Legislative Update 2.5.26

*Because of the length of this audio recording, we did not include individual section recordings. If you would like to listen to individual sections, please click on the button below to be taken to our Listen Up, Rural Vermont! page to access audio of each individual section of the Legislative Update.

Listen Up, Rural Vermont! (Leg Update Audio Recordings)

Intro

This legislative session in Vermont is critically important.  We are working to ensure farming itself is protected from town by town regulation, and making sure that farms can have resources available to them when extreme weather disasters impact their farms.  We are working to convince lawmakers to respond to the federal funding shortfall and cutting of funding for essential services like healthcare subsidies for Vermonters by making VT’s tax system more fair and raising revenue from high-income earners who’ve disproportionately benefited from the federal tax cuts last summer, as opposed to by cutting more programs and services our communities cannot afford to lose.  

Yet beyond this immediate moment in our statehouse, we - and our communities - are being drawn to the imperative of meeting a greater moment.  We have watched as the violent tactics employed by ICE and Border Patrol have escalated throughout the entirety of the current federal administration’s time in office, including the current surge of government military forces with little to no accountability occupying and terrifying communities and entire cities in the United States, killing multiple people, kidnapping and detaining, and openly defying the law.  As we write this update, multiple people living in Vermont were detained by ICE, separated from their families and communities, and at least one was transported out of state.  At the statehouse, there are now two bills, H.208 and H.209, which work in tandem to add government buildings, schools, shelters, and health care facilities to the list of sensitive locations where a person is not subject to a civil arrest; and to require standards for law enforcement to identify themselves, including banning the use of facemasks with limited exceptions.

Rural Vermont is committed to supporting our democracy, accountability for law enforcement, human rights, and a safe place to live for everyone in our communities.  We are encouraged by the resiliency and solidarity of the vulnerable communities in Vermont and around the world who have persisted persecution throughout time, by the community members who have worked in solidarity and in community with these people to protect them, and now with so many coming out to face and prepare for whatever comes next in the face of increasing federal repression, attacks on civil rights, and anti-democratic behavior.  

Wherever you are in Vermont, there are organizations, networks, and groups you can plug into, or models you can duplicate in your area.  From statewide organizations like Migrant Justice, to regional organizations like the Central VT Refugee Action Network, to local mutual aid networks - there are opportunities to support across abilities and interests (rapid response, food provision, fundraising, ride support, cyber security, protest, and more).  

2026 Legislative Update Audio Recordings
2026 Bill Monitor
2026 Course of Action

Cannabis

Overview of relevant bills: There are many bills which have recently surfaced related to adult-use cannabis, and many of which are related to the priorities of Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition.  Here is a list of the current bills broken out roughly by subject (we are  providing more details for bills more directly related to our coalition’s goals below):

S.278 - An act relating to cannabis - Sen. Ram-Hinsdale (a more comprehensive bill we will address below)

S.320 - An Act relating to cannabis advertising - Vyhovsky

S.321 - An act relating to consumption of cannabis in a prohibited place - Vyhovsky (this addresses our coalition’s priority related to public consumption, and has a companion bill in the House, H.634)

H.633 - An act relating to requiring municipalities to hold a vote concerning the operation of cannabis establishments - Waszazak (this addresses a more equitable approach to the current “opt in” approach which requires towns to vote affirming they will allow retail cannabis sales).

 H.634 - An act relating to consumption of cannabis in a prohibited place - Waszazak (this addresses our coalition’s priority related to public consumption, and has a companion bill in the Senate, S.321)

H.700 - An act relating to eliminating tetrahydrocannabinol limits for cannabis flower and cannabis products sold by licensed cannabis retailers - Casey

H.806- An act relating to cannabis advertising - McGill

Status update: We are mostly focusing on S. 278 as a coalition, a bill we were expecting from Sen. Kesha Ram-Hinsdale, which emerged in the Senate Economic Development Committee.  This bill addresses many things - some of which are priorities which Rural VT and the VT Cannabis Equity Coalition have focused on for years, including: accessible licenses for direct sales for producers, significant funding for the Land Access and Opportunity Board and programs directly supporting land access for marginalized communities, opening up technical and financial assistance to small producers and economic empowerment licensees, and more.  However, we see a need to improve and clarify the language in many places, and there are things we are not supportive of, such as: reducing the cannabis excise tax, implementing paid on-site consumption before implementing public consumption, and only proposing one-time funding for the LAOB and the cannabis business development fund. Priorities we have as a coalition related to further enumerating agricultural status, expungement, public consumption, and medical are not addressed in the bill at this time. All of this said, we are happy to have a good starting place for what will perhaps be the most important bill on cannabis this year, to have it addressing (and being understood as addressing) fundamental issues of economic development, and to have a motivated lead sponsor in Sen. Ram-Hinsdale and helpful co-sponsors from important and relevant committees like Senate Appropriations, Judiciary, Government Operations and Health and Welfare - and we are working to grow this list of co-sponsors. Sen. Ram-Hinsdale has made clear her intention to have cannabis provided with no more stringent regulations than alcohol in most cases (in particular allowing for on-farm and direct sales for producers), and in committee discussion with the VT League of Cities and Towns on January 30th, in discussing their goals related to jurisdiction over agriculture, the Senator clearly stated that she wanted cannabis producers to have the same rights as other farms and agricultural entities in relationship to the zoning authority of towns.

Prior to this bill emerging, on Friday, January 16th, Rural VT and other members of the VCEC (Amy Lems, VT Growers’ Association; Jessilyn Dolan, Green Mtn. Patients’ Alliance) testified in the Senate Committee on Agriculture about both hemp and some of our priorities for adult-use cannabis. The Chair, Sen. Ingals, expressed his support for adult-use cannabis producers being treated as farmers and agricultural businesses, and having fair regulations and an equal opportunity to succeed - also acknowledging some of the challenges of current federal law in this respect (i.e. writing off business expenses, banking, regulating as agriculture, etc.).  However, despite the Chair’s interest in supporting parity for producers, he also indicated that at this point the committee does not see itself as having much jurisdictional discretion over adult-use cannabis, given it is not regulated as agriculture in VT.  

We are waiting to provide testimony and bring in producers and other stakeholders in to testify on S.278. We are currently developing recommendations, which we will send to the committee and sponsors of this legislation this week for how to address our concerns and recommendations in S.278.  

Action: if you are interested in testifying on this issue or understanding it more, please reach out to Graham@ruralvermont.org.  

S. 323 Miscellaneous Ag Bill Senate

S.323 was introduced last week by the Senate Committee on Agriculture. It is a miscellaneous bill related to agricultural subjects, covering a wide array of topics in 45 pages. You can view the initial walk-through, where the legislative council explains the different sections of the bill, here. We’re just beginning to understand the scope of the proposed changes in the bill, and provide a brief section-by-section overview for you here. Action: Reach out to Rural Vermont, and/or to the Senate Committee on Agriculture (find members and their contact info here and here), to share your feedback on this legislation. 

Section 1-3: Includes the proposal from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets to reinstate the municipal exemption for farming, which includes their proposed changes to the Required Agricultural Practices Rule (RAPs).  The Chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture claims they are not committed to this proposal at this time and that this is more of a placeholder. Read on for a more detailed update on our advocacy to reinstate the municipal exemption and to codify a Right to Grow Food in the next part of this legislative update. 

Section 4-5:  Section 4 and 5 suggest changes to tax law to make land access for farmers more affordable from a taxable income and property transfer tax lens.

Section 4 seeks to allow for a farmer's taxable income to be decreased by “the amount of any net farm profit” up to $10,000.  It would also allow net capital gain from the sale of real estate that is part of a farming operation to be deducted from taxable income if “the buyer continues using the real estate as part of a farming operation” and is either related to the original farmer or has been working on their farm for 10 years prior to the sale. An eligible tax decrease for someone who buys such a farm would become subject to income taxes “upon development of the real estate.” 

Section 5 proposes changes to the property transfer tax for the transfer of property that is part of a farming operation, if the new owner will continue using the real estate as part of a farming operation. It mirrors the eligibility criteria of the income tax reduction, specifically that the new owner should either be related to the selling farmer or have worked on their farm for a minimum of 10 years prior to the transfer. Likewise, the property transfer tax would be imposed if the real estate were to be developed after the sale, as “development” is defined in 32 V.S.A. 3752(5) here. 

***This is our preliminary understanding of the proposed tax changes in Sections 4 and 5 of S.323, and we reserve the right to correct our reading of this bill as we learn more about it. We are not experts in tax law and recommend you consult with a tax attorney should this subject be important for your farm succession planning.***

Section 6: This section proposes changes to the regulations of structures that are being developed for Accessory On-Farm Businesses (AOFB). In particular, it proposes that Accessory On-Farm Businesses that use less than $250,000 of off-farm ingredients each year will be exempt from Act 250 permits. This is a change from the 2024 language, which based the exemption on at least 50% of sales coming from on-farm products. The specific statutory language,, 10 V.S.A. § 6081(t) was in 2024: “No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on-farm business for the preparation or processing of qualifying products as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412(11)(A)(i)(I), provided that more than 50 percent of the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located.” This sentence determines in law if an Act 250 permit is required for the construction of improvements for an AOFB for “preparation or processing” of qualifying (food) products. This sentence would be changed to remove the 50 percent rule and to insert a new rule where “the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products that come from products not produced on the farm where the business is located do not exceed $250,000.” 

Other sentences in this section of the law specify that no permit is required for the construction of improvements for the storage and sale of (agricultural) products, but that a permit may be required for any construction related to hosting events or farm stays. 

Please also consider Section 8 of this bill, as it defines Farm Kitchens of AOFBs. 

Section 7: Would amend the definition of “Agricultural Land” in Vermont's tax code of Title 32 to include in the presumption that land is used for agricultural purposes not only if it has produced an annual gross income from the sale of farm crops, but also land that has been used for the production of an “equivalent value of donated farm crops.” The equivalent value would be measured as at least $2,000 worth of product on parcels of up to 25 acres, and an additional $75 per acre for each acre over 25, with the total income required not to exceed $5,000. This production volume would need to be reached in one of two or three of the five calendar years preceding the last to qualify land used for charitable food production as “Agricultural Land” for tax purposes. 

Section 8-9: This section defines “Farm kitchen operation” in the law that the Department of Health administers, as: “an accessory on-farm business as defined in 24 V.S.A. § 4412 that utilizes a dedicated kitchen facility located on the premises of a working farm for the purposes of preparing, preserving, packaging, labeling, or storing food products derived from crops, livestock, or other agricultural goods grown or raised on the farm for farm-direct sales, donation, or distribution.” Attention: this proposed change would solely apply as a definition of kitchens used for Accessory On-Farm Businesses and not also for kitchens used by Cottage Food Operations who may not also be a farm and who can use a “home kitchen of the person’s private residential dwelling or a kitchen on the person’s personal property” as defined in 2025 with amendments to 18 V.S.A. § 4301 (a) (5) [this change was made with Act 42 that raised the income threshold for cottage food producers to $30,000]. However, Section 9 proposes that the Department of Health can charge a $75 fee for operating farm kitchens (cottage food businesses are already charged fees by the department). 

Section 10: Seemingly adopts the identical bill text of H.677 to Protect Agricultural Land from Large-Scale Solar Energy Development into this miscellaneous agricultural bill. Please defer to the section further down for more information. This section does not include the bill text of the separately proposed H.712 related to raising the Uniform Capacity Tax for large solar development projects. 

Section 11: Includes language updates to 6 V.S.A. § 2752 regarding the refusal to purchase dairy products. In one place it’s simply changing “he or she” to “the producer;” and in subsection (d) it switches that a producer instead of the purchaser may request a hearing regarding a purchaser’s refusal to purchase dairy products, giving the producer more leverage to delay the effectiveness of such refusal until a hearing took place and a decision by the Secretary of Agriculture was made. 

Section 12: Amends the Local Foods Grant Program to include other contracts aside from grants, renaming the program the “Local Foods Program.” 

Section 13: Would repeal 6 V.S.A. chapter 83, the Pest Control Compact, which includes an insurance fund for pest control mitigation across different states of the United States. We would benefit from more context about the current function and efficacy of the compact Government Board and why this change is being proposed. We will follow up with more information in a future legislative update. 

Section 14: Is adding a provision to the licensing of pesticide applicators that: “There shall be no limitation on the frequency for retaking examinations for private, commercial, noncommercial, or government applicator certifications or dealer licenses.”

Section 15-20: Section 15-19 is making updates to Vermont’s Seed Law to conform with universal standards established in the Recommended Uniform State Seed Law by the Association of American Seed Control Officials. Section 19 establishes a new policy that allows the Secretary of Agriculture to issue administrative penalties if a distributor fails to report the quantity of genetically engineered, treated, and untreated seed sold in the State in a previous calendar year, establishing this new reporting requirement on a form prescribed by the Secretary in Section 20 for all seeds distributed in or into Vermont regardless of container size. Section 20 also establishes the policy that no person shall distribute seed without registering annually. The pre-existing fees, of $85 per distributor and $10 per ton of seed distributed in containers of more than 10 pounds, stay the same. This Section adds the new explicit exemption from this registration requirement for interpersonal sharing of seed for home, educational, charitable, or personal noncommercial use. 

Section 21-22: Would consolidate the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program within the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) by repealing the program in 10 V.S.A. chapter 16A and redesignating the same in 10 V.S.A. chapter 12, subchapter 16. This is a proposal from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets and it also entails some substantive changes to the program. For more detailed information, please listen to the introduction of this section by the legislative council here.

Section 23-24: Would strike the fees required for the permitting of Large and Medium Farm Operations, namely the annual fees of $2,500 or $1,500, respectively. Listen to the recording of the introduction of this language by the Legislative Council here. This would cut a hole into the Budget of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets over $230,000, and the agency is requesting an appropriation to fill this gap. The Legislative Council did not provide reasoning for this proposed change but it likely has to do with the new upcoming CAFO permitting requirements that are currently being negotiated and developed by the CAFO stakeholder group in response to the new relations and procedures established between VAAFM and ANR by Act 67 in 2025; and/or the CAFO legislation being developed in House Natural Resources, H.632. 

Section 25: Would establish a stakeholder group to study “the permitting process for installation of floor drains for purposes of disposing process wastewater into underground injection wells to better support farmers and their role in the agricultural economy.”

Section 26: would establish the effective date of this law as taking effect on July 1, 2026. 

Municipal Exemption and the Right to Grow Food

For an overview of this issue, see our post from 1/14. At this time, both committees on agriculture in the House and the Senate have specific legislative language in bill form that they are considering. 

Status in the Senate: The Senate Committee on Agriculture introduced a bill covering miscellaneous agricultural subjects (S.323), with this issue leading the chart in Sections 1-3. This language includes findings (Section 1), would reinstate the municipal exemption for farming in Title 24 (Section 2), and includes the proposed changes from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM) to the Required Agricultural Practices Rule (RAPs). Those changes seek to raise the income threshold to qualify as a farm from $2,000 to $5,000 and remove the option to be determined as a farm when a Schedule F (the federal tax filing form for farms) is filed with the IRS. It would also allow farms that operate solely to donate and not to sell food to be more easily subject to the RAP rule and related programming. Our coalition and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns do not favor remedying the municipal exemption of the farming issue by also amending the RAP rule through law. The Legislative Council confirmed earlier that the issues presented by the Vermont Supreme Court do not need to be addressed in the RAP rule itself. The VAAFM language does not name a Right to Grow Food explicitly, but does include some of the same language. Without including livestock broadly in a municipal zoning exemption it would apply to “(A) the cultivation or other use of land for growing plants, including for food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, or horticultural, viticultural, and orchard crops; and “(B) the raising, feeding, or management of a small backyard poultry flock, excluding roosters.”

On Wednesday, February 4th, the committee will bring all core parties of this issue to the same table when they hear from representatives of our coalition (Nofa-VT, Farm Bureau, Rural Vermont, and Farm to Plate), representatives of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and again from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. 

Status in the House: The House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry appears to be much closer to a compromise between the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) and the proposal Rural VT and the coalition of agricultural organizations has developed together. At the beginning of this week (week five of the legislative session), they’ve introduced bill language that reflects the proposed language around a Right to Grow Food that includes: “(ii) raising, feeding, or managing livestock, excluding roosters, in compliance with the Required Agricultural Practices Rule, provided the land base is sufficient for appropriate nutrient and waste management as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets; [...].” 

The language that seeks to draw a compromise that VLCT is seeking around some ability to zone within Tier 1A areas is being reflected in Section 2 (d)(1) that reads as follows: “A bylaw under this chapter shall not regulate: [...] (B) construction of a farm structure as authorized under the Required Agricultural Practices Rule, except for construction of a farm structure within a Tier 1A area established in accordance with 10 V.S.A. § 6034;” This proposal effectively suggests that farm structures should generally stay exempt from municipal zoning as they previously had been. This also aligns with what VAAFM is recommending. The compromise would be that within Tier 1A areas, towns could apply zoning for the construction of a new farm structure. Because this proposed language also includes an exemption for farming and the right to grow food from municipal zoning, such zoning requirements should not be prohibitive of farming and food production in general - our reading of this proposal matches what we’ve heard from VLCT in that they do favor the RIght to Grow Food and that they also support the municipal exemption from farming in any area of a city or town. Their expressed goal is to have some oversight specifically in Tier 1A areas, without impeding farming practices. Our coalition needs to make sure this proposed language does indeed not lend itself to new misinterpretations, as the old statute did, such as zoning of new structures could impose undue burdens on farming operations or be prohibitive of farming. Our coalition has not had a chance to discuss this proposed compromise in detail yet, and we ask our members to share any feedback they might have about this proposal from the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. The Chair of this committee has announced that they want to move on this legislation rather quickly so that they can also work on other issues this session.

Moreover the newly created Tier 1A status. Towns can apply to become “Tier 1A” and for developments within such areas to be fully exempt from Act 250 regulations. Currently, Tier 1A areas have not been designated yet, but towns have to apply to get this status in a process that can take between 18 months and 3 years (laid out in Act 181 of 2024). The perception is that only cities and towns that already have very concentrated areas of development and that can oversee and complete large development projects themselves will apply for this status because they will need the staffing capacity to facilitate the complicated designation process and the oversight required for such large development projects. This takes many smaller towns out of the purview of Tier 1A. Possibly in conversation for Tier 1A are Rutland, Barre, St. Albans, Colchester, Essex, and maybe a few others like Bellows Falls and Brattleboro. You can find more information about the Tier 1A approval process on the website of the Land Use Review Board that oversees that process here.

Farmworker housing has been subject to municipal zoning in the past, in a town where zoning regulations apply, because dwellings for human habitation are not defined as “farm structures” in the municipal zoning exemption for farming. Neither the House nor the Senate proposal seeks to change that definition at this time. 

An exemption for Cannabis from municipal zoning is not included in either of the House or Senate proposals, despite the relevant VT Supreme Court Ruling having applied to the regulation of cannabis through municipal zoning bylaws (In re 8 Taft Street DRB & NOV Appeals, 2025 VT 27 ). 

Action: We ask farmers and homesteaders who want to support the advocacy for the Right to Grow Food (including livestock) and our goal to reinstate the municipal exemption for farming to sign-on to this letter. This form gives you space to express anything you want to share with us on this issue and will help our ability to showcase and mobilize support!

Green Banks and/or Public Banks to Invest in Agriculture and Climate Resilience

Bill summary: On January 29, Jennifer Byrne (District Manager of the White River Conservation District) responded in testimony to S.174 (an act relating to the study of Green Bank models to support and accelerate investments in climate mitigation infrastructure, farming, and agriculture in Vermont) to educate the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy (SNRE) about the farmer-led populist movement and the history of Public Banks created to circulate money locally and grow local investment capacity. Interest in this bill was brought to Senator Anne Watson, Chair of SNRE and champion of the bill, by the members of the farming community due to a lack of access to sufficient capital. 

If this bill were to be amended to include Public Banks in the study, this legislation could be an important first step towards creating a Public Bank in Vermont and increasing the availability of capital to farmers.  In contrast to Green Banks, which require specific appropriations, a Public Bank would be able to create capital through lending. We highly recommend reading or watching Jennifer's testimony, which is very accessible using plain language to explain how public banks could help the farming community. You can read her testimony here and watch her testimony here. 

Status: This bill was introduced by the Chair of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy where the committee already received a bill introduction and heard testimony from Chris D’Elia, the President of the Vermont Bankers’ Association (recording here) who expressed opposition to the idea of a stand alone Green Bank but not directly to the idea of a study of the issue. At the same hearing, the committee also heard from David Scherr, Deputy Treasurer at the Office of the State Treasurer, who requested that his office would need to be adequately equipped to undertake such a study. The committee is planning to take more testimony on this bill. 

More context about Rural Vermont’s history on this issue: Rural Vermont worked in the past with NOFA VT, the National Family Farm Coalition, Action Aid USA, to urge VT's Treasurer to divest from its $100 million investment of VT's Pension Money in TIAA Nuveen (its corporate farmland acquisition subsidiary, which markets itself as socially responsible investing). This involved educating ourselves and people in the ag community about the reality of corporate land grabs and investments around the world and their impacts on peasant, indigenous, and agricultural communities - including here in the US.  Long story short, VT did not divest from TIAA Nuveen - and a part of the conversation went to how and in what or whom a State could invest money, alternatively, and one of the responses we discussed was public banking (this crowd was also familiar with the history of the Populist Moment and farmer organizing associated with Public Banking).  Here is a blog post from 2021 of ours on the Issue of VT's pension funds being currently invested in TIAA Nuveen, that's engaged in land grabbing with supplemental resources.

Action: If you are interested in this topic, please reach out to the Senators on the Sen. Committee on Natural Resources and Energy right away. Let them know, especially if you think the bill should be amended to include the creation of a Public Bank for the same purpose in its purview.  You can find the contact information of the Senators on that committee here.

Two Pesticide Bills in House Agricultural Committee

Action: At this point, neither of these pesticide bills has received much time for testimony, and it is a good time for you to contact your representatives to let them know that you do -or do not - support this legislation. You can also reach out to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry (find members and their contact info here and here), if you want to share your stance about this legislation.  At Rural Vermont, we would also like to hear from you about whether you support this legislation or not - please contact Graham@ruralvermont.org.

H. 758 Banning the use of Rodenticides

Bill summary and context: On our blog last year, we discussed a similar bill, H.326 of 2025:

It proposed to prohibit first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and their sale, but also proposed an exemption opportunity through the Department of Fish and Wildlife when no other pest control method would be effective. If it had passed, it would have restricted the use of other rodenticides near wildlife refuges, State parks, wildlife management areas, or other ecologically sensitive areas. The rationale was recognized effects on non-target animals, such as pets and children.  Over the course of the session, the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry heard testimony from various perspectives.

This year’s H.758 is similar. It starts by citing that “Between 2017 and 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 40,808 poisonings of humans from rodenticides, most of whom were children under five years of age.” It also cites impacts on domestic animals and wildlife (including through bioaccumulation - when an animal eats a poisoned animal), which act as natural pest controllers. Like last year’s bill, it proposes to prohibit first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (rodenticides containing chlorophacinone, diphacinone, warfarin, brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone), and adds a ban of nonanticoagulant rodenticides (which contain bromethalin, cholecalciferol, or zinc phosphide). It proposes the opportunity for exemptions for specific and stringent public health or agricultural emergency circumstances from the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, after consultation with the Secretary of Natural Resources.

H. 739 Banning the use of Paraquat

Bill summary and context: This is a very short bill which proposes to prohibit the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat in the State. It would allow for limited exemptions only when “no other less harmful pesticide would be effective in addressing an environmental or agricultural emergency”. These exemption orders would be valid for up to one year and detail the parameters of use.

Paraquat is banned in more than 70 countries around the world as it has been linked to conditions such as: Parkinson's disease, Non Hogkin’s Lymphoma , Thyroid Cancer  and other thyroid issues, and has been shown to increase the chance of leukemia if exposed during pregnancy.  

At this time paraquat is rarely used in US agriculture.  Only 1% of all pesticide applications are paraquat; that’s also true for all herbicide applications (1.5%).  Paraquat is rarely used on major commodity crops like corn and soybeans; and four of the top 10 apple-producing countries, representing 77% of production, have banned paraquat (China, EU, Turkey and Brazil).

Vermont uses very little paraquat. Below you can see the pounds applied per year from 2022, that being the most recent data available:

  • 2022: 750 pounds (only in Addison county for corn, field & forage)

  • 2021: none

  • 2020: 36 pounds for produce

  • 2019: none

  • 2018: none

  • 2017: 1 pound for lawn and ornamental

  • From 2013 to 2017, paraquat made up 0.18%  of all pesticides used in the state.

S. 60 Farm Security Special Fund

Status: S. 60 has been passed unanimously by the House on January 16, 2026. The House version differs slightly from the version the Senate passed unanimously in 2025 (House version here, Senate version here). Most importantly, the bill now includes aspects of forestry operations in its scope of eligible emergency funding. The bill is now in the Senate Committee of Agriculture for consideration of the changes that were made by the House, and the committee will develop a recommendation on whether or not to concur with the amendments made by the House to the whole Senate on the floor sometime soon. In parallel to the positive progress of the policy bill, S.60, the Farm Security Special Fund will need to receive an appropriation in the “Big Bill” - the FY 27 State Budget, to take effect. Our coalition requests $15.6 million in funds for this program based on a formula in the bill and is currently working with the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resilience, and Forestry to endorse this request with the House Committee on Appropriation which is currently working on the Big Bill. 

Action: Soon, the House Committee on Appropriations will schedule public hearings for the Fiscal Year 2027 State Budget - an opportunity for everyone to endorse S.60 and the funding request of $15.6M with that committee in writing. Reach out to Jessica Hays Lucas at NOFA-VT if you’re interested in providing a short written endorsement of our funding request of over $15.6M to fund S.60 for this purpose. Contact Jessica at jessica@nofavt.org.   

H.303 PFAS sewage sludge/ land application ban

Bill Summary and context: H.303 was introduced in 2025 and proposes the ban of the land application of biosolids (sewage sludge) on farmland. This initiative is led by Vermonters for a Clean Environment and is endorsed by the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). The bill would also prohibit the sale of compost or other agricultural products containing or produced from septage (from septic tanks), sludge (from sewers), or biosolids (treated sludge), in an effort to reduce the risk of PFAS contamination of agricultural products. This is in response to recent events in Maine, where several farmland parcels where sewage was spread from the 1970s to the 2000s were found to be contaminated with high levels of PFAS (aka “forever chemicals”). Many of these farms had to cease the sale of their farm products and even foreclose their farming operations because of the contaminants being found in their products, animals, and the farmers’ own bodies.  In 2022, Maine became the first state in the U.S. to ban the application of municipal sludge on farmland and created a $60M fund to restore farms affected.

Status Update: H.303 is currently in the House Committee on Environment, where it received some testimony in 2025. In January of last year, Matt Chapman of the Waste Management & Prevention Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation at the Agency of Natural Resources had provided the agency’s perspective on PFAS contamination of farmland in Vermont: he stated that his agency is currently testing for five out of over ten thousand PFAS chemicals that could be found in sewage sludge in the four Counties in Vermont where sludge is still being applied today. Based on their test results from this minuscule scope of soil and water testing, he stated they have not found excess PFAS contamination similar to Maine's. This stranded the interest of the committee to advance this legislation so far.

TAKE ACTION HERE!
Sign on to Support H. 303 HERE!

Solar Siting and Taxing Bills


H. 677 to Protect Agricultural Land from Large-Scale Solar Energy Development

Bill Summary: H. 677 and H.712 are two bills related to large solar development projects that were introduced in 2026 by farmer and republican Representative Greg Burt from the Caledonia-Washington District. Rural Vermont staff met with Greg early on in the session to get briefed on his proposals to regulate solar siting on agricultural land in Vermont. The proposed language in H.677 says that “The siting of a facility [that prevents] the tilling of soil, seeding, growing, or harvesting of crops … or reduce[s] future Vermont-based food security or will result in the destruction of forest ecosystems … on more than five acres” would not be allowed to proceed. This would apply to proposed relatively large facilities only - generation facilities above 50KW (example image) and storage facilities above 1MW (example image). The proposal includes requiring that the developer report not only disturbance of primary agricultural soils (which is already required), but also secondary agricultural soils of importance, as defined by the NRCS. In addition, the prospective developer has to pay for a “full-spectrum audit of energy payback time and carbon dioxide emissions,” including “cradle-to-grave calculation, including resource extraction; mining and procurement; production manufacturing and transportation; deployment and disposal of all technologies required, … forest ecosystem destruction; foregoing 25 years of crops; and construction and landscaping of the project.” Finally, under the proposed bill, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets would be invited to attend any public hearings about proposed development that the Public Utility Commission is holding (which happen if the public requests them).

Status: This bill is currently being considered by the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry, which, to date just heard an introduction of this bill but has not yet started to take testimony.  Rural Vermont does not currently have a stance on this bill.  We have heard a diversity of feedback in our initial outreach.  We have heard support for accessible solar energy, for farms choosing to site projects on their farms, and a just energy transition - and we have heard concerns about siting of large solar projects on VT farm and forestland in VT, the role of offset credits in our energy sector, the disparity in profits that can be made from these disparate land uses, and the impacts throughout the supply chain on communities. 

Action: We ask that members reach out to us, and/or to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry (find members and their contact info here and here), if you want to share your stance about this legislation.


H. 712 to Raise the Rate for the Uniform Capacity Tax on Solar Generation to Create Revenue for the Farm Security Special Fund 

Bill Summary: H. 712 proposes to increase the annual rate for the Uniform Capacity Tax for solar generation of renewable energy plants larger than 50kW from $4.00 to $16.00 per kW of plant capacity. It also proposes to increase the Uniform Capacity Tax for any grid-connected energy storage facility of 600kWh or larger from $.0.50 to $2.00 per kWh. Furthermore, it would use 50% of the newly increased revenue from the Uniform Capacity Tax to fund the Farm Security Special Fund that is currently pending legislation, S.60 (and that Rural Vermont advocates for in coalition).

Status: H.712 was referred to the committee on Ways and Means, where the bill will be introduced to the committee on February 6, at 9 am (agenda and live link here).  As noted in the update for the other solar-related bill, Rural Vermont also does not currently have a stance on this bill.  We have heard a diversity of feedback in our initial outreach.  

Action: We ask that members reach out to us, and/or to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry (find members and their contact info here and here), if you want to share your stance about this legislation.

Increasing Civil Protections and Requiring Law Enforcement Identification in VT

Summary of Bills: Both S.208 and S.209 have emerged as we have witnessed the violent tactics employed by ICE and Border Patrol throughout the entirety of the current federal administration, including the current surge of government military forces with little accountability occupying and terrifying communities in the United States, killing multiple people, kidnapping and detaining, and defying the law.  

S.209: This bill proposes to add government buildings, schools, shelters, and health care facilities to the list of “sensitive locations” - meaning that a person should not be subject to a civil arrest in such a location.

S.208:   This bill proposes to require standards for law enforcement to identify themselves. Specifically, it proposes that all local, state, and federal law enforcement officers clearly identify themselves by name or badge number. Additionally, this bill proposes to prohibit masks or personal disguises with certain exceptions for potentially hazardous situations and deployments.

Action:  This is a good opportunity to let your representatives know that you support this legislation, and about the concerns you have about the actions of ICE, Border Patrol, and the current federal administration; your concerns for the communities they are focusing on living in VT; and more. Find the contact information of your Representatives here.

Fair Share for Vermont Coalition

Context: The Fair Share For Vermont Coalition is a broad and diverse coalition united around creating a more affordable and accessible Vermont, based on policies creating a fairer and equitable taxation structure, which raises revenue for public spending to address the essential needs of the people living in VT.  The coalition includes the ACLU of Vermont, AFL-CIO, AFT Vermont, Hunger Free Vermont, Planned Parenthood of Vermont, Public Assets Institute, Rural Vermont, Vermont Conservation Voters, the Vermont Early Childhood Advocacy Alliance, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont-NEA, Voices for Vermont's Children, VSEA, and individual representatives.  Rural Vermont was one of three speakers representing this coalition at a Press Conference on Wednesday, January 28th, in the Cedar Creek Room at the Statehouse.

VTDigger Press Conference Coverage

There has long been a need to significantly address the basic fairness of our taxes and economic system in Vermont, and to generate greater public revenue for investment in meeting the essential needs of the people who live here.  But the recent dramatic growth in economic disparities is untenable, and the vast majority of people in Vermont, and the state itself, cannot afford to wait any longer for action.  In 2023, the average median national farm income was -$900 - meaning that most farms operate at a loss.  In VT, only 43% of VT farms reported net gains in the 2022 census.  The $57,000 in tax breaks that the average top 1% income earner in VT will now receive every year with the recent federal tax cuts is far greater than the yearly income of most farms, and 500 times greater than the average tax return for someone in the bottom 20% of income earners in VT.  For Vermont as a whole,  there is a substantial federal funding shortfall, and we are being told that we must accept cuts to state programs; yet the top 20% of VT income earners will be getting nearly 740 million dollars per year as a result of recent federal tax cuts.    

Recent Oxfam International reports highlight that the issue of wealth inequity is not just an issue of taxes, and who pays how much - it is an issue of democracy.  Economic power and parity is related to political power and parity.  We have an opportunity and imperative to turn this growing disparity, and this narrative around the necessity of austerity, into greater parity and a narrative and lived reality of a Vermont for everyone.  A fairer tax system and robust public spending benefits everyone. 

We support what we see as a very reasonable and necessary, data based, suite of legislative responses which suggest multiple options for generating significant revenue in ways which address existing tax and wealth inequities - making the system more fair and affordable for the vast majority of Vermonters, while making public dollars available to support the existing programs we don’t want to cut, and the new programs and services we may need to create. 

Relevant Bills: There are currently 3 bills, H. 619, H. 620, and H. 621:

H. 619 proposes the enactment of a 3% surcharge on marginal personal income over $1 million. This would raise over $50 million in annual state revenue. 

H. 620 proposes to create a wealth tax commission to study taxing the wealth of high net worth individuals.

H. 621 proposes the enactment of two new tax brackets for high earners: one tax bracket to increase taxes on marginal personal income over $500,000 by 3%, and another tax bracket on to increase taxes on marginal personal income over $1,000,000 by an additional 2% (so, 5% in total). This would raise over $110 million in annual state revenue. 

We are expecting more bills to come aligned with this coalition and its goals and research.  You can read specifically about Fair Share’s proposals and the impacts of the recent federal tax cuts here.  

Action:  You can contact your representatives (find their contact information here) and let them know that you are a supporter of the Fair Share for Vermont Coalition, its proposed legislation, and creating a more fair taxation system which allows us to invest public dollars in meeting the essential needs of Vermonters.

Please contact Graham@ruralvermont.org for more information.

Healthcare

Context: Over time, Rural Vermont has developed a strong network of relationships with local and national healthcare organizations, advocates, activists, and researchers.  We take significant direction from partners such as the Office of the Health Care Advocate and VT Legal Aid, and voices from our membership.  

Bill summary: There are many potential paths and avenues to supporting the agricultural community in addressing the affordability and accessibility of quality healthcare - currently, Rural VT has signed on to support one piece of legislation so far this session:

H.583 - An act relating to health care financial transactions and clinical decision making

This bill would ban the corporate practice of medicine and explicitly prohibit what we are told are the most harmful business transactions associated with private equity firms in Vermont.  The Office of the Healthcare Advocate and others worked with experts from the National Association for State Health Policy (NASHP), Harvard School of Public Health researchers, Harvard Medical School researchers, Brown University researchers, and the Private Equity Stakeholder Project to develop the bill.  

It would ensure that:  

  • Corporations cannot own medical practices or essential providers in VT.

  • Corporations cannot control any aspect of provider decision-making.

  • Corporations cannot require providers to sign non-compete agreements (NCAs).

  • Corporations cannot require providers to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA)s.

  • Private Equity (PE) firms or corporations cannot take over control of a hospital or community provider (Federally Qualified Health Center).

  • PE firms or corporations cannot extract money from a hospital or community provider using debt. This is the most common way PE firms siphon money from hospitals and bankrupt them. This is commonly known as a “leveraged buyout”.

  • PE firms or corporations cannot pay themselves bonuses using money from the hospital or community provider transaction. 

  • PE firms or corporations cannot restrict providers from seeing patients because of the insurance they have.

  • PE firms or corporations cannot form shell companies to extract money from hospital or community providers. This essentially closes a common loophole that PE firms use to get around regulation and oversight of their activities.

We will keep you updated about other legislation and healthcare work among our allies as it emerges.

H. 276 VT Wildlands Act

Bill summary: H. 276 was introduced in 2025 on the initiative of the Vermont non-profit organization Standing Trees. This legislation would allow for about 9% of Vermont’s forests to become old-growth forests through a newly created designation as State Wildlands. “Wildlands” are defined in the bill as meaning: “a land management designation within the category of Ecological Reserves as defined in section 2802 of this title, of any size and current condition, permanently protected from conversion and explicitly intended and managed to allow natural processes to prevail” (italics added). The bill suggests that in Wildlands, there shall be no vegetation management, including timber harvesting, pruning, cutting, herbicide application, salvage logging, or removal of diseased or infected trees, as well as no alteration of surface waters, groundwater, or wetlands, including damming, draining, filling, diverting, or channelizing. Deeds or easements would preclude the management restrictions as wildlands, meaning that they would impose a new designation. A process regarding the acquisition of State lands would, by default, designate those lands as wildlands unless the Agency of Natural Resources justifies another determination.

Status: This bill did not progress in 2025, but the House Committee on Environment started to take more testimony early in 2026. It will need a lot of public support if it is to have a chance to pass into law during the 2026 legislative session. 

Action: We ask that members reach out to us, and/or to the committee (find members and their contact info here), if they want to share their stance about this legislation.

H. 632 Miscellaneous Environmental Subjects

Bill summary: H. 632 covers an array of environmental subjects. Sections 16 to 21 focus on the permitting of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Due to a lack of capacity, we are not able to provide a comprehensive overview of the proposed changes in H.632 regarding CAFO permitting at this point. This issue had dominated the 2025 legislative session, when Act 67 (2025) was passed into law to address and mitigate the jurisdictional conflicts between the Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets. Act 67 installed a stakeholder group that Rural Vermont has not been invited to formally participate in. 

Action: 

  1. There are two public CAFO Stakeholder hearings (more info here):

    1. Scheduled for February 9, 12-2 PM. Location: VTrans Dill Building, 2178 Airport Road, Barre, VT 05641- Room 135. Click Here to Register for Meeting 1 (or click the following Zoom link to join the meeting):https://cbi-org.zoom.us/meeting/register/7lswwuXjQ_aNWWghtYsAIg 

    2. Scheduled for February 11th 5-7 PM. Location: VTrans Dill Building, 2178 Airport Road, Barre, VT 05641- Room 135. Click here to Register for Meeting 2 (or click the following Zoom link): https://cbi-org.zoom.us/meeting/register/t82jIQ4qQPq49va_UaFIoA

  2. Contact the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry with your concerns and recommendations regarding the proposed language in H. 632.

Salvation Farms Funding Request

Salvation Farms is a Morrisville-based nonprofit which started in 2012. Last year, in their gleaning program, they had 34 partner farms, 65 sites, and over 100 volunteers who provided 300 hours of service. 

This year, they are requesting $100,000 in ongoing annual funds from the legislature. In addition to their gleaning program (which receives donated food that provides a tax deduction for farmers), they are launching a processing program, which will purchase food from farmers, with a focus on food that would otherwise be wasted (unexpected bumper crops, or dropped contracts from other vendors). The processing program, which will share space with and leverage staffing from the Center for Agricultural Economy, hopes to leverage partnerships with organizations like the VT Department of Corrections, with whom they have worked for several years. 

Action: Rural Vermont is supporting this funding request and we ask that members to reach out to their Representatives if they want to share a perspective and endorse this appropriation request. Find your Representative here.

Rural Vermont