee to vote in favor of this bill. Currently that committee stopped considering this legislation through hearings or discussion in the first week of April. In the legislative lingo, a bill that doesn’t get “voted out of committee,”  “dies” which means that it will need to get reintroduced in a new session to go through the whole process again. It is not too late you can still mobilize and endorse this bill - see the action alert here!

S.197 Procurement and distribution of PFAS

Due to adverse health conditions attributed to PFAS, S. 197 this bill would charge an inter agency collaboration to propose a program requiring the State to identify and restrict the sale and distribution of consumer products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that could impact public health and the environment. 

Status: The bill passed the Senate and has been referred to the House Committee on Human Services where they received a walk-through by legislative council and input from the reporting Senator of the bill.

H.626 Animal Welfare

This bill proposes to establish a new Division of Animal Welfare at the Department of Public Safety to develop, implement, and administer a centralized program for investigating and enforcing animal welfare requirements on and off farms in the State. The bill would also amend  or establish best management standards for the operation of animal shelters and animal rescue organizations. In addition, the bill would amend or establish requirements for the importation or transportation of animals into the State.

Status: The bill has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations on March 20th where the bill has not seen any activity yet. Since H.626 did not pass the House in time for the crossover deadline it seems likely that this legislation will not pass this session.

H.128 Accessory On-Farm Businesses

H.128 clarifies definitions related to "accessory on-farm businesses" and exempts those businesses, as well as small forest products manufacturers, from needing an Act 250 permit. 

Status: It has passed out of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee and has been referred to the House Environment & Energy Committee. After the introduction of the bill the committee started to discuss the bill amongst themselves instead of taking testimony. After Representatives Bongartz, Satcowitz and Stebbins favored adding language that would limit the allowed retail space of an AOFB to a square footage number smaller than 1,000 sq ft.; the discussion has   stalled, and no hearings have occurred since. Given that the House Committee on Energy and Environment is not ready to move the bill in time for the crossover deadline it seems unlikely that this bill will pass. 

H.813 Tree Fruit Farmer Assistance Program

H.813 proposes to establish the Tree Fruit Farmer Assistance Program to provide grants to tree fruit farmers who suffered production losses in calendar year 2023 due to freezing or frost conditions. 

Status: The bill has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations but its language has not been voted on and it also hasn’t been adopted into the budget bills H.883 or H.882. The Senate could still add the requested 10M in funds to the budget. 


H.687 Reforming the Natural Resources Board

This bill seeks to reform the name, functioning and composition of the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to review appeals to Act 250 permitting in the future as the Environmental Review Board. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would then accept the Board’s findings unless clearly faulty. The new board would retain current duties of the NRB and also review applications of the planned growth area designations, review future land use maps or regional plans - including those that establish rural and working lands areas.

Status: The bill passed the House and was referred to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy.

NOFA-VT Food Access Program Funding (Budget Request) 

NOFA-VT is seeking an appropriation of $478,500 in base funding in FY25 to support two local food access programs, Crop Cash (Plus) and Farm Share, that enhance food security while supporting farm viability. 

Status: The funding request was included in the House budget w. $450K and the Senate Committee on Agriculture started to hear about the finding request from stakeholders like former Rural Vermont board member Ryan Yoder from Yoder Farm in Danby Vermont. Watch the recording of those presentations on Farm Share and Crop Cash (Plus) here.

Rural Vermont
Small Farm Action Day Recap!

On Thursday, March 14th, Rural Vermont (RV) partnered with NOFA-VT to host our annual "Small Farm Action Day" (SFAD) at the State House in Montpelier. Over the past decade, these annual events have been offering farmers and the broader agrarian community an accessible and  comprehensive introduction to Vermont’s legislative process, helping hundreds of people build the necessary skills and confidence to be effective citizen advocates. We gathered in the Lieutenant Governor's office with the biggest SFAD group in recent memory -- an enthusiastic crowd of farmers and activists who came to learn and exchange about Vermont's biennial legislature. 

After arriving, mingling and dining on cider donuts, RV’s Legislative Director Caroline Gordon refreshed our fading memories of how a bill becomes a law: sponsored by a legislator from either the House or the Senate, bills are introduced and attempt to make their way through a layered process involving committees, amendments, and multiple rounds of reading and voting. Bills that manage to survive through both chambers and onto the Governor’s desk can either be signed into law, vetoed, or allowed to pass without the Governor’s explicit endorsement. 

With this process in mind, NOFA Policy Director Maddie Kempner provided an orientation to the Vermont Legislature’s website, showing how to navigate its numerous features to monitor bills and their associated committees. It became clear that these committees are assigned far more bills than they can reasonably consider– how are bills prioritized? Who decides which proposals are most pressing? The discussion moved into legislative leadership, and the role of lobbyists and advocates to communicate with and educate legislators about background issues to particular bills, and to illustrate the direct impacts their policy decisions will have on their constituents. 

Graham Unangst-Rufenacht, RV’s Policy Director, offered his experience with the power of testimony from affected citizens, and how best to capture legislators’ attention: be brief, direct, and respectful; speak from the heart and tell your story, with the help of a few credible facts to support you; always make a clear and focused ask for their support; and thank them for their service. Graham emphasized that emotions are a welcomed and necessary part of advocacy, but to ensure that anger and personal attacks towards legislators are avoided in favor of genuine (and, often, vulnerable) testimony regarding a particular policy’s ability to impact your life– for better or worse. 

But how to get in the room with them? Emails have their place, as do organizations like NOFA and Rural VT, but never underestimate the power of finding a legislator face-to-face in the State House cafeteria! Former Legislative Page and current RV Intern Sadie Faris explained how to send hand-written notes to legislators, via the Pages and Sergeant at Arms, to request a meeting with them or express support while they’re voting on a bill in the chamber. 

After writing notes to request lunch-time meetings with our representatives, the SFAD group broke into teams and set off on an informative scavenger hunt around the State House, finding important rooms and features of the 160-year old building. Team Carrot (Byron Garcia & RV Board Member Em Virzi) were the first to return, earning some well-deserved swag for their hard-won victory. By late morning, some participants were ready to have their voices heard and joined the Senate Agriculture Committee to offer testimony on bills dealing with a wide array of significant issues: the banning of neonicotinoid pesticides and how their continued usage would decimate already diminished pollinator populations (H.706), the “Right to Repair” and how the current inability to repair one’s own farming equipment has rippling effects across agricultural communities and consumers (H.81), the ability to sell uninspected poultry in parts and the positive impact that can have on small-scale producers to meet market demands (H. 603). Lilah Krugman, Programs and Outreach Coordinator for the Addison County Relocalization Network (ACORN), gave testimony to support funding for local food programs:  “It was really empowering to testify! I feel much more comfortable with navigating the State House.” 

After a break for lunch, more testimony was shared with the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry.Our SFAD group was able to welcome individuals and families from Migrant Justice, a non-profit dedicated to organizing for economic justice and human rights, to share the time and speak to legislators about issues and policies particular to Vermont’s migrant farmworker population. 

We gathered once more in the Lieutenant Governor's office to share our reflections and take-aways from this illuminating day at the State House. Byron Garcia of North Hero shared “"It was wonderful to have this opportunity to observe and learn about the legislative process to be more effective in my actions in the future." The law-making process had been de-mystified, with points of access clearly marked and strategies defined. Participants were encouraged to spread the word and help to build actively engaged communities fluent in the legislative language– growing the pool of citizen advocates willing and able to testify and hold our representatives accountable for decisions that (inevitably) impact us all. Now it's time to get excited for Small Farm Action Day 2025!

By Rural Vermont Communications Intern Melissa MacDonald


Rural Vermont
Cannabis Update 03.15.24

2024 Cannabis Legislation Consolidates into H.612

H.549 - a bill that would have prohibited outdoor cultivation in areas on public sewer or water, and in particular levels of density of population, will likely not progress, but its intent has transitioned into new language in H.612. This language enables local municipalities to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation, and establishes maximum and minimum set back requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The set back is a maximum of 100 ft if outside of the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 25 ft minimum if there is no zoning. Let us know if this affects you as a cultivator, and join our coalition in opposing this and other regressive aspects of H.612.  

See Rural Vermont, other members of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, and community stakeholders testify on H.612 on February 22nd (prior to these changes) in the House Government Operations Committee here (Coalition begins at 1:14, Rural VT at 1:40), and here (more coalition and community member testimony).

Rural Vermontcannabis, Cannabis
Neonics Update 03.15.24

H.706 - prohibiting the use of field crop seeds (corn, soy, wheat, and cereal) treated with neonicotinoids ("neonics") starting in 2029, restricting outdoor uses of neonics that are harmful to pollinators, and requiring best management practices for allowed neonicotinoid uses - will likely be voted out of the House Committee on Appropriations by the end of this week, and on to a vote before the full House during the week of March 18. On February 21st, Rural Vermont offered testimony (beginning minute 38), along with the Champlain Valley Farmers’ Coalition to the House Agriculture Committee. Reach out to your representatives in the House now asking them to support the passage of H.706 on the House floor!

A statewide public opinion survey conducted this month by Data for Progress on behalf of the nonprofit Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG)found nearly universal agreement among Vermonterabout the importance of pollinators such as bees, butterflies, and moths, and deep concern over their declining numbers.

Most significantly, the survey also found 83% of Vermonters in support of “a phaseout of nearly all neonic pesticides in Vermont, with exemptions available in case of emergency.” This language tracks the key elements of the legislation (H.706) that is expected to be taken up by the full House of Representatives this week.

Regarding a possible phaseout of the use of nearly all neonic pesticides in Vermont, there was strong support across the political spectrum.

67% of Republicans favored the phaseout, while 87% of independents, and 88% of Democrats did as well. Overall, 50% of Vermonters strongly supported the idea and another 33% somewhat supported it. Just 11% expressed any opposition to the idea.

More details and information on the polling questions can be found HERE.

Now is the time to contact your reps and help ensure that this bill passes the House Floor vote later this week! We anticipate H.706 reaching the House floor in the next few days. Despite this bill moving favorably thus far through committees - there are indications it may face more resistance on the floor. It is critical that community members, in particular farmers and farmworkers, contact their representatives in the House, urge them to support this bill, and explain why it is important to you that they vote in favor of a just transition away from the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides. You can find more information about this bill as well as sample messaging and instructions HERE!

Rural VermontNeonics
Legislative Update 03.14.24

Table of Contents

FULL 03.14.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING (roughly 6 minutes)
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)

H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides

Modeled after legislation that passed in New York last year, H.706 would prohibit the use of

field crop seeds (corn, soy, wheat, and cereal) treated with neonicotinoids ("neonics") starting in 2029, restrict outdoor uses of neonics that are harmful to pollinators, and require best management practices for allowed neonicotinoid uses. H.706 has passed out of the House Agriculture Committee and is expected to be up for a full House vote by Friday this week.

Status: H.706 was voted on in favor by the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry and was voted on in favor earlier this week by the House Committee on Ways and Means (8-4-0). 

H.603 Selling Uninspected Parted Poultry

Vermont statute limits the marketability of uninspected poultry to whole birds only. The Poultry Map and Chart of the Farm-To-Consumer Legal Defense Fund shows what’s legal state by state regarding on-farm processing of poultry without inspection. It shows that many states allow for the sale of uninspected poultry in parts in alignment with standing USDA Guidance. This bill proposes to allow for the sale of poultry in parts and would boost direct-to-consumer margins and sales. 

Status: H.603 passed the House and hearings in the Senate Committee on Agriculture began.

H.612 & H.549 Cannabis

H. 612  is the miscellaneous cannabis bill and H. 549 is a bill around outdoor cannabis production. The Cannabis Equity Coalition is advocating to address directly funding racial and social equity with money from the cannabis excise tax and how that relates to ag, land, housing, and food; the need to address market equity for producers and manufacturers related to direct sales of plants, seeds, and the products they produce; and a number of ways in which the committee could work to further institutionalize outdoor cultivation as agriculture in VT in order to support producers and address substantial barriers.

Status: H. 612 is still being discussed in the House Committee on Ways and Means and on their agenda for Thursday 9am; H.549 is in the House Committee on Environment and Energy with no hearing scheduled for this week.

S.197 Procurement and distribution of PFAS 

Due to adverse health conditions attributed to PFAS, this bill would charge an inter agency collaboration to propose a program requiring the State to identify and restrict the sale and distribution of consumer products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that could impact public health and the environment. 

Status: Voted unanimously in favor by the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare 3/12


H.626 Animal Welfare

This bill proposes to establish a new Division of Animal Welfare at the Department of Public Safety to develop, implement, and administer a centralized program for investigating and enforcing animal welfare requirements on and off farms in the State. The bill would also amend  or establish best management standards for the operation of animal shelters and animal rescue organizations. In addition, the bill would amend or establish requirements for the importation or transportation of animals into the State.

Status: This bill is up for vote in the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs on Thursday at 2pm.

H.128 Accessory On-Farm Businesses

H.128 clarifies the definition of "accessory on-farm business" and exempts those businesses, as well as small forest products manufacturers, from needing an Act 250 permit. 

Status: It has passed out of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee and has been referred to the House Environment & Energy Committee. It's unclear whether this bill will make the crossover deadline. 


H.813 Tree Fruit Farmer Assistance Program

H.813 proposes to establish the Tree Fruit Farmer Assistance Program to provide grants to tree fruit farmers who suffered production losses in calendar year 2023 due to freezing or frost conditions. 

Status: The bill is currently in the possession of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry Committee and not yet scheduled for a vote in that committee. 

H.687 Reforming the Natural Resources Board

This bill seeks to reform the name, functioning and composition of the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to review appeals to Act 250 permitting in the future as the Environmental Review Board. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would then accept the Board’s findings unless clearly erroneous. The new board would retain current duties of the NRB and also review applications of the planned growth area designations, review future land use maps or regional plans - including those that establish rural and working lands areas.

Status: This bill has been worked on for many years and has gone through multiple revisions this session as well. It’s up for vote in the House Committee on Environment and Energy on Thursday at 1pm.


NOFA-VT Food Access Program Funding (Budget Request) 

NOFA-VT is seeking an appropriation of $478,500 in base funding in FY25 to support two local food access programs, Crop Cash (Plus) and Farm Share, that enhance food security while supporting farm viability. 

Status: The funding request was supported by the House Agriculture Committee and is being considered by the House Appropriations Committee as they draft their version of the FY25 budget.

Rural VermontNeonics, cannabis, OFS
Streamlining “Ecosystem Service” Incentive Programs 

Small Farm Action Day is a collaboration of NOFA-VT and Rural Vermont. This years first event on February 21st focussed on: Vermont and “Payments for Ecosystem Services” - What Structural Reforms are Needed to Advance Functional Ecosystems and Farm Viability? Farmers, service providers, activists, and researchers, were sharing their desires and recommendations for programmatic solutions with lawmakers to better support and incentivize farm and forestry practices to address the climate challenges of our time.

The Small Farmer Cohort around Cat Buxton (that RV is part of) got the opportunity to speak to the past three years working alongside the PES and Soil Health Working Group. Two major successes for the Small Farmer Cohort are a) the final consensus decision towards a pilot program to enhance the Conservation Stewardship Program - similar to what the group recommended in 2021; and b) the final report making clear statements against any efforts to monetize nature. 

The Vermont Agency for Agriculture, Food, and Markets announced that a legislative proposal to codify the Vermont enhancement to CSP is currently being developed as a pilot program with an existing appropriation (Act 185, Sec. B.1100(a)(7)(A)) and will not be proposed to the legislature for codification until 2025. 

In consequence, Small Farm Action Day stressed to legislators not to wait until 2025 but to act on WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW to:

  1. Hear from the PES & Soil Health WG directly, especially from the farmers on the group, about their experiences and takeaways from the WG process.

  2. Address the complex issue of how to improve agricultural programs. Hear more from farmers about their policy recommendations!

  3. Endorse the Conservation Districts request to increase their baseline funding to 3M. 

Each of the presentations was tremendously rich and meaningful, reaching from how current programs already aim to incentivise Ecosystem Services, to revealing “PES” as false solutions that benefit first and foremost Natural Asset Companies (NAC’s), to sharing efforts on farmer led decision making, to sharing farmer perspectives on pre-existing shortfalls and recommendations for improvements, and more! Beyond that, the national and international narrative of what “PES” means was eloquently dismantled by Julie Davenson, Board President NOFA-NH:

“Natural Asset Companies (“NACs”) claim that by valuating these ecosystem services we are able to protect them from further degradation. In reality, they are justifying their attempts to create new markets by commodifying nature in pursuit of endless growth. For over a millennia, indigenous peoples have valued, honored and respected nature without assigning a monetary value to it. Today’s financial systems are built on an endless growth continuum and PES, NACs and Carbon Credits are designed to extract as much wealth as possible from nature.”

Rural Vermont and the Small Farmer Cohort are working towards legislation that would make the various existing “Payment for Ecosystem Programs” work better, especially for small farmers. That includes further exploring the idea to develop a web portal to aggregate various programs, making discovery and application easier for farmers. Improved interface interoperability would also eliminate pre-existing redundancies. 

We hope you feel encouraged to learn more & watch one of the recordings of the event. 

Please do reach out to us & share your thoughts on shortfalls of existing programs; your ideas for addressing them & any thoughts on what you’ve learned about PES, Nature Asset Companies and how farmers would be disadvantaged through market solutions that aim to monetize nature. Share your testimonial with Rural Vermont here. 

Watch the recordings:

  • Testimonials to the Senate Committee on Agriculture: Full Recording here, including Dan Brooks from Wayward Goose Farm about how Beavers are forgotten in Conservation Planning. 

  • Testimonials to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry: Full Recording here

  • Panel Food and Climate: Carbon Market Pitfalls & Better Strategies for Regenerative Organic Practices: Full Recording available here

Written testimonials & handouts: 

  • Mario Machado, Postdoctoral Researcher, Gund Institute, UVM (handout, report)

  • Julie Davenson, President, Board of Directors NOFA-NH (handout)

  • Jennifer Bryne, District Manager, White River Natural Resources Conservation District (report Vermont Farmer Perspectives on Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) Programs: A Summary Report)

  • Cat Buxton, Soil Health Working Group representative, Vermont Healthy Soils Coalition (handout)

  • Stephen Leslie, Owner, Cedar Mountain Farm (handout)

  • Daniel Brooks, Wayward Goose Farm (handout)

  • Abe Collins, Co-Founder, Land Care Cooperative (presentation)

Rural VermontPES
Legislative Update 02.16.24

Table of contents

FULL 02.16.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING (roughly 20 minutes)
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)

Pending Legislation - An Overview of Bills that are Moving & Not

Most notably, H.603 about the sale of uninspected poultry in parts passed the House and is now in the Senate Ag Committee. Other bills we are following closely have made some progress as well:

  • H.612 - A bill related to miscellaneous cannabis amendments; and H.549, a bill around outdoor cannabis production. Both bills had multiple hearings with the House Committee on Government Operations and Military Affairs; and testimony was heard in the Senate Committee on Agriculture related to both bills;

  • H.706 - On banning neonic treated seeds, had several hearings and attention in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry, and got a lot of press this past week.  It will be important for representatives to hear from their constituents about the need to support this bill if it’s going to pass this session.

  • H.128 - Would ensure farms with Accessory On Farm Businesses (AOFB) wouldn’t need to go through Act 250 for any improvements associated with the AOFB and further specifies what constitutes an AOFB.  Specifically, it defines “featuring agricultural practices or qualifying products” as a host farm’s agricultural practices or products being a “substantial” or “integral” component of any educational, recreational, or social event the AOFB hosts. The bill had several hearings in the House Ag Committee but has not had any votes on it yet;

  • H.550 - An act relating to expanding eligibility under the local foods grant program. The House Agriculture Committee has had several hearings;

  • H.614 - Related to land improvement fraud and timber trespass was voted on in favor by the House Committee on Agriculture and is now in the House Committee on Judiciary.

Rural Vermont is also tracking PFAS/PFOS related bills, most of which have not had much legislative action by the Committees on Natural Resources yet. Rural Vermont and the Eco Sanitation Coalition launched a Call to Action in our last newsletter, and activists from the VT PFAS Coalition organized a successful Environmental Advocacy Event in front of the State House (WCAX, ORCA Media, My Champlain Valley) at the beginning of the month. The Senate Committee on Agriculture undertook some educational hearings on the issue (view recording here). Relevant bills are:

  • H.674 An act relating to regulation of septage and other materials containing PFAS/PFOS substances

  • H.163 An act relating to eco-sanitation systems

  • H.164 An act relating to the permitting of low-impact wastewater systems 

  • S.197 An act regarding procurement and distribution of PFAS/ PFOS related adverse health conditions attributed to PFAS/ PFOS

  • S.25 An act related to cosmetic and menstrual products containing PFAS/ PFOS

A few other bills of note that have had some action are H.626, an act relating to animal welfare the House Committee of Government Operations, which has held hearings (more info below), H.540, a bill that would ease the siting of tiny houses, and H.550, an act relating to expanding eligibility under the local foods grant program. In addition, NOFA-VT is seeking an appropriation of $478,500 in the state budget to support Crop Cash (Plus) and Farm Share.

Take Action!

  • View recordings of hearings that interest you on our website here

  • Follow the active bill links to read the language of bills that interest you and be in touch with caroline@ruralvermont.org and cc: info@ruralvermont.org if you have any questions 

  • Reach out to the committee members of the Senate and House Ag Committees directly to comment on pending legislation by email, find all of their contact information below and more info on the legislative website.

House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry

Senate Committee on Agriculture

Neonic Bill Update

There has been significant testimony from a range of stakeholders taken on neonic bills over the last few weeks. The House Committee on Agriculture heard about the impacts neonics have on bees and birds. Some very impactful testimony from Margaret Fowle of Audubon Vermont (a member of the Protect Our Pollinators Coalition) said that if a bird eats a single corn kernel that has been treated with neonics, it can destroy the reproductive system of the bird and could also lead to the bird becoming paralyzed or even die. The House Agriculture Committee heard from a dairy farmer who planted neonic treated corn next to non neonic treated corn to see what the differences are, and found that the non-treated plants grow to be about the same size as the treated plants, though she was unable to track the yield of the separate plants. Studies in VT, NY, and around the world have repeatedly shown minimal differences in yield between treated and untreated plots - and we heard this again from farmers in Quebec who have already transitioned in the Quebec Farmer Panel.  Extensive research from Cornell University has found that corn, soybean, and other seed coatings—the largest source of neonic pollution in Vermont—provide no overall economic benefits to farmers using them; and yet they are applied to more 99.6% of corn seed planted across more than 90,000 acres in VT.  Maddie Kempner of NOFA VT also testified since our last update in support of the bill.  NOFA VT is also a member of the Protect our Pollinators Coalition. The Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition submitted written testimony - supporting the bill if it were to be amended to mimic the neonic bill recently passed in New York.  The committee heard from Steve Collier of the Agency of Agriculture a number of times.  Most recently he expressed the Agency’s opposition to this legislation, conflating a number of unrelated issues with the effort to transition away from neonics, and characterizing the bill as a simple fix to a complex issue.  Rural Vermont will testify on H.706 on Wednesday, February 21st.

You can find all recordings of recent hearings on our website here

Cannabis Update

Rural Vermont and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition were able to bring some of its organizational representatives, and community stakeholders, into the Senate Committee on Agriculture for testimony on February 8th.  Our coalition submitted our priorities, Rural VT submitted written testimony, as did some of the community stakeholders who came with our coalition, such as Myra Adams of Hidden Leaf Homestead.  We focused on the need to address directly funding racial and social equity with money from the cannabis excise tax and how that relates to ag, land, housing, and food; the need to address market equity for producers and manufacturers related to direct sales of plants, seeds, and the products they produce; and a number of ways in which the committee could work to further institutionalize outdoor cultivation as agriculture in VT in order to support producers and address substantial barriers.  Last year, the Senate Agriculture Committee proved helpful in having some of our priorities related to agriculture included in legislation. 

H.612 and H.549 continue to be in the House Government Operations and Military Affairs Committee.  Rep. Suprenant was also invited into committee to review the bill she introduced last session which includes some of our priorities, H.426.  We are working to get into committee as a coalition - along with community stakeholders - in order to address our priorities, and to address other testimony that has been provided.  

It will take representatives hearing from you - their constituents - to have many of our priorities addressed this year.  In particular, issues like having a portion of the excise tax being committed to racial and social repair and community investment, providing direct market access for producers and manufacturers, public consumption, and full expungement will need more vocal popular support.

S.301 - Senate Miscellaneous Agriculture Bill

On January 26, The Senate Committee on Agriculture introduced a new bill: S. 301 - An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects. The bill proposes to make multiple miscellaneous changes to agricultural statutes, including amending the requirements for the Vermont Seeding and Filter Strip Program, licensing requirements for agricultural warehouses and livestock dealers, and eligibility requirements for financial assistance from the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation (VACC). 

Check out the bill language here

H.420 - Regarding Year-Round Agricultural Practices

Introduced and referred to the House Ag Committee last session, H.420 was now talked about in committee for the first time early in February. It proposes that the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets establish a pilot program to provide financial assistance with the aim of establishing year-round agricultural practices across VT. Endorsed by numerous representatives, the bill was presented by Rep. Cina of Chittenden-15. Cina cited local food security, reduced transportation costs involved with transportation of out-of-state food, and future climate resilience as factors which should encourage the committee to consider the bill. In moving forward, he suggested that a focus on climate-adaptive crops and communal production facilities should be considered as possible aspects of the bill.

H.626 - Animal Welfare Bill

This bill proposes to establish a new Division of Animal Welfare at the Department of Public Safety to develop, implement, and administer a centralized program for investigating and enforcing animal welfare requirements on and off farms in the State. The bill would also amend  or establish best management standards for the operation of animal shelters and animal rescue organizations. In addition, the bill would amend or establish requirements for the importation or transportation of animals into the State. Similar legislation has been promoted by the Humane Society, the American Kennel Club and other organizations in the past (more info on VTDigger). Their hope is that H.626 could resolve the current shortcomings of the fragmented system so people would know better who to call about animal cruelty cases so that they can be dealt with in a more timely and effective manner. Its companion bill in the Senate, S. 292 is still “on the wall” and didn’t get any hearings yet in the assigned Senate Committee of Government Operations. Watch the bills first hearing here and this week's large hearing, including compelling youth testimony from Lark Thompson about how difficult it is for citizens to step up for animal welfare here.

H.687 - Related to community resilience and biodiversity protection through land use

H.687 would reform the name, functioning and composition of the Natural Resources Board (NRB) to review appeals to Act 250 permitting in the future as the Environmental Review Board. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would then accept the Board’s findings unless clearly erroneous. The new board would retain current duties of the NRB and also review applications of the planned growth area designations, review future land use maps or regional plans - including those that establish rural and working lands areas. Lawmakers also consider regulating development within critical resource areas, namely flood plains, wetlands, slopes, on bedrock, at high elevation, and a parcel of habitat connector. Critical Resource Areas would also include any amount of prime agricultural soils by definition of this bill. The Director of Policy and Planning (Billy Coster) at the Agency of Natural Resources admitted that the push back for regulating critical resource areas is expected to be much lower than towards regulating the land use of land outside of those areas. Mitigating land use conflicts is the big subject of this discourse. A change in the definition of ‘development’ suggests including the construction of commercial, residential or industrial buildings more than 500 feet from a State or town highway located in a rural and working lands area in the preview of Act 250 review. It would also add the review for construction projects within 25 feet of a critical resource area.

Rural Vermont Comment: This bill is not an alternative to the needed Conservation Plan that is being worked on as the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative from Act 59 (2023). The scarcity of arable land for food production is being recognized more and more and the state is wrestling with balancing all the different public interests at stake. That includes it being a question of what development of the working lands should be allowed in the future, how farmland needs to be protected from development but instead be made available to farmers, food production and enhanced conservation planning and practice. Act 250 permitting the concentric development of downtown centers will affect farmland and so will the expansion of flood zones, wetlands, eroded areas etc. so that a statewide look at what’s at stake is underway. Rural Vermont participates in the 30x30 or VCSI process. Read on for more information on the ongoing Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative process later in this update. 

Recap Flood Recovery Hearing

The Senate Committee on Agriculture met February 6th to discuss flood recovery and relief efforts in the state, particularly focusing on the impact on agriculture. Douglas Farnham, the Chief Recovery Officer, provided updates on the status of recovery efforts, including funds available from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. He highlighted the importance of water system investments, in supporting farmworker housing and mentioned programs aimed at climate resilience for farmers. Discussions also centered around FEMA assistance for hazard mitigation projects, including buyouts and elevations, and the challenges faced by smaller communities in accessing federal programs. The committee explored options for mitigating flood risks while maintaining agricultural landscapes, including land conservation and floodplain restoration. The potential for collaboration with conservation districts to address runoff issues and gravel accumulation in rivers was also discussed. Members expressed concerns about the limitations of FEMA assistance and the need to address debris removal in rivers. They also highlighted the importance of considering traditional approaches like dredging and involving experienced individuals in decision-making processes. 

Watch the full hearing here.

More facts about agricultural land loss

Last week, the Agricultural Working Group of the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) considered a presentation by Ryan Patch, Agriculture Climate and Land Use Policy Manager at the Agency of Ag, covering land use in agriculture in Vermont from 1840 - 2024. Since the peak of agriculture in Vermont in 1880, when there were over 35K farms representing 84% of the entire VT landmass, ag production in the state has consolidated into 12% of the total land use today. In a business as usual scenario, makers of Act 250 project that 39% of the current agricultural land will produce less or no food due to being impacted as a “critical resource area,” namely river corridor, wetland, high elevation or as slope or soils with shallow bedrock. American Farmland Trust estimates that Vermont will lose between 41K to 61,800 acres by 2040 to development. The remaining 61% are under high pressure for development. How will the group decide about the question of which farmland should be protected from development for food production in the future? In our last update we shared that New England Feeding New England projects a need for an additional 989,000 acres across the North East U.S. to produce only 30% of food consumed in VT by 2030.

See Ryan Patch, Agriculture Climate and Land Use Policy Manager at VAAFM presentation recording (starting 1 hour into the meeting) here (Passcode: +smc28x^) 

View Slides of Ryan’s presentation on agricultural land use in Vermont 1840-2024 here

What’s going on? Raise your voice in the discussion around farmland conservation and land use planning in Vermont’s 30x30 process

Rural Vermont celebrates a successful push for transparency in the relevant public engagement process to find recommendations for land use in Vermont through conservation planning that’s underway until the end of 2025: All meeting recordings of all groups of the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative will be made available online! 

If you:

  • Want better farmland access for farmers

  • Want agricultural land to be protected from corporate land grabs and 

  • Want agricultural land to be protected from emission trading and net-zero scams

  • Want agricultural land to be protected from development

  • Have ideas around how to incentivize more sustainable land management 

  • Have ideas around how to increase biodiversity on farms 

Then please comment on this work! 

Comment by emailing Stacy Cibula, Facilitator of the Agricultural Working Group of the VCSI with your comments and concerns at s.cibula@vhcb.org subject: comment on VCSI work & consider to cc: caroline@ruralvermont.org 

To learn more about Rural Vermont’s engagement with the 30x30 process, please visit our website here

Find meeting recordings and more information on the VCSI website here

Farm to Plate 2023 Annual Report

VT Farm to Plate’s Annual Report yielded statistics signaling an increase in retailers of local food. Since 2018, the level of Vermonters purchasing local food at convenience stores and corner markets has increased from 41.9 to 86.9%. For rural areas that rely on corner markets and convenience more, this is great news. The report also included a figure announcing that 68.9% of Vermonters grow some their own food. For a State that is still over 90% import dependent (see NEFNE VT State Brief), this may indicate good ground for the further development of local self-reliance in food. Emma Hilleman, Director of the Vermont Food Center in Rutland, celebrating the 10th year of their organization, affirmed the organization’s impact in Rutland county and the necessity of similar organizations. Emma explained: “In 2022, our data did show that 75% of our participants were considered food insecure and that the average household income was only between $10,000 and $26,000 dollars, which is in the county low. A lot of these folks are already having trouble feeding themselves, let alone feeding themselves with local food and local healthy food. So our programs really have an impact on those folks.” Emma reported that, according to 2022 data, through the five programs affiliated with her organization that work on food-as-medicine and CSAs, 26 farms from across the state participated in selling over $119,000 of product. These programs, Emma said, reached close to 2000 people that year. Annie Harlow, who runs her own consulting business that helps bring VT products to retailers, reported an increase from 715 to 825 retailers selling local food from 2018. She emphasized the importance of developing relationships across the supply-chain to ensure that opportunities for the sale of VT food continues to increase.

Check out the Farm to Plate 2023 Annual Report here

Rural VermontPES, Neonics, cannabis
Legislative Update 01.26.24

NEW: Listen Here! - Legislative Updates & Recordings 

Having a hard time keeping up with the processes of the legislature? Or navigating the legislative website to find hearings of interest? Trouble finding recordings on YouTube? Listen up, Rural Vermont! is a new Rural Vermont webpage that features all 2024 VT legislative hearings relevant to agriculture. We’re also featuring highlights on social media that relate to our policy priorities.

Here is how to follow what’s happening at the statehouse!

Listen up, Rural Vermont! Legislative Video Recordings HERE

Table of Contents

Click on the links to read text updates OR listen to our new audio recordings!

FULL 01.26.24 WEEKLY AUDIO RECORDING
(includes all sections of the legislative summary)

H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides, and Act 145 (2022)

H.706 Neonicotinoid Pesticides, and Act 145 (2022): The House Agriculture Committee began a substantive session dealing with neonics by revisiting Act 145 of 2022, and then continued on to the consideration of H.706 - drafted by Rep. Chesnut-Tangerman. This bill is largely based on a recently passed NY bill which significantly limits neonic use. The NY bill is very similar to the bill we were working on with the Protect our Pollinators Coalition. This bill does 3 primary things:

  • Prohibits the sale and use of field crop seeds treated with neonics

  • Prohibits outdoor uses of neonics that risk significant harm to pollinators

  • Extends the existing neonic regulations to include treated seeds, making them “restricted use”

The European Union, Ontario, and Quebec have all recognized the harmful impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides and the lack of evidence supporting their efficacy for farmers; and have imposed severe restrictions on their use. In December, New York state passed legislation (S.1856-A/A.7640, “The Birds and Bees Protection Act”) which will fully go into effect in 2029 imposing similarly restrictive regulations. Rural VT has been part of the Protect Our Pollinators Coalition since 2023 to support similar legislation in Vermont, with the goal of a just transition away from the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”).  

According to pesticide sales and usage data reported by the VAAFM (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets) in December 2023, 99.6% of corn seed, and 34% of soybeans sold in VT in 2022 were treated with neonicotinoids - accounting for 90,000 and 7,000 acres respectively. Extensive research and a report from Cornell University finds that corn, soybean, and other seed coatings—the largest source of neonic pollution in Vermont—are not only significantly harmful to insects, birds, other animals, and humans; but also provide no overall economic benefits to farmers using them. This conclusion continues to be confirmed by ongoing field trials in NY and Vermont, and by the accounts of farmers in Quebec who have transitioned away from neonics. Research in VT and NY has found neonics present in soil profiles of agricultural fields years after they were last treated, and in fields and forests which were never treated; highlighting the persistence and mobility of these pesticides, and raising significant questions about exposure, consent, and accountability for all farms.  

In 2021, the Agricultural Innovation Board (follow the link to see all of the presentations and documents reviewed or created by the AIB) was created by the VT Legislature both as an alternative to directly regulating neonic coated seeds itself (which Rural VT, NOFA VT, and other organizations were advocating for), and as a replacement for the Vermont Pesticide Advisory Council (VPAC). This Board was directly tasked with developing Best Management Practices (BMPs) for neonic treated seeds and released its recommendations in January 2024.  Disappointingly, these recommendations do not actually include BMPs, rather they focus on “research and education”.

Despite these recommendations, or lack thereof, Rural VT affirms the need to end the widespread prophylactic use of neonicotinoids via treated seed, and the other uses addressed in H.706. We also affirm the need to address the concerns and needs of the community of farmers who will be transitioning away from these pesticides, and the need to address the concerns and needs of the communities of beekeepers, farmers, and others who are negatively affected by them. We are generally supportive of H.706 as written - and are open to conversations about how it could be improved in order to better meet these concerns and needs. The legislation which was recently signed into law in NY was supported by a diversity of environmental organizations and agricultural organizations, hundreds of individual farms, and the New York Farm Bureau. We hope that VT can achieve a similar network of support.   

Recently, the discussion around neonics at the farm and policy levels has developed significantly - and there are more and more resources available for farmers and community members to further understand the issue. Heather Darby, UVM Extension, has recently been working with a cohort of farmers researching neonic and non-neonic plantings in VT. In December, she organized the webinar series, “managing neonicotinoids in row crops”; and you can see some of her presentations on the AIB website. Samantha Algers, UVM Research Assistant Professor and Director of the VT Bee Lab, also conducts research on pesticides and bee colonies, and worked to bring together a panel of Quebec farmers who have transitioned away from neonics and a Quebec agronomist this past week to speak specifically to their experiences as farmers transitioning. Frustrations within the VT beekeeping community with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture (VAAFM) have also come to a head related to the VAAFM’s recent Apiary Status Report and its relatively positive assessment of the health of VT’s bees and apiaries. The VT Beekeepers Association in its rebuttal to the VAAFM report writes, “The VAAFM’s claim of record honey bee numbers in Vermont as evidence of a ‘healthy and robust beekeeping industry’ is not only misleading but serves to undermine our industry and ongoing efforts in Vermont to protect managed and native bees, both of whom are in great peril.”  

As it stands now, farmers in VT are nearly universally planting neonic treated seed to prophylactically address potential pest issues leading to crop loss, yet are very rarely benefiting from these uses at all, and on a net level, are not economically benefiting even in crops that don’t rely on bees. This seed is treated outside of the state of VT by the seed companies providing them, and - based on accounts from farmers and technical service providers - often farmers are not aware what particular pesticides are on the seed coating. Here in VT there is, and prior to implementation of the law in Quebec there was, concern in the agricultural community using neonics related to a number of things, such as: potential crop loss, adaptation to new management practices, and sourcing the appropriate seed with the desired (non-neonic) treatments in the amount needed. However research and accounts of farmers who have transitioned continue to demonstrate similar yields between seed treated with and without neonics, very low incidence of crop infestation with the pests of concern, and farmers in Quebec spoke at length to the relative ease of sourcing seed and companies shifting application practices, one going so far as to say, “don’t be fooled” by what the seed companies are telling you.

TAKE ACTION!
It is early in this bill’s path, but it is not too early to contact your representatives, and the Reps in the House and Senate Ag Committees, to voice your support for H.706, transitioning away from neonics, and supporting farmers in transitioning.

H.603 on Selling Parted Birds Without Inspection up for vote on the House Floor

H. 603 seeks to allow the sale of uninspected poultry parts from the farm, at farmers’ markets, and to restaurants. It strikes the words “whole bird” from the existing Vermont statute, which is based on existing USDA Guidance. New research from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund highlights in a state-by-state poultry map that many states defer to the USDA to define what is allowed under the exemption from inspection. Standing USDA Guidance from 2006 defines that: “The terms “processed” and “processing” refer to operations in which the carcasses of slaughtered poultry are defeathered, eviscerated, cut-up, skinned, boned, canned, salted, stuffed, rendered, or otherwise manufactured or processed.” The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Markets (HAG), heard from a series of farmers over the last couple of weeks who all expressed difficulties with marketing whole birds only and shared excitement about the potential economic gains from H.603. Staff from the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM) is in support of the bill though suggested more clarity around what type of processing should be allowed. Their suggested edits attempted to rule out processing beyond additional parting, especially: chicken pot pie. In concurrence with VAAFM’s recommendation, the committee decided to specify that  “raw” poultry would be exempt in the 1,000, 5,000 and 20,000 bird exemptions. On 01/23/24, H.603 was voted out of the HAG committee with unanimous support and is now underway to the House floor. UPDATE: H.603 passed the full House on 1/26/24! We believe the bill has a good chance of being passed this session! 

 Video recordings available to date on H.603:

  • 1/23/24 HAG committee vote on Draft 2.2. recording here

  • 1/18/24 VAAFM proposed language; Lucky Fields Farm and Jack Vorster here

  • 1/17/24 Committee Discussion on H.603 part 1, part 2

  • 1/16/24 Putting Down Roots/Romas Butchery & Rural Vermont on Land Access here

  • 1/11/24 VAAFM initial response; Union Brook Farm here

  • 1/09/24 Bill Introduction here

Action Alert! RAP Rewrite, including Composting Food Residuals

The Farm to Plate Food Cycle Community of Practice (FCC) has been drafting recommendations for implementing Act 41 (2021) and rules for on-farm composting in Vermont's Required Agricultural Practices Rule. To date, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, & Markets (VAAFM) have not launched their rulemaking process, continue to delay their legislative mandate to launch a rulemaking in January of last year, and did not offer a timeline for the promised process in their recent annual report on the practice. Instead, VAAFM has deviated from their mandate to issue rules by saying: “The duality in the regulation of compost creates an inherent problem for both the regulators and the regulated community.” In a presentation to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, VAAFM chose to highlight a case of one business aiming to take advantage of the new law without actually also being a farm - the same approach opponents of Act 41 have taken in the past (recordings: part 1, part 2 (until 30:15)). The outstanding rules will directly impact farms' ability to both establish and grow existing composting efforts, a key climate change mitigation strategy that also improves farm production. The upcoming rewrite is also an opportunity to include Soil Health Principles and a new understanding of agricultural wastes as resources (different from actual waste) in the RAPs. 

TAKE ACTION!
Review and share your input!  Everyone can view the FCC draft recommendations for on-farm composting rules here. Fill out this form to add your comments and questions.  Deadline for providing input is Friday, February 16th. If you're not comfortable with Google Drive, please email or call Natasha Duarte (Compost Association of Vermont at natasha@compostingvermont.org | 802-373-6499).

Action Alert! Allow Compost Toilets and Ban Land Application of Septage NOW!

In Vermont, flush toilets are the largest water user in most homes with as much as 2 gallons lost with every flush. Wastewater treatment plants are vulnerable to flooding, releasing contaminants into the water during extreme weather events - especially last year (VTDigger 12/23/23). In 2023, H.163 related to eco-sanitation systems was introduced and would implement a study committee to develop recommendations to improve the accessibility and best management of compost toilet systems in Vermont. The Secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources highlighted how the lack of wastewater treatment plants limits economic growth and housing development (VTDigger) and compost toilets can offer a climate-friendly solution to managing “humanure” in a decentralized way. Currently, the use of compost toilets is allowed. However, composting and using the by-product (“organics”) is not. Instead, these organics must be buried, but the Eco-Sanitation Coalition claims that homeowners report high expenses and unclear pathways for obtaining the needed permit for burying solids; as well as a lack of guidance for storage and management during winter months. H. 163 is currently “on the wall” in the House Committee on Environment and Energy (HEE) where it’s unlikely to receive much or any attention given the high workload of that committee. A related bill is also stranded in that committee, H.674 which seeks to ban the spread of septage on farmland in the State. The bill would stress a report on the allowed spread of sewage sludge which is associated with the spreading of PFAS. Rural Vermont is in contact with farmers in Maine affected by legacy contamination of the land application of municipal wastes. We believe the Vermont legislature needs to support folks who want to invest in low-impact compost toilets and invite farmers from Maine to share about how to address PFAS contamination. 

TAKE ACTION BY END OF MON JAN 29TH!
Support more climate resilient ways of waste management & email or call Representatives to Ask for H.163 and H.674 to be transferred to the House Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry Committee (HAG) Now!

SEND AN EMAIL!
Here is suggested messaging (don’t forget to add a personal note at the end!):

Dear Representatives,

Vermont is now a state prone to flooding and many of our wastewater systems failed during extreme weather conditions. The Maine Legislature is leading the way to address legacy contamination of farmland with biosolids. We need your support for decentralized low-impact compost toilet systems as well as a ban on the continued spread of septage and sludge on farmland that causes accumulation of PFOS/PFAS contamination. Farmers are the ones most affected by these issues. Farmers in Maine have become sickened and lost their farms due to PFAS contamination, and it is often farms who use compost toilets for their guests and employees. We are worried that neither issue will be prioritized this session in the House Committee on Environment and Energy and kindly request to transfer H. 163 and H.674 to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience and Forestry.

[Insert personal note here!]

Respectfully, 

Your name

And below is the list of Representatives from HAG & HEE that need to receive the above message by the end of Monday, January 29, 2024. If you’d prefer to call and leave messages, the State House phone number is (802) 828-2228.

Bennington - Rep. David Durfee, Chair HAG - ddurfee@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Heather Surprenant, Vice Chair HAG - hsurprenant@leg.state.vt.us
Orange - Rep. Rodney Graham, Ranking Member HAG - rgraham@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Esme Cole, HAG - ecole@leg.state.vt.us
Grand Isle-Chittenden - Rep. Josie Leavitt, HAG - jleavitt@leg.state.vt.us 
Lamoille - Rep. Jed Lipsky, HAG - jlipsky@leg.state.vt.us
Caledonia/Washington - Rep. Henry Pearl, Clerk, HAG - hpearl@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor/Orange - Rep. John O'Brien, HAG - jobrien@leg.state.vt.us
Bennington/Rutland - Rep. Mike Rice, HAG - mrice@leg.state.vt.us
Orleans - Rep. David Templeman, HAG - templeman@leg.state.vt.us
Caledonia - Rep. Charles Wilson, HAG - cwilson@leg.state.vt.us
Addison - Rep. Amy Sheldon, Chair HEE - asheldon@leg.state.vt.us
Windham - Rep. Laura Sibilia, Vice Chair HEE - lsibilia@leg.state.vt.us
Bennington - Rep. Seth Bongartz, Ranking Member HEE - sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us
Rutland - Rep. Paul Clifford, HEE - pclifford@leg.state.vt.us
Chittenden - Rep. Kate Logan, HEE - klogan@leg.state.vt.us
Windsor - Rep. Kristi Morris, HEE - kmorris2@leg.state.vt.us
Lamoille/Washington - Rep. Avram Patt, HEE - apatt@leg.state.vt.us
Orange/Washington/Addison - Rep. Larry Satcowitz, HEE - lsatcowitz@leg.state.vt.us
Chittenden - Rep. Gabrielle Stebbins, Clerk, HEE - gstebbins@leg.state.vt.us
Orleans - Rep. Brian Smith, HEE - BSmith@leg.state.vt.us
Washington - Rep. Dara Torre, HEE -dtorre@leg.state.vt.us

Amending the Accessory On-Farm Business Law

H.128 seeks to amend the existing Accessory On-Farm Business Law (Act 143), to bring greater clarity and consistency to laws related to development and accessory on-farm businesses. See the summary of H.128 from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets here.  If you operate a farm store that sells more than your own farm grown products, if you host farm based stays or events, or if you’re considering either of these options, then this bill affects you.  

Financial Assistance for Fruit Farmers

H.813 seeks to establish a new program for financial assistance for fruit farmers who suffered production losses in the calendar year 2023 due to freezing or frost conditions. As introduced, the proposed appropriation of $10M would focus on covering losses during 2023 and not also cover potential losses that may occur in 2024 and onwards. Bill introduction is scheduled for Friday 1/26.

Farmland Access & Local Self Reliance

A presentation on New England Feeding New England (NEFNE) focused on food resiliency and the goal of New England producing 30% of our own food by 2030. Regarding the majority of foods, the state is over 90% import-dependent - currently importing 50% of all dairy, 96.8% of all proteins, 91.3% of all fruits, 98.4% of all grains, and also 71.7% of all vegetables consumed in Vermont (see NEFNE VT State Brief). The presentation included a graphic indicating that VT will lose approximately over 40 thousand acres that are currently in food production by 2040 if development and farmland loss continue as it is. It also states that to reach 30% regional self-sufficiency, New England states need to bring 400,000 acres of under-utilized land back into production and 590,000 acres of land that is currently growing up into wood, back into ag production by clearing it. VAAFM addressed the findings of the NEFNE brief and explained a designated focus of the Agency is on supply chain and distribution. Rural Vermont’s Legislative Director Caroline Gordon commented that markets alone won’t solve the issue of farmland access for farmers and requested a thorough policy discussion on the issue of the loss of farmland and the feasible policy solutions to facilitate farmland access.

In the Senate Committee on Agriculture, John Roberts (State Executive Director of the USDA Farm Service Agency) testified on ongoing flood relief for farmers. Regarding rising farmland prices, John Roberts explained: “The data I have shows that VT was averaging about 3,500 thousand dollars per acre for farms (in 2020). That has risen by just over a thousand dollars to 4,600. But when I look at our neighboring states, MA, they’re taking 15,000 dollars and RI 18,000 an acre… The demand, I think, is rising for several reasons. Big farms continue to get bigger… I suspect that people are coming up here and saying ‘I can buy so much more!’” Roberts clarified that while foreign buyers are not a high concern for the state, a combination of farm expansion and the acquisition of farmland to develop “trophy homes” are relevant factors

Regarding these trends, Vermont’s potential to be a future target of climate-motivated land grabs is worth noting. A 2020 study by ProPublica and The New York Times projects that, from 2040-2060, out of all counties across the U.S that will be safest from climate devastation, 6 out of the top 10 are in Vermont. American Farmland Trust reports that 40% of farmland will change hands over the next 15 years, suggesting a possible trend of climate-motivated speculative buying that will cause further rises in farmland prices. To learn more about pending legislation on the federal level to protect farmland for farmers, check out The Farmland for Farmers Act. 

Vermont State Brief on Local Self Reliance (NEFNE) here

Ellen Kahler (NEFNE) presentation to SAG here, recording HAG here

John Roberts (FSA) presentation to SAG here

Caroline Gordon comment on land access here

Cannabis

Rural VT continues to work with the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition to support the passage of legislation we drafted last year (S.127), and to support the inclusion of particular priorities in H.612 - the Miscellaneous Cannabis bill - which was recently introduced in the House Government Operations Committee.  H.612 proposes to do a number of things, including getting rid of “THC Caps” (one of the priorities of our coalition partner Vermont Growers’ Association), and exempting farm buildings used by licensed outdoor cannabis cultivators from the definition of “public building” subject to fire safety requirements.  Our priorities include, but are not limited to:

  • Tax Revenue invested in communities disproportionately harmed by the criminalization of cannabis

  • Tax Revenue invested in the Cannabis Development Fund

  • Direct Markets and value added for smaller tiers of cultivators and manufacturers

  • Further develop agricultural status for outdoor producers related to:

    • Farm buildings, “public building” status, and fire safety requirements

    • Nonabutting SPANs

    • Wetlands 

  • Expungement

  • Public consumption

  • Increasing homegrow allowance

  • Supporting Green Mtn Patients’ Alliance medical priorities

Rural Vermont
Food Sovereignty in 2024

As communities around the world celebrate the new year and their respective traditions and holidays associated with this time of long nights and short days - in Palestine, the historical home of many of these traditions, nearly 10,000 children and more than 20,000 people have been killed and have not been celebrating with their families and communities.  Many still lie buried and broken under the rubble of bombed buildings, schools, hospitals, refugee camps.  Christmas was canceled in Bethlehem.  Many of our seasonal stories speak of redemption, but we do not live in a comforting story with happy endings - and we see signs of deeper commitment to the killing and destruction and oppression from Israel, the US and the other patrons of the war.  As an organization, we affirm our responsibility to speak for peace, and to advocate for an end to the genocide, apartheid, occupation, and dehumanization of the Palestinian people; this time citing the Nyeleni food sovereignty declaration of 2007, 

“Food sovereignty is challenged by repression and state terrorism, particularly as conflicts affect communities' control over territories. This limits their access to land, water, food and excludes their participation in decision-making. For peoples living under occupation, self-determination and local autonomy become crucial in order to achieve food sovereignty.”

2023 brought hardship directly to many farms and communities across Vermont and around the world: flooding, fire and other climate change related disasters; farm closures, and crop and equipment loss; loss and damage of housing and shelter; contamination of land and waters; economic and political marginalization related to dramatically increasing economic inequity making land, healthcare, and many essential needs further out of reach for the working class.  People work to recover here as they do globally - mutual aid networks among community members and local organizations grow into the spaces of need; farms redesign and rebuild, with aid from neighbors, and farming organizations and agencies; municipal governments and state governments do what they can with the little public resource that remains after decades of neoliberal policy which has impoverished the public sector and enriched private corporate interests. 

Our shared work towards food sovereignty and dignified lives and livelihoods for Vermont’s agrarian communities is part of and greatly strengthened by a larger, global social movement led by rural agriculturists. In early December, Rural Vermont Director of Grassroots Organizing Mollie Wills attended the 8th International Conference of La Via Campesina in Bogotá, Colombia as a representative of the National Family Farm Coalition.  More than 400 delegates of La Via Campesina, representing 185 organizations and movements in 83 countries, together with allies, came together from the 1st to the 8th of December of 2023 to affirm that:

“We, the peasants, rural workers, landless, indigenous peoples, pastoralists, artisanal fisherfolk, forest dwellers, rural women, youth and diversities and other peoples who work in the countryside around the world and united within La Via Campesina, declare that ‘Faced with global crises, we build food sovereignty to ensure a future for humanity!’ towards a just and decent food system for all, recognizing peoples’ needs, respecting nature, putting people before profit and resisting corporate capture.”

We are here for each other - our neighbors and family locally and globally. Silence and inaction is a position - and as we’re embarking on the new year, we affirm Rural Vermont’s commitment to not be silent. And we will continue to amplify your voice in the Vermont State House, in our meetings with our congressional delegation in Washington DC, and in hearings and meetings around Vermont with those in positions of power. 

We affirm that the scope of Rural Vermont - and all organizations whether they choose to acknowledge it or not - is necessarily local and global, and that our own democracy, food sovereignty, and well being is irrevocably tied to the political power, food sovereignty and well being of people all around the globe.  We will not be silent about the US funded and diplomatically and militarily defended starvation and genocide of the Palestinian people; about the need for publicly funded universal healthcare and social services and the ineffectiveness and exploitation of the for-profit healthcare system; about the catastrophe of the financialization of nature and the hollowness and inequity of the “net zero” climate philosophy and its tools of carbon “off-sets”; about the US domestic and international agricultural and economic policy which explicitly sought - and seeks - to reduce the number of farms and farmers, and to favor ever increasing agribusiness consolidation and the concentration of profits, resources, and political power. These are examples of fundamental threats to our food sovereignty, food security, democracy, and the wellbeing of our communities in Vermont and to the global community we are inextricably a part of. 

When you step off of your farm, out of this country, and into the international environment with a relatively proportional representation of the worlds’ peoples - in particular the peoples of the global south - your global and biological citizenship is immediate. You are one of many facing climate change, facing economic inequity, facing the challenges of accessing land and producing food for your community. The role of the United States and how it is perceived and experienced is part of your identity in these spaces, and the imperatives for responsibility, accountability, repair, solidarity, and just transition are paramount. This is our family - this is our home, this one planet, and we hold each other in the sturdy yet tenuous web of life. Together, we work towards Rural VT’s vision for “a just and equitable world rooted in reverence for the earth and dignity for all…in which communities of microorganisms, animals, plants, and humans tend one another and nurture generations to come.“

May this new year bring us greater understanding of and solidarity with our human and biological families; may it bring us greater willingness to not be silent to the injustices around us; may it bring us health, good harvests, and food sovereignty, with more people being fed with food grown by more and more people on more and more farms; may it bring us hope and joy in the company of one another, and the places we inhabit; may it bring us the fortitude to continue on, pressing for the change we need to grow a world in which everyone is fed, everyone can put their hands in the soil, and on the reins, and safely lay their head upon a pillow at the end of a day, in a place of warmth, with a solid roof over their head.

Rural Vermontfood sovereignty
2024 Legislative Session Preview & How to Guide

The second year of the legislative biennium has begun! There are more or less three months to work on legislation per session, so lawmakers hit the ground running. Year two of a biennium means a shorter timeframe to move bills along, but also offers a quicker start with less need for introductions and background. 

Below is a summary of what bills have been introduced, which ones part of Rural Vermont’s priorities, which bill we’ll be monitoring on behalf of the farming community, and some that we’re simply curious about. Highlights include:

  • a bill on the sales of uninspected poultry parts (H.603); 

  • a bill on the ban of the land application of biosolids (H. 674);

  • Bills on eco-sanitation systems (H. 163 and H.164):

  • Cannabis legislation (H.549 and H.612)

  • Neonicitinoids legislation (H.706)

  • Accessory On-Farm Business (H.128)

  • And more

See the Full List of 2024 Bills that Rural Vermont is tracking HERE

Please be in touch with caroline@ruralvermont.org if you want to share your thoughts regarding legislative work and if you’d like to take action or otherwise support this work. We hope that sharing regular updates in new formats will inspire you to get involved. For the start of this legislative session, check out some of the first recordings that we’re archiving on our website; and get some tips about the legislature and citizen advocacy.

Listen Up, Rural Vermont! Legislative Recordings here

Good to know Tips about the VT Legislature here

Rural Vermont