On September 15, the Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local Foods Act (LOCAL Foods Act) was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in a bipartisan manner by two members of the Agricultural Committee, Eugene Vindman [D-VA-7] and Jim Baird [R-IN-04]. 

Rural Vermont’s national coalition now succeeded with the introduction of this federal legislation in a bicameral way, raising the hopes for the clarification that on-farm slaughter is legal to move and pass. The LOCAL Foods Act was previously introduced in the Senate by Senators Peter Welch [D-VT], Bernie Sanders [I-VT], and Mike Lee [R-UT]. You can support this effort by contacting Representative Becca Balint, share with her office why this legislation matters to you and ask her to co-sponsor H.R. 5341!

Simultaneously, Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Thomas Massie (R-KY) reintroduced the PRIME Act which would legalize the in-state sales of custom-slaughtered beef, pork, or lamb. Currently, meat processed in custom facilities has to be pre-sold and labeled “not for sale.” The ability to sell this meat in cuts is also something many Rural Vermont members requested for years. We’ve developed an educational resource to show how the PRIME Act and the LOCAL Foods Act go hand-in-hand. Both bills seek to strengthen scale-appropriate meat processing regulations, are similar in theme but different in scope. Supporters of one will likely support the other. If you have connections to livestock producers in Maine - ask them to reach out to Pingree’s office to endorse the LOCAL Foods Act. Likewise, mention the PRIME Act when you reach out to Balint here in Vermont as well. 

The Vermont Supreme Court ruled on May 30, 2025, that farming is not exempt from all municipal regulation. Instead, the court interpreted the “ag exemption” in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) [the Municipal Zoning Statute] as a reference only to the policies and standards intended to reduce agricultural water pollution. The court concluded that municipalities may regulate all aspects of farming that do not relate to water quality, thereby setting a new precedent in stark contrast to the previous, statewide understanding that farming is exempt from municipal zoning regulations. 

---

The Vermont Supreme Court issued a ruling on May 30, 2025, determining that farming and outdoor cannabis cultivation are not exempt from all municipal regulation, but that the reference to the Required Agricultural Practices in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) [the Municipal Zoning Statute] refers to the policies and standards intended to reduce agricultural water pollution only. The court concluded that municipalities may regulate all other aspects of farming and cannabis cultivation, thereby setting a new precedent in stark contrast to the general statewide belief that farming is exempt from municipal zoning regulations. 

The court justifies its decision with statutory language that references the Required Agricultural Practices Rule. While the rule defines farming and agricultural practices in general, technically the rule’s purpose is to regulate water quality on farms. Ignoring the long established historic practice of municipalities who have understood for decades that they don’t have jurisdiction over regulating farms, the court decided the existing language would be reason enough to rule that municipalities can govern areas that are outside of the water quality regulations of farms. 

The impacts of this could be far reaching. Municipalities being able to determine where farming may or may not occur, what types of permitting may or may not need to happen for particular farm projects, and more, would add yet more burdens and hurdles to the community farms we need to thrive. Rural VT is committed to the right to food, food sovereignty, climate change adaptation, and the fundamental ability of people to responsibly grow food (in accordance with the RAPs) on the land they have access to for personal or commercial use; we are deeply concerned that this ruling will discourage farming and local food production by allowing towns to create a patchwork regulatory framework that puts further barriers to farming and farm viability while we’re continuing to lose farms and need more, not less, incentives to farm and produce food for our communities. 

The 2025 legislative session is not over yet AND we need your support in reaching out to your Representatives and Senators NOW to ask them to amend the municipal zoning law to state that municipalities may not regulate agriculture, as it is under the jurisdiction of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. Representatives and Senators on the agricultural committees are working on language with Legislative Council, but we know that the full House and Senate ultimately need to be in support of fixing this issue in law now!

---

TAKE ACTION!

Please send your version of the following statement to the following leadership of the State House, including your own Representatives and Senators. Please include a sentence about why this is important to you in your own words - that makes all the difference!

“Dear Representatives and Senators, I am deeply concerned about the recent Vermont Supreme Court Ruling regarding the City of Essex Junction’s ability to regulate farming and the court's decision that municipalities can regulate farms aside from regulating water quality. The court has been ignoring the historic practice that municipalities and farmers for decades interpreted the law in 24 V.S.A. § 4413(d)(1)(A) as if municipalities don’t have jurisdiction over farming in Vermont. This change would deeply discourage farming by  allowing towns to create a patchwork regulatory framework that puts further barriers to farming and farm viability while we’re continuing to lose farms and need more, not less, incentives to farm and produce food for our communities. 

This matters to me, because [...] 

I respectfully ask you to address and correct the Supreme Court's course with legislation immediately and before the adjournment of the 2025 legislative session. 

Respectfully submitted,

Your Name/ Farm Name (if applicable)”

---

additional actions!

1. Call the Vermont State House at (802) 828-2229 and leave a personal message for your Senator and Representative; find your legislator here
   

2. Email your message to your legislator and “CC” legislative leadership, including:

1. President of the Senate Pro Tem, Senator Phil Baruth: pbaruth@leg.state.vt.us 

2. Speaker of the House, Rep. Jill Krowinski: jkrowinski@leg.state.vt.us 

3. Majority Leader of the House, Rep. Lori Houghton: LHoughton@leg.state.vt.us 

4. Minority Leader of the House, Rep. Patricia McCoy: pmccoy@leg.state.vt.us 

5. Majority Leader of the Senate, Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale:
   kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us 

6. Minority Leader of the Senate, Sen. Scott Beck: sbeck@leg.state.vt.us 

7. Chair of the House Ag Committee, Rep. David Durfee: ddurfee@leg.state.vt.us 

8. Vice Chair of the House Ag Committee, Rep. Heather Surprenant
   hsurprenant@leg.state.vt.us 

9. Chair of the Senate Ag Committee, Sen. Russ Ingalls: ringalls@leg.state.vt.us 

Vice Chair of the Senate Ag Committee, Sen. Joe Major: jmajor@leg.state.vt.us

---

THANK YOU!

H.321, the miscellaneous cannabis bill, is currently in the Senate Committee on Economic Development.  Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, VT NORML, and the Lt. Governor John Rogers have all come to common ground on a list of priorities and suggested statutory language as an amendment to the bill.

Our proposals have the support of membership based organizations collectively representing thousands of VT residents, we have more direct stakeholders of every license type supporting all of our priorities and language than any other proposal, we have more organizations and businesses behind us than any other proposal (more than 70 based on the sign-on to our original proposals), and we have the CCB’s very own surveying of Tier 1 producers and its mandated reports attesting to many of the priorities we have.  We understand our priorities and recommended statutory language to objectively have more support and more hands in crafting them than any other proposals that have been put forward.

In contrast, the current bill defunds the Cannabis Business Development Fund ($500,000 annually of social equity funding), whereas we support expanding it to include technical assistance for small products through a program like the VHCB farm viability program, and base funding it at $1 million.  In contrast to our proposals for direct sales for producers, the CCB has unilaterally offered a vision for the market, which includes a “cannabis showcase event market” permit which:

• is only available to retail licensees (not cultivators and manufacturers)

• requires the presence of licensed producers  (licensed cultivators and manufacturers), but offers them no direct sales or guarantee of any profit share. 

• And, though not written into the proposed language, the CCB testified and shared in private conversation that the number of events offered will be extremely limited (5 statewide were discussed), effectively minimizing any positive economic impact, access, and agency for a great number of producers.

We know that small businesses and producers need direct sales in order to have economic viability, agency, and a community of accessible personal and economic relationships between producers and consumers.  VT’s cannabis producers are in crisis because of essential regulatory inequities.  Retailers and wholesalers are important features of any market, and it is broadly acknowledged in the agricultural economy that grocery retailers have benefited immensely from the various methods of direct sales for producers in our agricultural economy.   But small farms and businesses cannot exist exclusively in a commodity market where they are required to go through a limited number of intermediaries who determine what is bought and sold and at what price.  

TAKE ACTION!

Contact members of the Senate Committee on Economic Development about H.321, the miscellaneous cannabis bill, and:

• Voice your support for the recommendations of Rural VT and this broad coalition; in particular our top 4 goals of funding social equity, direct markets for producers, public consumption, and agricultural status for outdoor producers. 

• Share your story if you want to

• Speak against the CCB’s vision of exclusively a wholesale commodity cannabis market in VT in which producers of the very plants and products the market is formed around must sell their cannabis through intermediaries losing direct access to the consumer, to the profits of their labor and expertise, and to a viable livelihood.

Contact Information for Senators:

Chair, Sen. Alison Clarkson (Windsor District):  AClarkson@leg.state.vt.us

Vice Chair, Sen. Randy Brock (Franklin District):  rbrock@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdate (Chittenden South East): kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden South East): tchittenden@leg.state.vt.us

Clerk, Sen. David Weeks (Rutland District):  dweeks@leg.state.vt.us

Agriculture is exempt from Act 250. However, recent changes from Act 181 (2024) were seeking to prescribe Act 250 permitting of Accessory On-Farm Businesses that make improvements for farm events or farm stays. The new language of the law (Act 181 of 2024, p. 25) did not mention multi-use structures at all. Farming structures are explicitly exempt from municipal zoning (24 V.S.A. § 4413 (d)(1)(a)). Rural Vermont had testified on April 24 to the Senate Committee on Agriculture stating that there would be good arguments for the interpretation that Act 250 exempts farming structures and their multi-use unless permitting would be triggered through a commercial use that qualifies as “development” in statute. 

The Issue At Hand

The issue was raised by the Feast and Field collective of three farms during Small Farm Action Day events at the State House on March 26 and April 23. At the end of last year, the Vermont Natural Resources Board (NRB) –now Land Use Review Board (LURB)– had issued a notice stating that a multi-use agricultural pole barn the collective built last spring violates Act 250 and requires a permit. The rationale? They claim the structure was "principally constructed" as a stage and that Act 181 prohibits farms from building infrastructure for "non-farm" activities without a permit. In contrast, the zoning administrator of the town of Barnard and the Selectboard agreed that the pole barn would be primarily used for agriculture —storing hay, bottles, and farm equipment for most of the year— and that it does not trigger local zoning regulations nor that it should trigger Act 250. The structure is occasionally used (15-20 times in the summer) as covered space for live music to accompany the Feast and Field event where the farms serve food they prepare with ingredients mostly sourced from their farms. 

A multi-use structure on Fable Farm in Barnard - covered winter storage for equipment and supplies.

The same multi-use structure being used for hay storage in the fall.

The Senate Committee on Agriculture is supportive in addressing this issue with the House version of the miscellaneous agricultural bill that they are currently working on, H.484. Now the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy will start to hear about the proposed changes, signaling a risk of them plowing the clarification under before the bill makes its way to the Senate floor. We are deeply concerned H.484 could strand in its second committee of jurisdiction, as the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy has to agree to the proposed clarification that multi-use farming structures are exempt from Act 250 as well. 

We have not been invited to testify before this committee (yet) and are deeply concerned that in the process of working toward a solution, the many well-meaning players and special interests could push for a "solution" that could actually make things worse and expand the LURB's jurisdiction over farms by requiring “Special Event Permits” for each and every event. A proposal we successfully fought off in the Senate Committee on Agriculture before. 

What You Can Do 

Please reach out to the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy NOW to express your support for multi-use structures to be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting. We recommend that you email your Senator - if that Senator serves on the committee - or to email the committee assistant and to include the entire committee “CC.”

Subject: Clarify that Multi-Use Farming Structures are Exempt from Act 250.  

Email the committee assistant: Judith Newman (jnewman@leg.state.vt.us) and CC the following Senators:

Chair Anne Watson, Washington District, awatson@leg.state.vt.us 

Vice Chair Terry Williams, Rutland District, tkwilliams@leg.state.vt.us 

Ruth Hardy, Addison District, rhardy@leg.state.vt.us 

Seth Bongartz, Bennington District, sbongartz@leg.state.vt.us 

Scott Beck, Calendonia District, sbeck@leg.state.vt.us 

Here’s a draft message for your outreach: 

“Dear Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy,

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

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

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

Farmers need clear language around multi-use agricultural structures. Agricultural activity has always been exempt from Act 250, and events like Feast and Field at Fable Farm already qualify under the Accessory On-Farm Business (AOFB) exemption from municipal zoning. What's unclear and causing unnecessary confusion is whether a structure like the farm's pole barn, which supports farming functions most of the year and only occasionally hosts music, is covered under Act 250. The law is currently ambiguous on this point. Multi-use structures like this should be clearly exempt from Act 250 permitting, just as they are from local zoning, and farmers shouldn't have to jump through hoops every time they want to use their own space. These structures are vital to small farm viability, and the lack of clarity puts their future at risk.

This issue matters to me because Vermont's farm culture depends on flexibility, creativity, and connection. Feast and Field is clearly rooted in agriculture, and the structure that supports it serves farm purposes year-round. [Any personal story here helps. Share how Feast and Field or similar events or accessory farm businesses bring you closer to agriculture and the land]

I understand that your time is in high demand as you work tirelessly in service to the people of Vermont, so while a written response is not necessary, your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

[Your town]

THANK YOU!

The Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition (VCEC) is a coalition of Vermont not-for-profit, member based organizations representing thousands of Vermonters: the Vermont Racial Justice Alliance, Rural Vermont, Vermont Growers Association, Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance, and the Northeast Organic Farmers Association of Vermont. We share a vision for a cannabis economy in Vermont which is racially just, economically equitable, agriculturally accessible, and environmentally sound.

VCEC has been organizing, educating, and advocating together with many of you, since prior to the adult-use market launching in Vermont.  The majority of our collective voices and recommendations are not being listened to or implemented by most policymakers and media despite being so broadly representative and being the predominant stakeholder voices that come before the committees in the statehouse which have jurisdiction over cannabis.  In order to more broadly demonstrate the support in our communities, and across particular demographics, for essential reforms to the laws governing Vermont's adult-use cannabis economy, the revenue coming from it, and the medical cannabis program we are creating this sign-on letter.

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

---

Dear Vermont State Senators and Representatives,

By signing onto this document, I indicate my support for the legislative priorities of the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition as described in this link, and as summarized here:

1. Industry and community reinvestment. Appropriate $1M of cannabis excise tax revenue annually to the Cannabis Business Development Fund, expanding its scope to include Tier 1 outdoor cultivators and Tier 1 manufacturers with priority for Social Equity applicants, as well as a robust technical and business support program. Direct 25% of the Cannabis Excise Tax Revenue to the Land Access and Opportunity Board (LAOB) for community reinvestment programs such as down payment assistance grants for land and housing and community programming. 

2. Direct sales for small producers. Scale appropriate licensure and regulations for on-farm and off-farm direct sales to the public for Cultivation Tiers 1 and 2, for Manufacturers Tier 1 and 2, and Propagation licensees. Including licensure for cultivators to sell seeds and living plants they grow directly to the public on and off farm.

3. Treat cannabis like farming. Continue to enumerate aspects of agricultural status for outdoor cultivation into Vermont law; and strike the municipal cultivation districts and setbacks for outdoor cultivation from Act 166 (2024).

4. Complete and cost-free cannabis expungement. The expungement of any and all cannabis-related charges cost-free and without the need for an individual to petition to courts for the clearing of their records.

5. Public consumption wherever lit tobacco is allowed. Canada and New York allow for public consumption wherever lit tobacco is allowed. Current consumption laws in Vermont are inherently inequitable, in effect allowing only people who own their own private land or residences to consume cannabis legally, as it otherwise prohibits consumption in public places, and owners of rentals determine policy for their tenants.

6. Increase home-grow allowances. Act 65 (2023) increased home-grow allowances for state-registered medical cannabis patients and caregivers to six (6) mature and twelve (12) immature plants, we ask all adults 21+ gain those same plant count allowances.

7. Position the administration of eligible conditions and oversight of the medical cannabis program under the Cannabis Control Board by re-establishing the Symptom Relief Oversight Committee.  This Committee will facilitate the necessary input and expertise from patients, caregivers and medical professionals being heard and included by regulators.  Implement the other much needed and timely recommendations of the Green Mountain Patients' Alliance (GMPA). These recommendations include, but are not limited to: providing more comprehensive and continuing education for medical and adult-use staff as the medical use endorsement (MUE) license will allow adult use dispensaries to serve vulnerable Vermont patients as of July, as well as the re-establishment of the Medical Cannabis Fund for purposes of financial and technical assistance for registered patients. 

Please sign on to support the inclusion of the priorities and statutory language recommended by the Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition this year and in future legislation. These recommendations are for essential features of societal and market equity and dignity, they constitute baseline asks from the community of businesses and customers the state is accountable for regulating responsibly, and the communities of people who have been persecuted and impacted by the criminalization of cannabis over time.

Thank you.

RV’s Caroline and NFFC’s Antonio share what you need to know about the LOCAL Foods Act!

The Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local (LOCAL) Foods Act seeks to update the personal-use exemption in the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to clarify that on-farm slaughter of animals that a person owns, in whole or in part, is legal. Updating the personal-use exemption to be based on ownership aligns with current USDA guidance standards and is needed to protect the rights of livestock owners, producers, and itinerant slaughterers to practice on-farm slaughter in accordance with their state regulations.

Currently, the personal-use exemption reads as if only those who raise livestock themselves can access the resulting meat through slaughter on the farm without inspection. The LOCAL Foods Act would clarify that it’s legal for non-farmers to buy a share of live animals and then hire someone as their agent to do the slaughter on-farm.  

We need constituents from TX, NJ, KY, NY, ND, PA, OR, UT, VT, AZ and WY to reach out to their legislators to let them know why this clarification around on-farm slaughter being legal is important. This outreach will support our work visiting legislative offices from these states in Washington D.C. during the 2025 National Family Farm Coalition Farmer Fly-in event at the end of February. 

Take 3 Action Steps: 

1. Reach out to your Members of Congress in support of the LOCAL Foods Act anytime between now & February 28th. Find your Member of Congress and their offices’ contact information here. Find a sample message below. Personalize your message, call first, and email second. 

2. Share a quote with us on why on-farm slaughter and accessing local meat in bulk is important to you! Email sam@nffc.net 

3. Sign-On to endorse the LOCAL Foods Act Now!  

Sample Outreach Message:

As a constituent, I urge you to support the Livestock Owned by Communities to Advance Local Foods Act and to work towards more scale appropriate regulations within the Federal Meat Inspection Act to support vital small-scale livestock producers in the Farm Bill.

The LOCAL Foods Act would clarify in statute what’s currently hidden in USDA guidance: that consumers are allowed to buy a share of a live animal and then choose to have it slaughtered on-farm by a person of their choice.

The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on the severe problems with our consolidated meat industry. We need more small-scale farmers and independent processors, but the one-size-fits-all USDA regulations stand in the way. 

This bill matters to me, because…

THANK YOU!

If you have any questions, please contact caroline@ruralvermont.org

BACKGROUND

The slew of January 20 Executive Orders, including a freeze on spending authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and removal of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion language on governmental sites, has been broadly felt through the farming community. Many NRCS and USDA programs are funded federally, and disruption has 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 around if this decision will be followed or enforced. The New York Times reported that over 2,600 programs were temporarily paused. We are in communication with NRCS officials and Conservation Districts and encourage you to do the same. This development may also slow down other programs and their efficacy, and producers are encouraged to keep planning but not to make any up-front payments they can't afford before there is more clarity. Attorney Dañia Davy, keynote speaker at the NOFA-VT Winter Conference, has compiled a toolkit of helpful information for weathering the rapidly changing situation.

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

We are also collecting stories of how these executive orders impact the experiences, plans and contracts of Vermont farmers. It is important to document how procedures are being impacted by new rulings. Please be in touch if you’d like to share: info@ruralvermont.org

---

WHAT WE KNOW

We are monitoring developments and will share resources from partners and allies as they become available. What we do know:

• USDA staff have been offered early retirement, effective immediately, and this process has been deemed legal by the courts. We have been told that the scale of these retirements will have significant impacts on USDA’s capacity to deliver basic services (like loan-making) to farmers and Cooperators. 

• USDA staff are reviewing all USDA programming and funding mechanisms, and bringing some of those services back online as they are deemed in-alignment with the recent Executive Orders. This means that some services will be available to farmers faster than others. 

• USDA staff in some states have been instructed to not issue payments (including federal disaster payments, NRCS payments, grants, and cooperative agreements)  linked to the Inflation Reduction Act, and are being instructed to review all contracts and agreements to remove references to DEI, environmental justice, gender preferences, and any mentions of socially disadvantaged or underrepresented communities, potentially leading to contract modifications or termination. The legality of this approach is legally dubious but unlikely to be resolved in the short-term.

• Many Cooperative Agreements with USDA are currently not receiving reimbursements as defined by their contracts.

---

WHAT CAN WE/SHOULD WE DO ABOUT IT?

As these legal, Congressionally approved and funded public services at USDA are being undermined by executive actions, it is important that Congress hear your concerns about these developments at USDA, particularly if your organization or farmers in your network are currently being impacted. 

With that said, it is also critical for farmers and organizations to be aware of the risks of critiquing government agencies, specific offices, and individual USDA staff in this highly partisan and turbulent political environment. 

---

ACTION ALERT NOTES

If you would like to speak out publicly, here are some helpful hints before you get started:

• We encourage phone calls (over emails) when possible. Emails are fine, but you should not underestimate the power of your voice.

• We always encourage phone calls to Congress to be persuasive, amicable, and to-the-point.

• If you are unable to reach the office of your member of Congress at their office in Washington D.C. we recommend calling their local offices here in Vermont.

  • Senator Welch's DC office: (202) 224-4242 Burlington office: (802) 863-2525

    Senator Sanders DC office: (202) 224-5141 Burlington office: (802) 862-0697

    Senator Balint’s DC office: (202) 225-4115 Burlington office: (802) 652-2450

• We recommend using Congress.gov  to find contact information for your federal Representatives & Senators. 

---

TAKE ACTION!
HERE IS WHAT TO SAY….

Hello, my name is ___________ , (If you are a farmer or you work to serve farmers you can mention that). I am calling/writing to you from _________. I am calling/writing to you to express my concern with the events happening at the US Department of Agriculture. Losing critical workers and stopping promised payments of grants and loans to farmers, ranchers, and farming organizations is putting farmers and rural communities at risk. 

(If you are a farmer that has been enrolled in a USDA program in the past you can mention that) 

These USDA programs have bi-partisan support, have provided critical services to farmers and ranchers for decades across administrations, and are vitally important as many farmers are preparing for their planting season. I’m calling on (name of member of Congress) and Congress to defend these public programs, services, and funding mechanisms and ensure USDA follows the rules and priorities legally established by Congress. 

Thank you!

---

If you have any questions or would like to speak to Rural Vermont staff, we will do our best to guide you. Please email: info@ruralvermont.org

Call to Action: Join our AOFB Stakeholder Call

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! 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

1. Join one of our two initial stakeholder group calls:

   1. Morning of Wednesday 2/12, 10.30 am - 12:00pm

   2. Evening of Wednesday 2/12, 7:00pm - 8.30 pm

   3. RSVP HERE!

2. Please fill out this Google form in advance to share with us how the new law affects you

3. 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!

---

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!

ATTENTION SUPPORTERS!

On-farm slaughter is a practical, humane, and cost-efficient practice that livestock farmers and the communities they feed have relied on for generations. Small scale farmers that practice this tradition face regulatory uncertainty due to outdated language within the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) that bases the personal-use exemption on those who raise the animal only. 

USDA allows for livestock to be owned by community members! The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets supports uplifting the USDA guidance that allows for on-farm slaughter based on ownership of livestock. A clarification in the FMIA would align the law with current USDA standards that dozens of states already rely upon to positively impact many peoples food security, livelihoods and farm viability. A total of 27 states rely on USDA guidance and 8 states have enacted state laws in support of on-farm slaughter: Arizona, Illinois, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Vermont.

We need Senator Sanders to endorse this simple fix to protect the rights of livestock owners, producers, itinerant slaughterers and custom processors. It will preserve accessibility and affordability of locally produced meat in bulk. It will build more sovereign and secure communities for generations to come. 

Action Alert!
Reach out to Senator Sanders BY SUNDAY to clarify that on-farm slaughter is legal in the Federal Meat Inspection Act! 

Take Action!

1. Reach out to Senator Sanders office (deadline EOD Sunday, September 22nd) by 

1. calling his D.C. office at 202-224-5141 AND 

2. emailing https://www.sanders.senate.gov/contact/contact-form/ 

   2. Share this action alert and reach out to livestock farmers and anyone with interest in accessing local meat in bulk in your network now!

---

Sample Message
(feel free to cut and paste this into your email body)

Dear Senator Sanders,
As a constituent, I urge you to work towards more scale appropriate regulations within the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) to support vital small-scale livestock graziers. Please support Rural Vermont and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets in their advocacy efforts to clarify in the FMIA that on-farm slaughter is legal. 

The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on the severe problems and vulnerability of the consolidated meat industry and Vermont farmers need planning security for practicing on-farm slaughter. We need Senator Sanders to stand in solidarity with livestock owners, small scale livestock graziers, itinerant slaughterers, and custom processors. This simple fix to the FMIA will preserve accessibility and affordability of locally produced meat in bulk and will build more sovereign and secure communities for generations to come.

This matters to me, because…

Sincerely,

(Your name, Farm if applicable, Town, State)

---

THANK YOU!

Governor Scott vetoed H.706 - the legislation significantly limiting the use of and exposure to neonicotinoids.   In preparation for the veto override session on June 17th, we encourage you to reach out to your representatives to express your support for this bill.  This was a very popular bill in the statehouse and across Vermont, but we do not know if there are enough votes in the House and Senate to override the veto at this point.  If you are a farmer or farmworker, your voice is very important right now to help representatives understand that this bill is supported by many farmers and farming organizations despite narratives from Governor Scott and others that it is “anti-farmer”.  Rural VT and the Protect our Pollinators Coalition have developed this sign-on for farmers, farmworkers, and food professionals in particular to show your support for this bill - but please directly contact your legislators as well!

helpful information and talking points

• Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for several years.  There is precedent for neonic phase-out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029.  Data and farmer testimony from those regions that have transitioned has shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

• At least 3 of VT’s larger member-based farming organizations have come out in support of this bill, or this bill with some amendments:  Rural VT, NOFA VT, and the Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition (CVFC supported this legislation to the extent that it mirrors NY’s legislation). The New York Farm Bureau supported the final version of the NY bill, which this bill is now very similar to.  This shows the broad agricultural support across farm types and sizes and regions despite testimony from some seed suppliers and companies, and farms and farmers opposing the bill.

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

• Testimony has shown that companies took away farmers’ choices related to neonic seed treatment years ago.  The challenge related to alternative seed and treatment sourcing for farmers currently using neonics is not related to the availability of seed varieties - it’s related to the willingness of the purveyors of the seed to return their former policy allowing choice for farmers and not universally treat all conventional seed with neonics.  It is unacceptable that seed companies’ commitment to proprietary products and profit would threaten our State’s, and our farmers’, ability to practice democracy related to how we farm and what we - and the places we inhabit - are exposed to.  

• We have data about the negative impacts of neonicotinoids.  We need to focus on the real and potential needs of farmers and others in this transition, but we must begin the transition with this bill now.

Find the contact information for your Senators and Representatives here.

Sample Message

Dear  Senator / Representative/s _____________,

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a farmer or farm worker, you can identify that here]. I am writing to communicate my support for H.706 and a just transition away from neonicotinoid pesticides and to urge you to support this bill during the veto override session.  This is an important bill for the health and equity of our farming community and food systems, as well as for pollinators and the greater environment. 

This bill is important to me because…. [add your own story and points here; eg:  This bill acknowledges and faces the significant negative environmental and biological impacts that neonics are having, their resilience and mobility in the environment, the need to provide time and support for those using the pesticide in transitioning, and the need to protect the vast majority of VT’s farmers and community members who are choosing not to use the pesticide from exposure and impact (these people are currently being non-consensually exposed given what we know about the spread of neonics in the environment away from the immediate location of use, and their far-reaching and systemic impacts)]

Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for several years.  There is precedent for neonic phase-out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that H.706 is very similar to which will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029. Data and farmer testimony from those regions that have transitioned have shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

Please support reasonable and important amendments to H.706 bringing it more in line with the House-passed version, and work to ensure its passage on the Senate Floor. Thank you for your attention and work.

Respectfully,

 _____________

Federal legislation was recently introduced (S. 4282) to prevent the USDA from implementing mandatory electronic identification on livestock that moves in interstate commerce. The bill is in response to a USDA rule that requires Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) or electronic animal ID tags, and visual identification, on any cattle/bison moving across state lines. The rule is scheduled to take effect in ~180 days.  

Mandatory electronic ID tags disproportionately harm small farms by placing significant costs, burdens, and risks on them, with little evidence to support that the change is needed for disease traceability. Contact your senators to join in supporting S. 4282. Check out the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund Action Alert and let your voice be heard. Further background on RFID here.

The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill (H.612) continues to shift in these final days of the session, and we need to protect it from being a vehicle for changes to existing law which could have a substantial negative impact on outdoor cultivators.

Ask your senators to not support any version of H.612 which contains either the removal of the “right to farm” / agricultural nuisance status from outdoor cultivators, or new “preferred cultivation districts” created by the municipalities.   

The Senate and House will have to deal with this bill on the floor over the next few days - so contact your Senators and House Representatives NOW and let them know that dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change proposal, but would be accomplished with a report and process included in the bill.

The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process which directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and which thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law. 

FIND YOUR SENATORS AND REPS HERE!

Sample message:

Dear Senator / s  ________ (your Senator’s name here) and House Representative / s _________ (your House Representative’s name here), 

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a licensed entity in VT’s cannabis economy, or have another positionality you’d like to communicate, you are welcome to include that here as well].  I am writing you because H.612 - the miscellaneous cannabis bill - was amended in the House and Senate in ways which could negatively impact the entire community of outdoor cultivators, and through a process which lacked equitable representation of the communities affected by the bill.

In order for me to support this legislation, the following changes and amendments must be made:

• Amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established.  Strike the removal of the “rebuttable presumption” / nuisance protection for outdoor cultivators in § 869 (f)(5) which protects them in the same manner as other agricultural producers, and which in particular protects them from unreasonable bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis. This part of the bill was inserted last minute in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, without any meaningful debate or inclusion of the affected community members, and in the face of testimony heard last year by cultivators citing towns’ bias in creating cannabis regulation which functionally prohibited their businesses’ operation.

• Don’t accept any amendments which provide additional municipal oversight for outdoor cultivators, such as “preferred cultivation districts” from the original House bill: These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district.  This language was developed without adequate research about potential impacts on, or input from, the community of cultivators it would directly affect. It is regressive in the sense that it directly opposes original legislative language protecting the smallest scale of outdoor cultivation from municipal oversight, and legislative changes made last year (based on our advocacy) which were made as a result of testimony provided by multiple producers and organizations supporting them related to extreme barriers and prejudice they were facing as a result of municipal oversight.  It directly opposes the intention and trend of treating the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in the same manner as agriculture. This language emerges as a result of one situation brought into the legislature related to a conflict between a single outdoor cultivator, his neighbors, and the municipality in which he resides. If this language goes into effect, the over 200 actively licensed outdoor and mixed-use cultivators in Vermont will be introduced to significant risk and uncertainty which could affect the viability of their businesses, and aspects of the entire marketplace - and it won’t even solve the one conflict which engendered this conversation. 

  Thank you for your time and work,
  (Your Name)
  

  Contact Graham (graham@ruralvermont.org) and Geoffrey (geoffrey@vermontgrowers.org) for more information.

A series of last-minute amendments arrived at through a very poor and non-representative process that substantially affected H.612. Some are positive - like the establishment of a Cannabis Social Equity Working Group including members of our coalition; but some are negative enough that if they continue to be a part of the bill we will work against its passage.  We need your support now in getting Senators and House members to bring reasonable yet significant amendments to the bill or to vote against the bill as it goes to the Senate Floor, and likely again to the House over the coming days.    

The Problem: 

• The most severe change made in the Senate is to strike outdoor cultivators’ protection from nuisance (the “rebuttable presumption”) which all farmers and agricultural producers have in VT, and which we achieved passage of last session.  The removal of this protection was not debated at all this session, it only surfaced in committee this Monday as an amendment, and no affected stakeholders were invited to provide testimony.  In the case of cannabis, this is an important protection for producers as it protects them from unreasonable local bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis; which had been occurring or had been threatened to occur for multiple cultivators.  Our goal is to achieve scale-appropriate regulations for outdoor cultivators through a public, and representative process - not through hastily arrived at language without meaningful debate, inclusion, or assessment of impact.

• Interim setbacks of 50’ from all property lines for new cultivators.  This would expire in July 2025, based on recommendations from the CCB to the legislature in January 2025.  This is concerning to us, and we would prefer to see it removed.  However, at this point, our primary focus is addressing the removal of protection from nuisance.

How Can I support?

Reach out now to your Senators and Representatives and ask them to work to amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established.  If this amendment is not made, urge them to vote against the bill.  Ideally, we would also remove the 50’ interim setback, but of most importance is the protection from nuisance.

---

FIND YOUR SENATORS AND REPS HERE!

Sample message:

Dear Senator / s  ________ (your Senator’s name here) and House Representative / s _________ (your House Representative’s name here), 

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a licensed entity in VT’s cannabis economy, or have another positionality you’d like to communicate, you are welcome to include that here as well].  I am writing you because H.612 - the miscellaneous cannabis bill - was amended in the Senate in a way that could negatively impact the entire community of outdoor cultivators, and through a process that lacked equitable representation of the communities affected by the bill.

For me to support this legislation, the following changes and amendments must be made:

• Amend the legislation to ensure that outdoor producers are provided the same protection from nuisance and rebuttable presumption as farmers - as current law has established.  Strike the removal of the “rebuttable presumption” / nuisance protection for outdoor cultivators in § 869 (f)(5) which protects them in the same manner as other agricultural producers, and which in particular protects them from unreasonable bias and nuisance complaints related to the smell of cannabis.  This part of the bill was inserted last minute in the Senate Committee on Economic Development, without any meaningful debate or inclusion of the affected community members, and in the face of testimony heard last year by cultivators citing towns’ bias in creating cannabis regulation which functionally prohibited their businesses’ operation.

The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process that directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law.  This bill asks the CCB to consult with stakeholders and arrive at recommendations for the legislature for 2025.  Dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change.

If this change is not made - I urge you to vote against the bill, as the removal of the rebuttable presumption facilitates an imminently tenuous and uncertain environment for outdoor cultivators who are already facing very challenging economic and regulatory dynamics.  

Thank you.
Sincerely….  

***

---

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORTING THIS ACTION to amend/reject H.612!

We are at a point at which we need to make some strategic decisions, and we need you to share your voice with lawmakers, about how to move forward with H.706 and a just transition away from neonicotinoid pesticides with the time we have left this biennium.  

There were several changes made to the bill in the Committee on Senate Agriculture that Rural VT and the greater coalition of organizations working on this bill (the Protect our Pollinators Coalition) oppose, however; there is little time in the legislative session remaining, and the coalition understands we need to move forward strategically in order to assure the bill’s passage while improving it to the degree we can.  We are now focused on amendments that can successfully be brought to the Senate floor vote later this week - and once the bill passes the Senate Floor vote, we will assess how to move forward in the House Committee on Agriculture and/or Committee of Conference.  

Here are the changes made to H.706 in the Senate Committee on Agriculture: 

• The transition date for treated seeds was moved to 2031 from 2029.  The bill originally had the date for treated seeds in 2027, but it was moved to 2029 in the House to align with New York’s transition.  We feel that moving this date back to 2029 is low-hanging fruit and is a reasonable amendment to bring to the Senate floor.

• The treated seeds prohibition will be tied to NY’s law after 2031.  This means, that if NY were to change its implementation date beyond 2031, VT’s date would change accordingly. Likewise, if NY repealed its requirement, VT’s would be repealed as well. The repeal of the NY law is not expected; the final bill passed with a diversity of support.

• Neonic use on turf - such as commercial turf production and golf courses - will be exempt from the law.  Though this use of neonics is relatively small in the context of the overall use in VT, we feel it is unnecessary and problematic to exempt recreational use in the context of requiring food producers to transition.  

• The exemption process is changed to mirror NY’s, which is a form of the “verification of need” program (variations of which are used in other jurisdictions, like Quebec).  There are advantages and disadvantages to this model, and to the process as written in the original bill.  The original bill allowed for geographical exemptions determined by the Agency of Agriculture, in consultation with the Sec. of the Agency of Natural Resources, based on a market analysis (are there sufficient supplies of non-neonic treated seeds, varietals, etc. available to farmers; is there undue financial hardship on producers to access them) and based on an assessment of the environmental impact of the use in the exempted area.  The “verification of need” process is a farm by farm-based approach, which requires farmers to implement a to-be-determined IPM protocol to determine if there is sufficient pest pressure to apply for an exemption due to the risk of an “agricultural or environmental emergency”.  A farm by farm-based approach is positive in the sense that it doesn’t allow for larger geographies to be exempted, it directly involves the farmers and land and crops in question, and it doesn’t rely on seed company narratives about what they can or cannot provide; however, it may leave farmers more vulnerable to potential market dynamics, and it leaves a lot of room for the metrics of an “agricultural or environmental emergency” to be determined by the Agency of Agriculture in a way which effectively undermines the effectiveness of the law.  

How do I CONTACT my representatives?

Find the contact information for your Senators here.

The contact information for the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Food Resiliency is here:

• Rep. David Durfee, Chair - ddurfee@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Heather Surprenant, Vice Chair - hsurprenant@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Rodney Graham, Ranking Member - rgraham@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Esme Cole - ecole@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Josie Leavitt - jleavitt@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Jed Lipsky - jlipsky@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Henry Pearl, Clerk - hpearl@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. John O'Brien - jobrien@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Beth Quimby - bquimby@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. Mike Rice - mrice@leg.state.vt.us

• Rep. David Templeman - dtempleman@leg.state.vt.us

How can you act?

Contact your Senator and members of the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Food Resiliency to share your concerns and proposals for how to move forward; whether that be working to improve the bill on the Senate Floor, voting to pass the bill as is in order to provide the House Committee on Agriculture more time, etc..  For Rural VT, one of the primary amendments we feel is reasonable and likely to be successful on the Senate Floor is returning the implementation date for treated seeds to 2029 from 2031.  This follows the logic of the bill being so aligned with the NY bill, and is an action of solidarity with NY farmers who will benefit from VT being aligned in terms of a larger regional market and demand for non-neonic treated seed.   

Sample message

Dear  Senator / Representative/s _____________,

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a farmer or farm worker, you can identify that here].  I am writing to communicate my support for a just transition away from neonicotinoid pesticides, and to urge you to support amendments on the Senate floor to H.706 which bring the bill into greater alignment with the version passed by the House.  This is an important bill for the health and equity of our farming community and food systems, as well as for pollinators and the greater environment. 

Particular changes made in the Senate Committee on Agriculture are concerning and compromise the effectiveness of this legislation.  It’s important to work to restore the bill to its House-passed form while not compromising its passage.  Important changes that I’d like to see made on the Senate floor, and/or once the bill returns to the House, include:

• Restoring the implementation date to 2029 in alignment with NY state

• [include your other preferred changes here]

This bill is important to me because…. [add your own story and points here; eg:  This bill acknowledges and faces the significant negative environmental and biological impacts that neonics are having, their resilience and mobility in the environment, the need to provide time and support for those using the pesticide in transitioning, and the need to protect the vast majority of VT’s farmers and community members who are choosing not to use the pesticide from exposure and impact (these people are currently being non-consensually exposed given what we know about the spread of neonics in the environment away from the immediate location of use, and their far-reaching and systemic impacts)]

Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for a number of years.  There is precedent for neonic phase-out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029.  Data and farmer testimony from those regions that have transitioned have shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

Please support reasonable and important amendments to H.706 bringing it more in line with the House-passed version, and work to assure its passage on the Senate Floor.  Thank you for your attention and work.

Respectfully,

_____________

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

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

How Can I support?
*sample message included*

Reach out now to your Senators and the Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs:

Emails: kramhinsdale@leg.state.vt.us,  AClarkson@leg.state.vt.us, acummings@leg.state.vt.us, rbrock@leg.state.vt.us, wharrison@leg.state.vt.us

• Request that the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition and community stakeholders be provided adequate time in committee to speak to H.612 and the recommendations we have submitted as public comment

• Share your support for our recommendations; focus on what you find most important, share your story about why these changes are important.

• Voice your opposition to sections 16 and 17 of H.612.  These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The setback is a maximum of 100 ft if outside the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 10 ft minimum if there is no zoning.

Reach out to your Senators and the Senate Committee on Agriculture:

Emails:  rstarr@leg.state.vt.us, bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us, rawestman@gmail.com, bcampion@leg.state.vt.us, iwrenner@leg.state.vt.us

• Thank them for making time to hear from the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition and community stakeholders.

• Share your support for our recommendations - in particular the improvements to agricultural status, Section 12 - and ask that they recommend these changes to the Sen. Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs to be included in H.612

• Voice your oppositions to sections 16 and 17 of H.612.  These sections propose restricting the siting of outdoor cultivation by local municipalities by enabling them to create "preferred districts" for outdoor cultivation. The legislation then establishes maximum and minimum setback requirements and limitations based on whether or not the cultivation occurs within the "preferred" district. The setback is a maximum of 100 ft if outside the district, 25 ft if within the district, and 10 ft minimum if there is no zoning..

  
  SAMPLE MESSAGE

Dear Senator / s ________ (your Senator’s name here) and Members of the Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs,

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a licensed entity in VT’s cannabis economy, or have another positionality you’d like to communicate, you are welcome to include that here as well].  I am writing to you supporting the inclusion of the recommendations of Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition in H.612.  This diverse coalition of member-based not for profit groups speaks to the very real needs and experiences of the cannabis community and many of the different constituencies involved and affected by cannabis law over time (from racial equity, to agriculture, to medical).  

I would like to specifically draw your attention to… [include what you’d like to emphasize here: striking sections 16 and 17, improving agricultural status, implementing social equity in x,y,z ways, etc.].  

This is important to me because…

Thank you for your time and work.

Sincerely,

[Your name]

---

What’s at Stake?  What do lawmakers need to know?

• Rejecting Sections 16 and 17 (additional municipal oversight and setbacks for outdoor cultivators):  This language was developed without any research about potential impacts on, or input from, the community of cultivators it would directly affect. It is regressive in the sense that it directly opposes original legislative language protecting the smallest scale of outdoor cultivation from municipal oversight, and legislative changes made last year (based on our advocacy) which were made as a result of testimony provided by multiple producers and organizations supporting them related to extreme barriers and prejudice they were facing as a result of municipal oversight.  It directly opposes the intention and trend of treating the outdoor cultivation of cannabis in the same manner as agriculture. This language emerges as a result of one situation brought into the legislature related to a conflict between a single outdoor cultivator, his neighbors, and the municipality in which he resides. If this language goes into effect, the over 200 actively licensed outdoor and mixed-use cultivators in Vermont will be introduced to significant risk and uncertainty which could affect the viability of their businesses, and aspects of the entire marketplace.  The siting of cannabis cultivation in densely populated areas of Vermont and the role of municipal oversight is an important conversation to have, but there must be a reasonable process which directly and broadly engages stakeholders directly impacted, and which thoroughly assesses the impacts of any proposed restrictions or additional regulation before enacting them into law. Dramatically changing existing law demands adequate engagement with communities and understanding of impacts – and that has not occurred with this proposed policy change.

• Agricultural Status: multiple licensed outdoor and mixed use cultivators have provided testimony this session in the House and in the Senate Committee on Agriculture recommending discreet changes in law which would resolve barriers they face because they are not legally “agricultural” businesses; but we have seen none of them included in H.612 to this point.  These recommendations are in Section 12 of our recommendations.  

• Social Equity:  Our proposals for social equity are embedded in our recommendations for Section 15 of H.612.  As a compromise, and in recognition for the time being of the political difficulty of our greater goals, we propose the following for now:

• Legislatively mandating the creation of a Cannabis Social Equity Working group required to report back to the legislature by January 1, 2024. The report will provide recommendations related to the amount of money that is appropriate to commit on a yearly basis from the VT Cannabis Excise Tax towards marginalized and socially disadvantaged community investment, its administration, and more. Seats on the Working Group will be filled by representatives from organizations including, but not limited to: the VT Racial Justice Alliance, the Green Mountain Patients’ Alliance, the Cannabis Control Board, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Office of Racial Equity, the Racial Disparities in the Criminal and Juvenile Justice System Advisory Panel, the Health Equity Advisory Commission, and the Agency of Commerce and Community Development.  

• Making permanent the currently one-time appropriation of $500,000 to the Cannabis Development Fund, and shifting its administration to the CCB as described above.

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

---

Farmers and Farmworkers: Do You Support A Just Transition Away from the use of Neonicotinoid Pesticides? 

Sign on to this letter and petition in support of H.706 to help demonstrate the VT farming community’s support for this legislation.

Rural VT and a number of other organizations and individuals within and without the Protect our Pollinators Coalition (petition for all folks on this website) are working to pass H.706; a bill to support the just transition away from the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in VT.  H.706 was resoundingly passed out of the House and now is in the Senate Committee on Agriculture.  The Coalition has drafted this Farmer Letter of Support as one way for us to further show how important this bill is to the greater agricultural community.

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

This is not a bill about pitting farmers against farmers, or putting farms out of business, or transitioning land away from “conventional” dairy farming in VT.  It is not a referendum on row cropping corn in VT.  These narratives are not helpful or accurate.  This bill is discreet and targeted, it is about a single class of pesticides.  It is about meeting the realities of the data on the impacts and efficacy of neonics, and supporting a just transition for those using them and those affected by them.  

Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for a number of years in VT and abroad.  There is precedent for neonic phase out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029.  Data and farmer testimony from those regions which have transitioned has shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

At least 3 of VT’s larger member based farming organizations have come out in support of this bill:  Rural VT (see our testimony here, read it here), NOFA VT, and the Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition. The New York Farm Bureau supported the final version of the NY bill, which this bill is now very similar to.  This shows the broad agricultural support across farm types and sizes and regions despite testimony from some farms and farmers opposing the bill.

Please sign on and share your voice, as a voice in the farming community, in support of this legislation and a just transition away from neonicotinoids in Vermont.

For more information, questions, or comments reach out to graham@ruralvermont.org

H.81 would benefit the local economy and local communities related to agricultural equipment and would make sure that, fundamentally, owners and operators have the autonomy and ability to repair equipment themselves and / or determine who they would like to repair it. Currently, farmers and loggers must rely on dealerships and non-legally binding agreements (MOUs) for repairs on modern equipment. Forcing farmers and loggers to rely on dealerships to make repairs leads to inflated service prices, delays in repairs of days to months, and the loss at the community level of basic skills and the allowance to practice them in repairing equipment. Such delays can and do put a farmer’s or logger’s livelihood at risk and these circumstances make buying newer equipment less attractive than buying old equipment that’s easier to repair. Passing this bill would support farmers and the local agricultural industry as more farmers would even consider buying newer equipment they can’t repair themselves, if it's ensured and clear that they can work with their skilled employees or independent repair shops. This could also vitalize the used equipment market and alleviate original manufacturers from being overburdened with service requests when they are needed the most.  H.81 provides the choice for farmers and loggers to repair their own equipment or go to an independent repair shop while maintaining the option to go to a local dealer. 

The State of Vermont already considered multiple versions of this bill in prior sessions and afforded a task force on this issue.  Rural Vermont supports passing this legislation NOW and board member Em Virzi shared examples of how the Right-to Repair affects farmers first hand with the committee during Small Farm Action Day on March 14 (watch the recording here).  H.81 passed out of the House last year with an astonishing favorable vote of 137-2, but it’s at risk of not advancing this session if the Senate Agriculture Committee does not support the bill. 

Please reach out to the Senate Agriculture Chair, Sen. Robert Starr, and the members of Senate Agriculture as soon as possible to support H.81! 

If you can, please do share any specific experiences about not having access to information or diagnostic tools outside of a dealership that prevented you from making their own repair. Any details about what machine or information would have allowed you or a 3rd party mechanic to make that repair outside of a dealership would be helpful as well.

Senate Agriculture Committee Contact Information

Sen. Robert Starr, Chair: rstarr@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Brian Collamore, Vice Chair: bcollamore@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Richard Westman: rawestman@gmail.com

Sen. Brian Campion: bcampion@leg.state.vt.us

Sen. Irene Wrenner, Clerk: iwrenner@leg.state.vt.us

Let’s ensure Vermont’s farmers and loggers have the option to repair their equipment however they choose. Thank you for your support!

Summary of H.81 As Passed by the House

The House-passed version of H.81 (House vote 137-2) ensures original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) offer for sale or otherwise make available parts, tools, and documentation to independent repair providers or owners that OEMs also make available or for sale to authorized repair providers, and may make parts, tools, and documentation available to an independent repair provider or owner through an authorized repair provider that consents to sell or make available parts, tools, or documentation on behalf of the manufacturer. OEMs must also provide information that’s necessary to unlock or disable a function and to reset a lock or function after the repair is complete.

OEMs may also not impose an additional cost or burden that isn’t reasonably necessary on the independent provider or owner, and must offer for sale or provide tools, parts, and documentation at a cost that is fair to both parties and does not discourage repairs by an owner or independent provider.

H.81 does not require an OEM to divulge in trade secrets to an owner or independent service provider and does not allow modification of equipment to deactivate a safety notification system or access a function or tool that would take a piece of equipment out of compliance with federal, State, or local safety or emissions law, except as necessary to provide a repair.

We anticipate H.706 reaching the House floor this week. Despite this bill moving favorably thus far through committees - there are indications it may face more resistance on the floor. It is critical that community members, in particular farmers and farm workers, contact their representatives in the House, urge them to support this bill, and explain why it is important to you that they vote in favor of a just transition away from the widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides. Below you'll find a sample message, link to your Reps' contact info, and some more details about the bill and helpful info to share with your Reps.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

---

SAMPLE MESSAGE:
copy, paste, customize!

Dear Representative/s ________________,

My name is ____________, I live in _[town]_.  [If you are a farmer or farm worker, you can identify that here].  I am writing to urge you to vote in favor of H.706 when it reaches the House Floor.  This is an important bill for the health and equity of our farming community and food systems, as well as for pollinators and the greater environment. 

H.706 prohibits the sale or use of neonic coatings on corn, soybean, wheat and cereal seeds by 2029; prohibits outdoor uses that risk significant harm to pollinators by 2025 (flowering crops, ornamental plants, turf grass); and requires BMPs (best management practices) for permitted uses of neonics.  This bill acknowledges and faces the significant negative environmental and biological impacts that neonics are having, their resilience and mobility in the environment, the need to provide time and support for those using the pesticide in transitioning, and the need to protect the vast majority of VT’s farmers and community members who are choosing not to use the pesticide from exposure and impact (these people are currently being non-consensually exposed given what we know about the spread of neonics in the environment away from the immediate location of use, and their far reaching and systemic impacts).  

This bill is important to me because…. [add your own story and points here]

Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for a number of years.  There is precedent for neonic phase out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029.  Data and farmer testimony from those regions which have transitioned  has shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

At least 3 of VT’s larger member based farming organizations have come out in support of this bill:  Rural VT, NOFA VT, and the Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition. The New York Farm Bureau supported the final version of the NY bill, which this bill is now very similar to.  This shows the broad agricultural support across farm types and sizes and regions despite testimony from some farms and farmers opposing the bill.

Please vote in favor of H.706 - and thank you for work.

Respectfully,

_____________

---

What to Know about H.706 &
Helpful Info to Share with your Reps

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

• Work to limit the use of and exposure to neonics in VT has been ongoing for a number of years.  There is precedent for neonic phase out and transition - very similar to this legislation - in the European Union, in Ontario, in Quebec, and now New York has passed legislation that will phase out treated seed and other uses by 2029. Data and farmer testimony from those regions which have transitioned  has shown little to no impact on crop yields or farm economics.  

• At least 3 of VT’s larger member based farming organizations have come out in support of this bill: Rural VT, NOFA VT, and the Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition. The New York Farm Bureau supported the final version of the NY bill, which this bill is now very similar to. This shows the broad agricultural support across farm types and sizes and regions despite testimony from some farms and farmers opposing the bill.

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

• Testimony has shown that companies took away farmers’ choice related to neonic seed treatment years ago. The challenge related to alternative seed and treatment sourcing for farmers currently using neonics is not related to availability of seed varieties - it’s related to the willingness of the purveyors of the seed to return their former policy allowing choice for farmers, and to not universally treat all conventional seed with neonics. It is unacceptable that seed companies’ commitment to proprietary products and profit would threaten our State’s, and our farmers’, ability to practice democracy related to how we farm and what we - and the places we inhabit - are exposed to.  

• We have the data. We need to focus on the real and potential needs of farmers and others in this transition; but we must begin the transition with this bill now.

THANK YOU!

---

P.S. Do you want to learn more about, or provide input on, H.706 or Rural Vermont's other work in the State House and beyond? Join our next virtual Quarterly Member Forum on Thursday, April 11th from 6 - 7:30pm. All members welcome-  please let us know you're coming!

The Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (VCSI) is underway - and it is important that we use our voice to influence it! Act 59 was passed in 2023 with a goal to conserve 30% of Vermont’s total area by 2030 and 50% by 2050.

As Vermont is developing a new conservation plan - its policies and regulations more broadly - must protect and support food sovereignty, and the rights of people and communities articulated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas:
“Peasants and other people living in rural areas have the right to land, individually and/or collectively (...), including the right to have access to, sustainably use and manage land and the water bodies, coastal seas, fisheries, pastures, and forests therein, to achieve an adequate standard of living, to have a place to live in security, peace and dignity and to develop their cultures.” - Article 17 UNDROP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, 2018)

---

Join Rural Vermont in urging the Agricultural Working Group before Wednesday 3/13 at 11am (their last meeting during the inventory phase) to:

• Affirm the consensus of the PES and Soil Health Working Group against new programs based on measuring outcomes in agriculture.

  • The PES and Soil Health Working Group met from 2019-2023 to address questions from the VT legislature related to: ag standards and practices for better environmental outcomes, existing and potential incentives, and proposed changes and programs. Ultimately, the group opposed proposals grounded in measured outcome based models that could lead to the development of carbon and offsets markets in VT agriculture, and favored the CSP+ approach recommended by the Small Farm Cohort, which involves enhancing support for sustainable farming practices through increasing access to, and improving, existing federal programs for Vermont farmers.

• Protect 30x30 and land conservation efforts from being financed by carbon and / or other “off-set” markets.

• Rural VT has long been in solidarity with the National Family Farm Coalition, La Via Campesina, the Indigenous Environmental Network, the Institute for Ag and Trade Policy, Friends of the Earth and others in opposing carbon and other “off-set” markets.  Globally, the goal to conserve 30% of land and sea by 2030, and 50% by 2050 have been paired with the “net zero” ideology and offset markets, resulting in land grabs, and displacement of communities from working lands and waters (see recent New York Times article from Feb 20th, 2024). There is significant data around carbon markets’ ineffectiveness at actually lowering emissions, their impacts on corporate land ownership and displacement of communities, and more broadly as false solutions to the climate crisis.

• Recommend policies that ensure conserved land is protected from corporate and consolidated ownership and which facilitate farmland access and ownership for farmers and farmworkers; maintaining community sovereignty over land use over time.

• In VT, and around the world, we are seeing large “conservation” organizations, corporations, and governments working together towards conserving land and waters with a vision of conservation which: is largely absent of human presence; in which conserved land and agricultural land are seen as forms of wealth management, investment and a class of “natural asset”; which does not protect local communities’ democratic control of land and resources; which displaces indigenous peoples and farmers and fisherfolk; which does not take into account critical human needs such as food sovereignty and resiliency; and which positions and defers to markets and corporate actors as principle arbiters of access, control, equity, and the future of these places (check out our glossary of terms here and list of resources here). In our efforts to protect the integrity of our ecosystems and habitat, and to ensure we have farmland enough to feed the people living here - we must also protect our communities’ democratic control over, and access to, the land as one of our most critical resources.

• Protect all farmland in VT from development in perpetuity, with flexibility for development of housing and essential infrastructure, and enable and support the conversion of land (including conserved land) into agriculture, and into the hands and control of the people working the land. 

• According to Hunger Free VT, two out of every five people in VT are food insecure. We rely upon importation for the vast majority of our food across the northeast, and New England Feeding New England reports that we need to bring back into production 400,000 acres of land in underutilized production and an additional 590,000 of additional acres of new crop land to even meet 30% of our regional food needs by 2030. The American Farmland Trust (AFT) estimates that VT could lose another 41,000 acres by 2040 if current trends continue - or more if trends worsen. AFT also pointed to the imminent turnover of 40% of farmland within the next couple of decades as farm owners / operators age and move on from farming. Agricultural support programs have been underfunded 50% from what the administration requested in 2023. We need more independent farms, more farmers, more farmworkers, more farmland, more agroecological education and training to even meet 30% of our regional needs; and these considerations must be fundamental to the VCSI. The inventory report should outline land currently in agriculture, land in agriculture currently conserved, what land is potentially best positioned to be converted into farmland moving forward, and how much we will need to assure food security and sovereignty over time. Policies beyond conservation easements must be considered in the upcoming two year conservation planning phase. 

• Invite the meaningful inclusion of VT’s indigenous community in the 30 x 30 process.

• The enabling statute finds that “the land and waters, forests and farms, and ecosystems and natural communities in Vermont are the traditional and unceded home of the Abenaki people”, meaning that any effort to increase land conservation must include land access opportunities for Indigenous People and to all who come from historically marginalized and disadvantaged communities.  President Biden’s executive order of 2021 on 30x30 explicitly honors Tribal Sovereignty and supports the priorities of Tribal Nations. Currently, neither of the State recognized Abenaki tribes are represented in any of the work groups that are part of the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative. We believe that the Indigenous people of Vermont have important knowledge to share about land care strategies and that their ideas for land use and conservation should be decisive for the Vermont Conservation Plan that’s projected for the end of 2025.

• Recognize that the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets is the authority regulating VT agriculture.

• Act 59 calls for enhanced support for the working lands through land conservation. It is positive that the state wants to better support the working lands and diversified farming in alignment with soil health principles. The 30x30 initiative and conservation easements specifically are not an appropriate place for regulating agricultural practices. Improving the Required Agricultural Practices Rule is the appropriate path to addressing these concerns equitably amongst producers. The definition of sustainable land management as defined in Act 59 opens the door for linking measured outcomes of biodiversity with off-set trading schemes as a financing strategy because it can be interpreted as only including those parcels of agricultural land that enhance biodiversity at a measurable rate. Alternatively, ”sustainable land management” can be interpreted to include all agricultural lands with good reason. Grasslands are specifically named - that’s ¾ of all conserved agricultural lands - and the UVM State of Soil Health in Vermont initiative provides evidence that soil health across all types of farming in Vermont is presently preserving those soils’ ability to support and restore biodiversity in the future. Even in those cases where current agricultural practices have the potential to negatively impact biodiversity, they are free from development and practices can be improved. All agricultural lands are important and all farms manage highly threatened natural resources that are crucial to Vermont’s future food security and climate resilience.

---

TAKE ACTION!

Step 1: Visit https://www.ruralvermont.org/30x30 for more information about 30x30,  a list of references, and a glossary of terms.

Step 2: Email all members of the Ag Working Group of the VCSI before Wednesday 3/13 at 11am (their last meeting during the inventory phase) and express your support for any or all of our recommendations to be included in the inventory report on behalf of the agricultural community in Vermont. Email addresses for Ag Working Group members can be found below, along with a sample message that can be personalized.

Step 3: Join the (30x30) VT Conservation Strategy Initiative Focus Group for "smallholder farmers" taking place on Tuesday March 12 from 2 - 3:30 PM by Zoom. You need to register to get the zoom link. Registration is HERE!  The session will be recorded by the hosts. There is a stipend being offered for attendees that you can sign up for upon registration.

---

SAMPLE MESSAGE - COPY, EDIT, & PASTE INTO THE BODY OF YOUR EMAIL!

I want the Agricultural Working Group of the VCSI to adopt a statement against financing the conservation of land in VT, and / or coordinating the VCSI process, with carbon credits and / or through offset markets. Instead, I want to see the meaningful inclusion of indigenous and agrarian peoples, and the development of policies that protect community sovereignty over land, that grow our agricultural land base, and that protect farmland for farmers by facilitating affordable farmland and housing for farmers and farmworkers.

In doing so, the Ag Working Group saves significant public dollars by avoiding any duplicacy to the processes of the Payment for Ecosystem Services & Soil Health Working Group by aligning with the consensus reached during that process for the State of Vermont to not further invest in financializing and "measuring outcomes of agricultural practices," “payment for ecosystem services,” “natural capital,” the “financialization of nature” and the “privatization of the commons.” 

Around the globe, developments in conservation planning paired with PES/ carbon market financing schemes represent an alignment of the interests of corporate investors with development agencies, conservation organizations, research institutions, national economies, and consumers, around the potential to profit from the creation of new asset classes in ecosystem function. These are not solutions to climate change nor the biodiversity crisis. These solutions do not offer equitable solutions to indigenous communities, farmers and farm workers and neither do they maintain community sovereignty over land, land use, and critical natural resources. 

For the purposes of protecting agricultural land and the autonomy and independence of our communities and farmers, the Ag Working Group can recommend reforms to the tools available in land use planning to approach a vision and goal of advancing support for the working lands and biodiversity through land conservation so that all agricultural land can count in acres towards the 30x30 & 50x50 goals in a way that aligns with the needs of our region related to human rights, food security and democratic control of our essential resources.

Stacy Cibula, facilitation VHCB  s.cibula@vhcb.org

Ryan Patch, co-facilitation VAAFM Ryan.Patch@vermont.gov

Eric Clifford, Champlain Valley Farmers Coalition info@champlainvalleyfarmercoalition.com

Mike Snow, CT River Watershed Farmers Alliance crwfa.info@gmail.com

Scott Magnan, Franklin Grand Isle Farmers Watershed Alliance FarmersWatershedAllianceNW@gmail.com

Dave Blodgett, Natural Resources Conservation Service david.blodgett@usda.gov

Jen Miller, Nofa-VT jen@nofavt.org

Caroline Gordon, Rural Vermont caroline@ruralvermont.org

Rosalind Renfrew, ANR (Fish & Wildlife) rosalind.renfrew@vermont.gov 

Marli Rupi, ANR (DEC) marli.rupe@vermont.gov

Darlene Reynolds, VT Dairy Producer Alliance vdpa16@gmail.com 

Jackie Folsom, VT Farm Bureau vtfb@gmavt.net

Stephen Leslie, Cedar Mountain Farm representing Vermont Healthy Soils Coalition hartlandyoga@yahoo.com

Tyler Miller, Vermont Land Trust tyler@vlt.org

Jennifer Byrne, White River Conservation District whiterivernrcd@gmail.com 

Holly McClintock, VHCB staff h.mcclintock@vhcb.org 

Isaac Bissell, VHCB staff I.Bissell@vhcb.org 

Trey Martin, VHCB staff  t.martin@vhcb.org