Legislative Update 5.8.25

The 2025 Legislative Session is currently scheduled to wrap up on May 23rd with little to no committee activity projected for the last week of the session. This update is focused on priority issues and action items - your support matters!

Table of Contents for
BILLS THAT CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

 

H.401 - An act relating to exemptions for food manufacturing establishments

Relevant Documents: 

Relevant Recordings: 

Update: The Senate Committee on Health and Welfare moved H.401 favorably (4-1-0) on May 1st and the bill has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance.  Previously, more testimony was heard on H.401 by Peter Hopkins and The Hanover Co-op Food Stores. Rural Vermont had a chance to testify on April 24 to advocate for the inclusion of canned foods in the raised license exempt income threshold for cottage food producers. The Department of Health (DOH) then presented new language including canned foods in the purview of the bill. The bill now includes home-canned pickles, vegetables, or fruits having an equilibrium pH value of 4.6 or lower or a water activity value of 0.85 or less that are made using approved recipes by the National Center for Home Food Preservation or that have been reviewed by a food processing authority for safety. Much appreciation for everyone who reached out to the committee with this request! 

On May 1st the committee then agreed to expand the language of the bill to allow for cottage foods to be produced in “the home kitchen of the person’s private residential dwelling or a kitchen on the person’s personal property” (H. 401, Draft 4.1). The DOH was opposed to going beyond a person’s premise for cottage food production, reasoning that cottage food producers should not use licensed kitchens not to confuse whether or not they’d need the license in such spaces. 

Outlook: We are hopeful that this bill will make it this session as it’s nearing the tail end of its process.

H.484 - An act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects

Relevant Documents: 

Relevant Recordings:

Description: 

We've been working in support of clarifying in Act 250 that the multi-use of existing or new farming structures is exempt from permitting requirements. The issue was raised by the Feast and Field collective of three farms during Small Farm Action Day events at the State House this spring. 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 (2024, page 25) would prohibit 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 used 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. Neither Act 250 nor Act 181 mention the relevant multi-use of farming structures.

Rural Vermont testified on April 24 with a lengthy legal analysis arguing that the farming exemption in Act 250 may be understood as encompassing the multi-use of farming structures as long as the requirements of the term “development” would not be triggered by the commercial use and improvements of such buildings. Members have since reached out to us with evidence that the NRB didn’t request permits from farms in the past when they indicated commercial multi-use of farming structures. We need to hear more from farmers who can share similar experiences with us. Please be in touch using this form. No identifying information will be shared unless express permission is given. 

Status: The Senate Committee on Agriculture expressed support for the issue but announced on Tuesday, May 6, that they don’t see a feasible pathway to solve this issue this legislative session, citing concerns that the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee could deliberately hang the bill “on the wall” and refuse to work on it this year. This issue was already discussed in the Senate Ag Committee for six weeks, where they added language that would require farms to apply for “special event permits,” into draft 1.1 of H.484 (p. 27) on April 17. The language recommendations provided by impacted farmers in testimony and Rural Vermont were not reflected in the bill. Rural Vermont urged the committee to amend this issue to avoid possible litigation and costs to impacted farmers, as well as to strengthen farmers’ positions at a possible negotiation table with the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) and other environmental organizations after the session to improve the statute on Accessory-On-Farm Businesses. For now, impacted farms have a word of mouth statement from a legislator claiming that the LURB will defer enforcing this case until the biennium has ended and the legislature has considered a solution, though this statement is not legally binding and does not exist in writing.

CALL TO ACTION

As a consequence of Act 181 (2024), there are efforts to weaken the Act 250 exemptions for farmers. We are collecting stories that underscore the need for the farming exemption and examples when it was challenged and upheld. We are especially interested in your stories and experience for the Natural Resources Board (Land Use Review Board) being aware of the multi-use of farming structures without requiring Act 250 permitting. Please share with us by using this form.

No identifying information will be shared unless express permission is given. 

S.60 - An act relating to establishing the Farm Security Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions (S.60 as passed by the Senate)

Relevant Documents: 

On April 24th, S.60 passed out of the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry with some amendments, largely focused around the inclusion of forestry in addition to agriculture.  The bill has now moved to the House Committee on Appropriations, and new drafts continue to be released offering slight amendments (as of May 6th, the most recent draft is 4.2 from May 2nd).  The coalition of individuals and organizations - including Rural VT - who drafted this bill and have worked to support its passage, began by asking for $20 million for the Farm Security Fund (approximately half of the estimated losses from previous years’ extreme weather / climate based impacts).  In the Senate, there was discussion about $7.5 million, but it was eventually reduced to $1 million.  Even a couple of weeks ago there was discussion in committee about working to increase the funding beyond that.  But right now, our coalition is working to secure this $1 million base funding in the House amidst what is significant concern at the Statehouse and in the VT government related to severe federal funding reductions which are anticipated.  The fund itself is also open to charitable donations, so even if underfunded is able to serve as a vehicle beyond the state’s funding.

Call to Action

Contact your House representatives asking them to support base funding for the Farm Security Special Fund

  • Look up your House representative and their contact information on the VT legislature’s website

  • Send an email to your representative expressing your support for the Farm Security Fund, and the legislature providing it at least $1 million in base funding.

  • If you have a personal or community story to tell that demonstrates the need for this funding to support farmers in recovery from extreme weather, feel free to share it. 

  • If your representative is a member of the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee, be sure to thank them for their support of this legislation. 

H. 321 - An act relating to miscellaneous cannabis amendments

Relevant Documents:

  • H.321 as passed by the House

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 amendment to the bill (see our introduction to that language here - explaining how we arrived at it and who it is supported by).  

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.

There have been multiple rounds of testimony on H.321 since our last legislative update:

  • 4/23 (two cultivators provided testimony at our Small Farm Action Day in House and Senate Agriculture)

  • 4/23 (Rural VT, VT Growers’ Association, the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Lt. Governor)

  • 4/30 (Green Mtn Patients’ Alliance, a medical provider and medical cannabis patient who is a former licensed cultivator, a former licensed manufacturer, a lobbyist and retail licensee, and members of the CCB James Pepper and Gabriel Gilman).

  • 5/7 (Legislative Counsel, Joint Fiscal Office, VT Cannabis Equity Coalition, CCB)

Unfortunately, we have yet to see any of this result in our proposals being incorporated into the bill.  In its current state, H.321 is largely regressive.  It 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. The legislature hasn’t even been presented 2 of the 3 reports it mandated the CCB to convene working groups to create between the 2024 and 2025 sessions (our coalition member organizations participated in all of these working groups) which some of our proposals are based in, and which themselves make reasonable recommendations related to agricultural status and outdoor siting, and social equity and community reinvestment.  The CCB is also working to undermine our collaborative progress on an accessible event permit enabling direct sales for producers (licensed cultivators and manufacturers), by unilaterally offering a vision for the market which includes a “cannabis showcase event market” permit.  This permit 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.

Not only does this proposal not meet the goals the CCB was asked to draft a proposal to meet (a proposal for direct sales for cultivators and manufacturers agreed to by many different stakeholders) - but it offers very little economic gain  to the majority of producers.  You can see our response to the CCB’s testimony and proposal offered on April 30th, and our greater concerns with their work and vision for a centralized and consolidated market, here.  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. 

CALL TO ACTION
(LINK HERE TO SEE RURAL VERMONT’S ACTION ALERT WITH DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS)

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 an exclusively 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

S.45 - An act relating to protection from nuisance suits for agricultural activities (Right to Farm)

Relevant Documents:

Status: S.45 was read the first time and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, which has retained possession but seeks input from the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry.  Rural Vermont member Katie Steere spoke to the issue of trespass on behalf of Wild Earth Farm during Small Farm Action Day on April 23.  Wild Earth Farm’s water tests positive for pesticides, and they rely on non-polluted water for their organic status.  She asserts that runoff from a neighboring farm brings pesticides onto Wild Earth Farm’s land.  But this kind of trespass (of particulate matter) is currently included as part of the new proposed definition of a nuisance offered in this bill.  Under this bill, farmers receive protection from nuisance suits when their activities conform to “generally accepted agricultural practices.”  When in conformance, the nuisance protection consists of a statutory protection that the agricultural activity is not a nuisance.  This is a burden-shifting measure requiring a plaintiff to show that the offending activity does not comply with “generally accepted agricultural practices,” which include the Required Agricultural Practices Rule, CAFO permit requirements, the Pesticides Rule, and other accepted customs and standards. It is not yet clear to us what such a showing entails for an injured party.

Rural Vermont’s Policy Director, Graham Unangst-Rufenacht, testified to the lack of clarity of some of the language of the bill, including many concerns with the new language.  Simultaneously Rural Vermont was supporting aspects of the declared intent - in particular the reality that many farmers do spend a lot of time dealing with concerns of neighbors, which can be very frustrating, and shared concerns about how neighbors and broader communities have, or may, want to affect farming in a rapidly changing VT landscape.

Additional concerns Rural Vermont raised include:

  • The expanded definition in Draft 2.1 (page 4) of nuisance enumerates impacts from smoke, odors, particulate matter, dust, noise, and vibration. It was also expanded to include trespass, negligence, and “any other area of law or equity” if it relates to interfering with the “reasonable use and enjoyment” of the individual’s property.

  • No ag activity can become a nuisance or trespass if it’s shown to be following the generally accepted agricultural practices, and the plaintiff would have to prove that farmers are NOT following the practices, as opposed to the farmer having to show that they are in compliance.

  • Allied organizations in the National Family Farm Coalition and individuals on our board and in our community have experience working with independent farms and communities to fight “right to farm” laws in states like Missouri and Oklahoma. There, right-to-farm laws have had the impact of displacing communities and smaller independent farms by disempowering them to fight the impacts of large corporate hog and poultry farms on their properties.

We also noted some more reasonable expansions in the bill. For example, S.45 would strike out the existing language in the statute that protects farms from nuisance claims only if the agricultural practice in question: “has not significantly changed since the commencement of the prior surrounding non-agricultural activity.” So, S.45 would provide enhanced nuisance protection to existing farms that change their practices (e.g., diversify) and to new farms.  

Lastly, Rural VT mentioned on the record in testimony that we have not heard from any of our members a request for the expansion of the existing right-to-farm laws. 


ACTION

You can contact Graham@ruralvermont.org if you’d like to share your opinion about this legislation and the greater issues being discussed.  You can also directly contact your representative or members of the House Committee on Agriculture and House Committee on the Judiciary to share your story and opinions.  

S.44 An act relating to authorization to enter into certain immigration agreements

Relevant documents:

Description: This legislation draws a lot of emotion, and witnesses acknowledge the fears present in community members who live and work in Vermont.  On April 21, Federal agents arrested eight migrant workers on Vermont’s largest dairy farm, Pleasant Valley Farms in Berkshire. Rural Vermont called attention to the instance and requested legislators' support in addressing the issue and in protecting farms and their employees. Both the House and the Senate adopted resolutions that strongly object to the manner and circumstances under which U.S. immigration authorities arrested and detained Mohsen Mahdawi and strongly advocated that he be afforded due process under the law and released immediately from detention. Resolutions are not legally binding but rather like a recommendation. For Mohsen Mahdawi, the political pressure was fruitful, and he was released last week. 

Legislatively, the details of how the State of Vermont works in conjunction with federal immigration officials have been discussed with S.44. Vermont is unique in requiring the Governor’s approval to enter into local law enforcement agreements.  This is extra protection that no other state has.  It’s a check on the ability of local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with ICE. Vermont decided in 2017 to add this check with Act 5 relating to “freedom from compulsory collection of personal information,” which requires the Governor’s approval, in consultation with the Attorney General, before local law enforcement agencies may enter into such agreements. Municipalities can (and Winooski did) go further in terms of restricting local law enforcement communications with ICE about immigration status and other identifying factors.  

The current draft of the bill seeks to close a loophole where local law enforcement could enter into agreements with ICE during declared states of emergency.  But “this doesn’t really change much.”  (Jaye Johnson, Governor’s Counsel, testifying before House Judiciary, 4/17/2025).  An “emergency situation is still covered by this, because the governor can designate a person to enter into these agreements, should that be necessary in an emergency, and so I don’t think there’s a gap here.”  (Jaye Johnson testifying, go to 25m30s here.).  The Governor’s office has no objection to the current bill, does not feel that it impairs law enforcement or puts citizens at risk, and notes that it maintains an important check on the federal government in terms of Vermont’s oversight of local law enforcement. 

The ACLU testified to the exception (for local law enforcement to engage ICE)  in declared states of state or national emergency.  The ACLU shared concerns of targeting college students for exercising First Amendment rights, based on their viewpoint.  There was pushback from members of the House Judiciary based on public safety and possible terrorist support.  Questions remain about what constitutes a true threat under First Amendment doctrine and who gets to determine who is a terrorist.  Other, uninformed questions arose, as to whether the First Amendment extends to noncitizens.  It does.  The Bill of Rights reflects our long-held belief that certain rights are inherent to all people, not just citizens.  

Other commentators considered an open relationship with ICE, Border Patrol, and others as serving some constituents best, especially in the northern border counties.  Governor’s Counsel helped contextualize the current landscape.  Vermont does have ongoing partnerships with federal law enforcement, particularly along the northern border, for public safety.  

Status: This bill is on the House floor this week for second and third reading.

H. 319 An act relating to miscellaneous environmental subjects

Relevant Documents:

Status: Rural Vermont and the Land Access and Opportunity Board have been recommending the amendment of H.319 to specify details of Act 181 (2024) regarding Future Agricultural Land Use Maps. To date, we have not received an opportunity to discuss our recommendation on the record in either of the Natural Resources Committees. Despite this, the Secretary of Agriculture also has the power to issue guidelines for Regional Planning Commissions work on this, and presents an alternative path forward. 

Description: All fourteen Regional Planning Commissions across the State will revise the land use sections of their Regional Plans this year to implement the provision of Act 181 (2024). In our assessment of how and if and how that law speaks to the needed protection of farmland from development, the law does mention on page 73 of Act 181 (2024) that a Regional Plan should include maps that also delineate agricultural land. However, the language is vague and does not specify what we’ve requested: that such maps show where agricultural land currently is and also recommend where land for agricultural use should be in the future. 

Specifically, Section 49 of Act 181 (2024) reads "natural resources and working lands element, which shall consist of a map or maps and policies [...], and that: (A) Indicates those areas of significant natural resources, including existing and proposed forests, wetlands, vernal pools, rare and irreplaceable natural areas, floodplains, river corridors, recreation, agriculture using the agricultural lands identification process established in 6 V.S.A. § 8 [...]."

The process mentioned in 6 V.S.A § 8 empowers the Secretary of Agriculture to establish guidelines to assist Regional Planning Commissions in identifying agricultural lands. These guidelines can provide details such as the availability and capacity of agricultural services to support farming in the region. This is a direct link to the goals and objectives of the New England Feeding New England’s (NEFNE) Regional Approach to Food System Resilience and a pathway to generate more land use data needed to supplement the Vermont State Brief and to inform land access policy discourses on where and how many acres Vermont will be able to bring into food production to contribute to the regions local self-reliance. Ryan Patch, the Agriculture and Land Use Policy Manager at Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (VAAFM), stated earlier this session that he understands the NEFNE projections to indicate that Vermont would need to double the acreage in food production just to produce 30% of the food consumed in the State. We are now in communication with relevant VAAFM staff in hopes of working together with other stakeholders on issuing such Guidelines for RPCs. 

Stay Engaged! 

We appreciate everyone who brought attention to this work locally with their Regional Planning Commission and to the legislature through calls to action earlier this year. If you believe that the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets should write Guidelines for Regional Planning Commissions on how to plan for agricultural land use into the future, email Ryan Patch, their Agriculture and Land Use Policy Manager (ryan.patch@vermont.gov).

Please reach out to caroline@ruralvermont.org if you have questions or want to engage further in this work. 

H.481 - An act relating to stormwater management

Relevant documents: H.481 as passed by the House

Description: The farming community could see indirect effects of this bill, especially as it relates to agricultural fairs.  For example, the Senate Ag Cmte informally discussed an exception for the Rutland State Fair to address stormwater runoff.  The area required for a stormwater mitigation pond would substantially interfere with existing fairgrounds, and it is (perhaps overwhelmingly) difficult for local fairs to finance such projects. The bill provides for the administration of a Municipal Stormwater Implementation Grant Program to provide financial assistance to municipalities seeking permits required to reduce the adverse impacts of runoff to water quality.

To date, it does not seem that this bill includes specific implications for farms in Vermont, but please reach out to caroline@ruralvermont.org if you think otherwise. 

Status: Read the first time in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy 3/28/25.  Second reading and favorable report of amendment, referred to Committee on Finance per Senate Rule 31. There was a favorable report from the Senate Committee on Finance on 4/30/25 and the bill has since been referred to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 

Rural Vermont