2025 End-of-Session Recap

The Regulatory Environment for Farms is Changing Beneath Our Feet in Vermont: Agricultural Exemption from Municipal Zoning, Act 250, Current Use, Nuisance Protections, and Jurisdiction over Agricultural Regulation

The legislative session is slowly wrapping up for 2025 with June 16 being the target date for adjournment at the moment. At the beginning of June, we learned about a recent appeals decision from the Vermont Supreme Court which will have an enormous effect on farms, the agricultural community, food security and food sovereignty in Vermont.  This critical decision overturns long standing precedent by reversing how many, if not all, municipalities had understood these statutes to date - that farms are exempt from municipal zoning as they are exempt from Act 250. This ruling deeply concerns us, and we are organizing and acting to the best of our ability to affect it now-  please be in touch if you want to engage.  Specifically, the VT Supreme court ruled that neither 24 V.S.A. § 4413 (d)(1)(A) which references farms that need to comply with the RAP’s, nor 7 V.S.A. § 869 (f)(2) related to outdoor licensed cannabis cultivators, prevents municipalities from regulating farms. Instead, the court interpreted the law as only precluding municipal regulation of agricultural water quality.

Regulatory oversight over farms and farming was certainly also one of the most central issues during the 2025 legislative session for the agricultural community. In an effort to bring Vermont into compliance with the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act, S.124 seeks to strike the balance to implement a directive of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), that the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources needs to determine who needs to undergo an Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit process, while also keeping the existing water quality rule and programs for non-point source pollution on farms within the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. Despite its relevance, only a few farmers had a chance to testify on these significant changes to how farms are being regulated and by whom. Only in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources did a couple farmers get a chance to speak directly to the bill, Brian Kemp (Mountain Meadows Farm) as well as Stephanie Pope (North Wind Acres Farm). In comparison, lobbyists from environmental organizations who petitioned the EPA testified on this bill sixteen times - evidencing the ongoing underrepresentation of those affected directly by policy and decision making processes, such as within the legislature.

Simultaneously, the law providing farms protection from nuisance lawsuits (“Right to Farm”) was under reconsideration the sixth year in a row and on Friday, May 30th, a Committee of Conference presented their final tweaks to the two different versions of S.45 which were adopted, and delivered to the Governor for signature.

Rural Vermont members also sought clarity on the regulatory oversight of multi-use farming structures that we understand to be exempt from Act 250 permitting. Despite the issue having been considered favorably for half the session (or six weeks) in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, clarifying language did not move with any of the pending bills this year. 

Earlier in the session, a whole series of bills related to the Current Use program would have made it easier to disenroll parcels from the program instead of addressing much needed ways to better protect farmland from development, while also making it more affordable for farmers. Neither of those bills passed this year, but they technically can still progress next year. 

Developments that challenge the relevant protections of farms and those who farm in Vermont, which make it easier to develop farmland, which make farmland more inaccessible to farmers and farmworkers, which place greater, inconsistent, and potentially unreasonable regulatory burdens on farms, are deeply concerning to us here at Rural Vermont. If you have a story to share about how and why the agricultural exemptions from municipal zoning and Act 250 matter to you, please send an email to caroline@ruralvermont.org. 

On a positive note, we are celebrating the passage into law of the cottage food bill H.401 that will go into effect on July 1, 2025, and that increases income thresholds for license free cottage food production to $30,000 for home bakeries and other food manufacturers. 

With respect to regulating a horticultural product that isn’t legally considered “agricultural”, Rural Vermont and the Cannabis Equity Coalition have been working hard to gain more respect, attention and hearings on our priorities, including direct to consumer cannabis sales, by bringing in a series of current and former cultivators and other licensees through our Small Farm Action Days and to other committees in the State House.

Table of Contents
Bills that passed in the 2025 Legislative Session

S.124 - Water Quality Oversight Bill

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: S. 124 

Description: The following description summarizes the report from the Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry from May 29, 2025, during the second reading of the bill (recording 1 here, recording 2 here). S. 124 is officially titled an act related to miscellaneous agricultural subjects. This title refers to legislation that the Agency on Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM) delivers yearly for technical corrections in the law. This year the bill focuses on one subject - agricultural water quality - to bring the state into compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delegated the authority to implement the CWA to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), in practice the VAAFM is playing a key role as a decade ago, a Memorandum of Understanding detailed how the authority would translate between the two agencies. Environmental organizations, including the Conservation Law Foundation, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, and the Lake Champlain Committee petitioned the EPA, and last September, the federal agency then informed ANR that it has not been adequately regulating and permitting waste discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) into the waters of the state. Under current law, farms are prohibited from these discharges. However, EPA asserted that discharges are occurring so that ANR needs to issue CAFO permits or risk the state losing its entire delegated oversight to regulate clean water. To correct the course, both agencies presented a Corrective Action Plan to meet the EPA's directive. In addition, S.124 now amends agricultural water quality statute to address the EPA's concerns and to clarify and amplify ANR's role as the lead CWA permitting authority for discharges and pollutants from CAFOs. S.124 also retains authority at VAAFM for runoff from fields - which are classified as nonpoint source pollution discharges.

The House passed a nearly identical version of the bill which originated in the Senate Committee on Agriculture. The first six sections make changes to Title 6 V.S.A., the agriculture statutes, to amend the VAAFM's water quality authority over large and medium sized farming operations to more clearly differentiate in law when which agency has authority, striking references to the previous Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies. ANR staff determine if direct discharges into the waters of the state are occurring and if a CAFO permit is needed. The statute also provides that if VAAFM staff find that a farm might be discharging, they need to immediately defer to ANR for a response. If ANR decides that no CAFO permit is required, it notifies the VAAFM (who then retains jurisdiction). CAFOs will have to meet the specific requirements in their permits as well as meet other regulations, such as different setback and buffer requirements. Existing VAAFM permitting fees for LFOs and MFOs do not accumulate in addition to potential CAFO permitting fees.

Previously, another bill (H.146) had suggested to also define “Small concentrated animal feeding operations” and to designate ANR jurisdiction over small CAFOs to ANR as well as to move the entire Required Agricultural Practices Rule to ANR. S.124 refrained from such a path and instead included language that VAAFM may require small farms to certify compliance with the Required Agricultural Practices Rule and that VAAFM may require certification of ongoing compliance (Section 6).  Furthermore, Section 3 and 8 state that: “Two or more individual farms that are under common ownership and that adjoin each other or use a common area or system for the disposal of wastes shall be considered a single animal feeding operation or “farm” when determining whether the combined number of livestock or domestic fowl qualifies the farm” as a Large or Medium Farm Operation respectively. 

In addition to these changes, Section 5 allows the VAAFM to issue an emergency exemption from the manure spreading ban between December 15 and April 1. Emergencies include a failing manure storage tank, exhaustion of manure storage capacity due to weather conditions and other reasons such as farmer health. 

Status: S.124 was passed by the Senate and the House. In the last recorded action, the Senate concurred with the proposed amendments from the House. The bill is now awaiting the Governor’s signature. 

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

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: S.45

Description:  The following description summarizes the report from the Chair of the House Committee in Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry from May 28, 2025, during the second reading of the bill as this committee was the last committee to add substantial changes to the bill (recording 1 here; recording 2 here). 

S.45 expands on existing protections from nuisance lawsuit claims that Vermont farmers qualify for when they are in compliance with the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and other relevant rules. Every state in the country has some version of a right to farm law and in Vermont, farmers have benefited from this law since the 1980s, when a neighbor objected to the sights, sounds, or smells of farms. According to the legislative council, Vermont's current law is objectively one of the least protective of farms. The legislative findings and purpose section at the start of the bill is existing language that dates back four decades and legislators kept it unedited because they felt as though it was as relevant today:

"The General Assembly finds that agricultural production is a major contributor to the State’s economy; that agricultural lands constitute unique and irreplaceable resources of statewide importance; that the continuation of existing and the initiation of new agricultural activities preserve the landscape and environmental resources of the State, contribute to the increase of tourism, and further the economic welfare and self-sufficiency of the people of the State; and that the encouragement, development, improvement, and preservation of agriculture will result in a general benefit to the health and welfare of the people of the State. In order for the agricultural industry to survive in this State, farms will likely change, adopt new technologies, and diversify into new products, which for some farms will mean increasing in size. The General Assembly finds that agricultural activities are potentially subject to lawsuits based on the theory of nuisance, and that these suits encourage and could force the premature removal of the farmlands and other farm resources from agricultural use. It is the purpose of this chapter to protect reasonable agricultural activities conducted on the farm from nuisance lawsuits."

S.45 makes three main changes in Section 1 to existing law by striking out the old standard and replacing it with a new one. Under the new standard, no agricultural activity shall be or become a nuisance when the activity is conducted in accordance with a new definition of “Generally Accepted Agricultural Practices.”

First, it expands the nuisance protection for farmers to cover changes in agricultural activity. The existing law would disqualify a farm that changes its farming methods or the kind of animals or crops being raised from the nuisance protection.

Second, it allows new land newly used for agricultural purposes to qualify for the nuisance protection. Chair Durfee stated: "In order to increase our resiliency to supply chain interruptions and produce more of the food we consume, it will be necessary to expand the use of land dedicated to farming. Our committee has taken much testimony on recent efforts and aspirations to become a more food-resilient state and region as exemplified in the Vermont Farm-to-Plate strategic plan and the New England Feeding New England project which aims to have 30% of the food consumed in New England produced here by 2030."

The third main change shifts the burden of proof to prove eligibility for the agricultural nuisance protections from the farmer to the neighbor / plaintiff and clarifies the standards that qualify a farmer for protection from nuisance. It was already the case that the plaintiff had to prove the nuisance itself. A number of farmers testified about having issues with discontented neighbors, or fears of potential conflicts with neighbors, and that they live with a fairly constant worry that they may be sued. However, farmers also testified that their farms and private property were being affected by neighboring farms and that they did not support these changes, and that the existing law was already not working to hold their neighboring farm accountable.

Chair Durfee stated about these changes: "All three of these changes are arguably consistent with the surviving 1980s era intent language and thus arguably long overdue. [...] S45 will further the purpose of the existing law and provide improved protection of farms while striving to continue to strike a balance between the rights of farms and their neighbors."

Currently, a farm is entitled only to a rebuttable presumption against a nuisance suit and only if the farm can show that it meets multiple criteria, including conformity with state and federal law, consistency with good practices, establishment prior to surrounding activities, and no significant change since commencement of agricultural activities. Even if a farmer currently can prove all the criteria, a plaintiff can overcome the presumption against a nuisance by showing that the activity has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare or has a noxious and significant interference with use and enjoyment of neighboring property.

The changes of S.45 mean for farmers that they must be in good standing with both agencies in order to qualify for the nuisance protection. A definition for “good standing” has been added to the bill, meaning a person conducting an agricultural activity that is the basis of a nuisance claim does not have an active unresolved enforcement violation that's reached a final order with either VAAFM or ANR. Good standing can be shown simply by presenting letters from the Secretaries of the agencies.

For potential plaintiffs, the bill provides that nuisance protection for an agricultural activity shall not apply whenever (12 V.S.A § 5752(c)):

  • a nuisance violation results from the negligent operation of an agricultural activity;

  • the activity has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare; or/and

  • the activity has a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property.

These last two exceptions are consistent with the language in existing law. However, as stated above, it is now the case that the plaintiff must prove non-compliance with the Generally Accepted Agricultural practices (see definition below), that there is negligence, etc. - as opposed to the farmer.  

In addition, the bill adds a new definition of "Generally Accepted Agricultural Practices” in 12 V.S.A. § 5752 to mean water quality requirements of 6 V.S.A. chapter 215 including permit requirements or requirements of the RAPs; it also means the requirements of an active concentrated animal feeding operation or CAFO permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources; it also means the requirements of the Agency of Agriculture's rule for Control of Pesticides; and includes a catch-all phrase to include practices conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards followed by similar operators of agricultural activities in the state.

Lastly, 12 V.S.A. § 5754a is added to effectuate the purpose of the bill i.e. to protect reasonable agricultural activities from lawsuits, to reduce conflicts between farmers and neighbors, and to avoid litigation. It provides that a person shall not bring a court action based on a claim of nuisance arising from an agricultural activity unless the person and the farmer at least once attempt to resolve the issue through mediation. The USDA offers a free mediation service for these kinds of disputes. If the parties cannot resolve the issue through mediation, they may agree to arbitration and need to share the cost of the arbitration. Prior to a person bringing a court action based on a claim of nuisance, they need to provide the court with a sworn statement of an attempt to resolve the issue or dispute through mediation.

Status: S.45 needs to be signed into law by the Governor. Once signed or passed into law without the Governor's signature, it will take effect July 1, 2025.

H.401 - Cottage Food Bill

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: H.401

Description:  H.401 was passed unanimously by the House and the Senate during the 2025 legislative session and became Act 42. It intends to benefit small-scale food producers and new business start-ups by raising the limit of the existing licensing exemption for at-home bakery products and food manufacturers to adjust for inflationary cost changes that occurred since the initial statutory enactment in 2017 with Act 76§ 5. 

The bill defines “Cottage food operation,” “Cottage food operator,” and “Cottage food product.” Operations can take place in someone's home kitchen or another kitchen at the operator's residence (e.g. outdoor or barn kitchen). Most critical, “cottage food products,” that allow for the license free production of products sales up to $30K annually, are products that do not require refrigeration or time or temperature control for safety. In consequence, some products such as pies and quiches (for example) may still be manufactured license free under the old regime by food manufacturing establishments of up to $10K annual sales before they need to obtain a license. However, the language is a compromise and the foods listed as “cottage food products” are not exhaustive. Rural Vermont successfully advocated for the inclusion of canned foods on the list despite them needing time and temperature control during production. Home-canned pickles, vegetables, or fruits need to have an equilibrium pH value of 4.6 or lower or a water activity value of 0.85 or less and be made using recipes approved by the National Center for Home Food Preservation or that have been reviewed by a food processing authority.

The new law also includes a new training requirement for all employees of food manufacturing establishments to ensure cleanliness, sanitation, and healthfulness. The Department of Health suggested this change to offer free online training. As previously, all food manufacturing establishments that claim an exemption from licensing requirements need to file for an exemption with the Department of Health on an annual basis. On that form, businesses will now be asked to attest that they completed the new virtual training. 

Finally, the Department of Health will update their rules to reflect these changes and possibly issue “emergency rules” in the interim to get folks up to speed. 

Status: H. 401 was signed into law by the Governor on June 2nd and will take effect on July 1, 2025.

H.321 - Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill

Link to the Final Version of the Bill:  H.321

Description:  The Miscellaneous Cannabis Bill began and ended very disappointingly, 

in particular given the substantial work our coalition and others put into legislative working groups and reports, the expansion of support for our priorities from a number of actors, and the economic desperation for producers and small businesses in the regulated market. In the final version of H.321, the legislature has neglected its very own statutory commitments to accessibility for small businesses and farmers, to supporting “illicit” / legacy producers entering and succeeding in the regulated market, and to social equity. It has ignored the voices of direct stakeholders who directly testified, who wrote emails and made phone calls and signed onto letters; and has left small producers and businesses, and communities affected by a history of criminalization on their own. Despite Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition providing more testimony ourselves, and bringing in more direct stakeholders to provide testimony, than any other entity; despite evidencing significant support from across the regulated industry, across grass roots not-for-profit organizations, and from governmental entities like the Lt. Governor and the Land Access and Opportunity Board; and despite the Cannabis Control Board’s own research and reports supporting particular priorities we have related to social equity, outdoor siting, direct sales for producers, medical and more - none of our priorities or proposed statutory language were included in this bill.  It was even stripped of many of the features included in the Senate (some of which we supported, some of which we did not) in its final days in Committees. What remains in the bill are largely technical adjustments related to fingerprinting and background checks, receivership and transfer of business, changing the definition of “hemp”, “harvested on” and “packed on” date labelling requirements, and the ability for propagators to sell to retailers. It also includes a report on the fee schedule and the use of fees for the Cannabis Business Development Fund and the Land Access and Opportunity Board. Interestingly, this bill also became a vehicle for providing Migrant Justice a seat on the Board at the Land Access and Opportunity Board.

We would like to highlight some testimony provided by direct stakeholders (former and current license holders) that we have not shared in prior legislative updates - Amy Lems, Sara Farnsworth, Airon Shaw, and Joshua Decatur -  as it attests to the significant investments and challenges these regulated individuals face, the fundamental inequities of the regulations established by the State of VT and the Cannabis Control Board, and opportunities for amending the bill with language offered by our coalition to create a more fair, accessible and reparative cannabis economy and community in VT.

After several years of working on this issue with little success, it is clear that there is a lot of bias and disregard at the State House and Governor’s Office related to cannabis and people associated with it, and there is both education and an escalation of tactics that need to occur to support this community and their priorities being respected and heard.  We will work to draft our own bill over the next several months, to bring legislators to cannabis farms and to meet owners of small cannabis businesses and people affected by criminalization, to grow our coalition and the movement needed to support these businesses having a fair and equitable market, and to support communities harmed by the criminalization of cannabis being reinvested in with the excise tax (State profits) from the regulated market.  If you’d like to be more involved in this work, please contact Graham@ruralvermont.org 

H.167 (Act 34) - An act relating to establishing the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters Grant at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets

Link to the Final Version of the Bill:  Act 34


Description: This bill creates the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters Grant Program within the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. The program's implementation is contingent upon an appropriation in fiscal year 2026 from the General Fund and Act 27 (see p. 100) appropriates $500,000 for this purpose. The goal of the program is to provide grants to the Vermont Foodbank to purchase local food directly from farms to distribute through their distribution channels. It would also allow the Vermont Foodbank to offer subgrants to their community partners such as food shelves and food pantries to directly purchase food from local farms.

Status: The Governor approved the bill on May 27, 2025, and it became Act 34 (2025). 

H.484 - Miscellaneous Agricultural Subjects

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: H.484

Description: This bill is the House version of the miscellaneous agricultural bill.  Section 1 amends the existing statute in 6 V.S.A. chapter 28 regarding Fertilizer, Lime, Plant Amendments, Plant Biostimulants, and Soil Amendments. It seeks to integrate the term“beneficial substances” in its title and provisions in place of the terms plant amendments, plant biostimulants, and soil amendments in order to align with national efforts to create consistency for the labeling and regulation of these substances. In addition to refining the terminology, this bill would adjust labeling requirements to include an expiration date for microorganisms within products as well as directions for use. It would also replace guaranteed analysis with a statement of composition. 

Section 2 adds a $50 fee for anyone who registers pesticides in the State to fund the collection of obsolete and unwanted pesticides in 6 V.S.A. § 918. The registration of each pesticide or economic poison that is distributed, sold, or offered for sale within this State or delivered for transportation or transported in intrastate commerce or between points within this State through any point outside this State needs to be registered and renewed annually in Vermont. So effectively this change will add $50 to the annual costs of the registration of each pesticide. Section 3 launches a study to reimburse solid waste management entities for all costs associated with the collection and disposal of unwanted or obsolete pesticides, indicating that the new funds collected may not be sufficient for this task. 

Section 4 addresses the challenges for fairs to implement the three-acre stormwater permitting required by 10 V.S.A. § 1264 by specifically excluding the Rutland County Agricultural Society from this requirement. The Senator from Rutland who serves on the Senate Committee on Agriculture and the Farm Bureau had been advocating for this exception as the Rutland County fair would have been unable to meet the costs associated with implementing the requirement. Apparently other fairs are facing similar challenges but have already started to set implementation plans in place. 

Status: On May 30, 2025, the House received a message from the Senate that they concur with the latest House amendment suggestions to the bill. The bill is now awaiting approval from the Governor.

H. 481 (Act 37) - Related to Stormwater Management

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: Act 37

Description: This bill adjusts requirements regarding the permitting of stormwater systems and to the grant program that assists with their implementation that will receive at least $5M in funds. It would extend the permitting deadline for landowners that are subject to the 3 Acre Rule, which requires landowners with property that contains 3 or more acres of impervious surface to obtain a permit and implement stormwater management techniques. H. 484 seeks to mediate further how this requirement affects the Rutland County Fair. The new deadline is October 1, 2028 for the Lake Champlain watershed and not later than October 1, 2038 for all other watersheds with the caveat that it's no later than five years after a binding stormwater-specific waste-load allocation has been established for that watershed, whichever occurs first. 

Secondly, it allows municipalities to assume full legal responsibility for a stormwater system to assess municipal impact fees on users of the stormwater system. The bill also repeals the sunset of the clean water surcharge on the property transfer tax. Lastly, it would create the Study Committee on the Creation of Regional Stormwater Utility Districts. This committee would investigate the feasibility and benefits of creating regional stormwater utility districts to provide assistance and ensure compliance with the State’s water quality laws. 

Status: The Governor signed this bill into law on May 27 and it became Act 37 (2025). 

S.44 (Act 28) - Authorization to enter certain immigration agreements

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: Act 28

Description:  S.44 is about important details on how the State of Vermont works in conjunction with federal immigration officials. Vermont is unique in requiring Governor approval to enter into local law enforcement agreements with ICE. This is extra protection that no other state has. Vermont decided in 2017 to add this check with Act 5 relating to “freedom from compulsory collection of personal information.” S.44 requires public agencies, officers, employees, agents, or independent contractors of a public agency to get the Governor’s approval in consultation with the Vermont Attorney General before entering into certain immigration agreements. These agreements govern the performance of State immigration officer functions for purposes related to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of non-citizens.

This legislation drew 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 with both agricultural committees. Since then, more farmworkers have been arrested without due process and 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. Since then, the federal judge in Vermont released Mahdawi who then supported Vermont legislators in announcing on May 8, the Victory on Europe Day, the Vermont Immigration Legal Defense Fund (press conference recording here; fund website here).

Status: The Governor signed S.44 into law on May 21, 2025 and it became Act 28 (2025). 

H.238 - PFAS in Consumer Products

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: H.238

Description: H.238 refines Act 131 (2024) with a goal to phase out a series of consumer products containing PFAS. In contrast to Act 131, H. 238 excludes pesticides that contain PFAS from its purview, effectively removing the mandate to phase out PFAS from pesticides. 

Status: the House concurred with the Senate proposal of amendment on May 29, 2025, and the bill is awaiting the Governor’s signature. 

H.106 - Relating to selling real property within a FEMA mapped flood hazard area

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: H. 106

Description: It is the intention of the legislature to ensure that a buyer of real property is in the know regarding the flood risks associated with the purchase of real estate. However, this bill repeals the requirement that a seller of property needs to notify the purchaser whether the property is located in a Federal Emergency Management Agency mapped flood hazard area. Instead, the bill issues a new requirement for the seller to share a physical or electronic copy or link of the official flood insurance rate map if it’s available. It also keeps the existing requirement under 27 V.S.A. §380 for sellers to disclose whether the property was subject to flooding or flood damage during the seller's possession, and whether the seller used, or was required to use, flood insurance. 

Status: This bill is awaiting signature by the Governor and would take effect on September 1, 2025. 

H. 493 (Act 27) - Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Budget “An act relating to making appropriations for the support of the government”

Link to the Final Version of the Bill: Act 27

Description: This description of the budget bill focuses on updates to agriculture related appropriations since the crossover deadline halfway through the session. The State FY26 Budget includes a $450,000 appropriation from the General Fund to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets which will be granted to NOFA-VT for the Crop Cash program (p. 100). This is an increase to the $300,000 that was appropriated earlier. This program matches SNAP/3SquaresVT funds, providing the participant with extra money to purchase fruit, vegetables, herbs, seeds and plant starts at farmers markets. Crop Cash supports both participants and farmers, enhancing food access and farm viability within the state.

The FY26 Budget appropriates $500,000 for the newly created Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program as well as $500,000 for Farm to School Grants. 

Conservation Districts will receive $250,000 to share among all 14 districts - that funding was not included before the crossover deadline.  

You can find the budget of the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets starting on page 34, including their administrative, food safety inspection and agricultural development budget, and more. Here’s a summary of grant funds appropriated to VAAFM for FY2026:

  • $2,810,000 (unchanged) for Food Safety and Consumer Protection Grants

  • $15,633,200 (unchanged) for Agricultural Development Grants

  • $247,000 (reduced from $359,000) for Agricultural Resource Management and Environmental Stewardship Grants

  • $11,487,000 (increased from $11,375,000) for Clean Water Grants

Other relevant appropriations include a series of funds for the Land Use Review Board which implements Act 250, specifically: $100K for mapping services, $400K for the board, and $5,538,956 in personal services and operating expenses. The Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (VHCB) receives $109,284,304. In comparison, VHCB received $86,519,068 in 2024 (Act 78, 2024, p. 78) and had proclaimed with their Act 59 Inventory Report that they will need to significantly increase their budget for their buy, protect, sell policy of acquiring land development rights across the state. The FY 26 appropriation is a 26% increase in funds in comparison.  

Status: The Governor signed H.493 into law on May 21 and it became Act 27 (2025).

 

S.60 - Farm Security Special Fund

Link to the current version of the bill: Draft No. 4.2 - S.60 (5/2/2025)

Description: S.60 is a bill and proposal led by a broad coalition of agricultural organizations which seeks to create a “farm security special fund” which would be used to support farms locally, effectively, and efficiently in recovering from the impacts of extreme weather events. This bill was widely popular across the Statehouse, but given the concerns about federal funding to the State of VT at the moment, we saw the appropriation to establish the fund reduced repeatedly, and eventually to zero. This lack of an appropriation was disappointing, but given that the fund could accept donations and funding from sources other than the State, our coalition was still hopeful that the fund could at least serve as a vehicle to accept and distribute financial support from other entities. However, over the last couple of weeks, the House Committee on Appropriations surprised everyone by expressing new concerns and holding up the legislation in committee.  

Status update: Given the dynamic described, and the risks of continuing to press to pass this legislation now and potentially having it fail, our coalition has decided to leave the bill for now. Between now and the next legislative session, we will continue to grow support for this concept, and a better understanding of the circumstances farmers find themselves in after extreme weather events.  Contact Graham@ruralvermont.org for more information or to get involved!

H.161 - Fair Repair Act

Link to the current version of the bill: H.161 as introduced

Description: This bill proposes to require original equipment manufacturers of certain agricultural, electronic, and forestry equipment to make available the parts, tools, and documentation necessary to repair such equipment to independent repair providers and owners of the equipment. It defines “repair” as to maintain, diagnose, or fix agricultural, electronic, or forestry equipment, resulting in the equipment being restored to its fully functional condition, including any updates.

Status update: This bill is still “on the wall” in the House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development which means that there was no work done on this legislation all session long. It could still be picked up next year though. 

H.292/ H.303 - PFAS in Sludge Land Application Ban

Link to the current version of the bill: H.292 as introduced; H.303 as introduced

Description: These bills proposed to ban the land application of biosolids on farmland.

Status update: The House Committee on Environment took testimony on these bills and several representatives, including the chair, expressed that they don’t believe that biosolids on farmers’ fields present problems here in Vermont and that they do not need to be regulated differently. This means that these bills are “dead” as this committee is not interested in moving this legislation in 2026. 

H.408 - State purchasing of local food

Link to the current version of the bill: H.408 as introduced

Description: This bill would create a state policy regarding institutional purchasing and local procurement to encourage local food purchasing by all state institutions, including universities and colleges, to increase the viability of Vermont farm and food businesses. The policy would mandate that institutions give preference to buy local when costs are comparable to foods not grown or produced in the state. More specifically, a price would be not comparable if local food would be more than 10% more expensive than out of state foods.  

Previously passed legislation (Act 67 of 2022) states a goal of 20% local food procurement in schools by 2023. Recently, the federal government canceled the Local Food for Schools and Child Care (LFSCC) program that included $1,222,076 in LFSCC funding for Vermont schools (learn more about this here).

The policy proposed in H.408 would go further than Act 67 (2022) but does not include a needed appropriation to fill the void of the LFSCC. 

Status update: This bill received an introduction and walk-through on 3/18/25 but didn’t progress otherwise this year. It could gain more traction in the 2026 session.

H. 169 - related  to prohibitions against discrimination in public accommodations and housing

Link to the bill: H.169 as introduced

Description: This bill proposes to prohibit a landlord from requesting a Social Security number on a residential rental application and to accept all forms of government issued identification. This bill also proposes to add citizenship and immigration status to the existing discrimination prohibitions in public accommodations and unfair housing practices.


Status: This bill is in the Committee on General and Housing and did not make crossover this year. However, it did gain traction in that committee and might progress in 2026 as many representatives support this legislation.

H. 403 - related to fair labor standards and housing standards for agricultural workers

Link to the bill: H.403 as introduced

Description: This bill proposes to repeal the exemption of agricultural workers from the applicability of the minimum wage laws and to provide overtime pay for agricultural workers. This bill also proposes to provide inspections to determine the adequacy of farm employee housing and a mechanism to address violations of the Vermont Residential Rental Housing Health and Safety Code.


Status: This bill is “on the wall” in the Committee on General and Housing and would need significant stakeholder support to gain traction in 2026.

H. 386 - relating to establishing an Agricultural Land Transfer Assistance Program Current Use Bills

Link to the current version of the bill: H.386

Description: This bill proposes to establish an Agricultural Land Transfer Assistance Program at the VT Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to assist owners of agricultural land in connecting with or identifying prospective purchasers who intend to maintain the land for farming. 

Status: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry heard testimony on this bill in March and April. We expect there might be interest in further work on this bill and land access issues more generally in 2026. 

H. 276 - Old Growth Forests

Link to the current version of the bill: H.276 as introduced

Description: This bill has been proposed by Standing Trees and would allow for ~nine percent of Vermont’s forest to become old growth forests through a newly created designation of “State wildlands” on State lands. These areas would be permanently protected from conversion per statute and allow only for minimal human interference. The bill does not allow for timber harvesting, pruning, cutting, herbicide application, the removal of diseased or infected trees, or the alteration of surface or groundwater on State wildlands. It would also by default include any future acquisitions of State lands as wildlands unless the Agency of Natural Resources justifies another determination. 

Status update: The House Committee on Environment started hearing testimony about the bill in April, but did not advance it this year. It is unclear if the committee will have an appetite to work on this more next year. 

H. 343 - Making State Lands Available for Farming by Native American Indian Tribes

Link to the current version of the bill: H.343 as introduced

Description: This bill would allow State lands that are owned or controlled by the Agency of Natural Resources to be leased for farming to citizens of State-recognized Native American Indian tribes. The bill outlines a framework for identifying suitable lands, and the application and leasing process.

Status update: This bill did not gain any traction in the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry this year, but the committee could work on it next year. 

H. 372 - Related to the application of neonicotinoid pesticides to nursery starts and herbaceous plants

Link to the current version of the bill: H.372

Description: This bill proposes to prohibit the application of neonicotinoid pesticides to nursery starts and herbaceous plants. It does not include a sales prohibition (of plants that had neonics applied to them outside of the state). However, the legislative council stated such a provision could be added without violating the Constitution’s commerce clause. 

Status update: There have not been any hearings on this bill since its committee introduction and walk-through on 3/18/25.  This bill could gain more traction in 2026.

H. 326 - related to the regulation of the use of rodenticides

Link to the bill: H.326 as introduced

Description:  This bill proposes to prohibit the use by any person of both first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the State, including use by commercial applicators. The bill also would ban the sale, including internet sales, of anticoagulants in the State. The bill provides an exemption when needed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife to control pests or when no other pest control method would be effective. The bill would also restrict the use of any other legal rodenticides near wildlife refuges, State parks, wildlife management areas, or other ecologically sensitive areas.

The rationale for this bill includes the recognized effects on non-target animals, such as pets and children. During the bill’s committee introduction, the committee further acknowledged concerns of bio-accumulation up the food chain. The EPA has sought removal of rodenticides from consumer products, and related products are no longer available in stores.  

Status: While this bill did not make the crossover deadline, the House Ag committee spent a lot of time on it, so it has a good chance of progressing next year. 

Rural Vermont