Posts tagged PFAS
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