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