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!
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.
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!