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:
Senate Committee on Agriculture: Linda Leehman - lleehman@leg.state.vt.us
House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience, Forestry: Sydonia Axis Lary - slary@leg.state.vt.us
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.