Legislative Update 4.22.26
Act 181
Act 181 affects development regulation and land use planning. Vermonters have been talking a lot about it lately - including in a Facebook group of 11.2k members, and at a rally at the statehouse on March 24th. As controversial sections of the bill are slated to take effect in the coming months, Vermonters are making their perspectives heard. While this has recently become a hot topic, Rural Vermont has been following and reporting on Act 181 since its inception in 2024.
Act 181 is a long and complex bill, which attempts (among other things) to balance land conservation with housing development. It changes how Act 250 works, so that proposed developments may trigger or be exempted from environmental review based on location (e.g., town centers receiving less review, ‘critical natural resource areas’ receiving more) rather than based solely on the size of the development. While most commercial farm structures are exempt from Act 250 review, Act 181 still affects farmers in many ways. Act 181 can substantially affect the cost of building homes on farms and influence land-use planning. Rural Vermont has serious concerns with some parts of the bill and its implementation so far.
Rural Vermont has been following and reporting on Act 181 since its inception in 2024. For example, the passage of Act 181 caused increased oversight over Accessory on Farm Businesses (AOFBs), requiring spaces used for farm stays and event spaces to go through Act 250 permitting, resulting in advocacy of our members to contest these changes. We want to flag that the ongoing rewrite of all Regional Plans will likely affect where AOFBs may be operated. For example, the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission’s draft land use chapter (the largest regional plan for Vermont) includes a policy for agricultural areas that AOFBs “shall not host more than twenty social events (concerts, weddings, etc.) a year, generate daily truck traffic, or be principal retail.” AOFBs are not the only way Act 181 and regional planning impact farmers – see more below.
In order to advance our long-held priorities around agricultural land loss and affordability for farmers, we are ramping up our involvement in Act 181 and related legislation. Rural Vermont has joined a coalition of agricultural groups working on these issues, convened by the Farm Bureau, and including many of the organizations that we’ve collaborated with on the Municipal Exemption, including NOFA-VT, the VT Association of Conservation Districts, and the CT River Watershed Farmers Alliance. In the coming weeks, we’ll be releasing additional educational resources, and we are always glad to hear your perspectives and questions.
See more below for details on S.325 that could delay or repeal parts of Act 181.
You can request to see draft land use chapters from your Regional Planning Commission and ask them how their plans would affect the outlook for operating farms and AOFB’s in different zoning districts.
You can read the Two Rivers-Ottauquechee Regional Commission (TRORC) draft land use chapter referenced earlier here (see specifically lines 739-741 for farm events and farm stores).
Municipal Exemption
For background on this issue, see our Municipal Exemption page.
The Senate and House committees on agriculture started considering the pending bills (that they received from the other chamber) that seek to reinstate the municipal exemption for farming. The Senate had a side-by-side comparison of S.323 and H.941 that you can see here. In the House, the staff attorney from the Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets (VAAFM), Steven Collier, testified in favor of a compromise proposal (recording here), amending their previous position reflected in S.323, backing off from their earlier proposed changes to the eligibility criteria for farming under the Required Agricultural Practices Rule. This change in position was made in acknowledgement of the reasons our coalition has brought forward against the more strict eligibility criteria for farming, stressing it would disadvantage beginning farmers. You can see VAAFM’s new legislative language here. This proposal would allow for some local control - but only for regulating swine waste in designated downtowns or village centers in response to the controversial pig case in Orleans (WCAX 3 report from June 12, 2025, here).
Both committees have yet to start taking testimony from advocates on both bills since they crossed over from the other chamber.
Rural Vermont has a call to action asking small producers of mushrooms and rabbits to engage in asking for protections from municipal zoning, especially if they are not already protected by the Required Agricultural Practices Rule as farms. Please be in touch to engage in this advocacy, and find our action alert here.
S. 325, relating to regional planning and Act 250 Tier jurisdiction
S.325, An act relating to regional planning and Act 250 Tier jurisdiction, is a bill that passed the Senate this session, which would delay the implementation of Act 181’s Tier 3 and Road Rule (see our previous reporting for background on these rules). It is currently being considered by the House Committee on the Environment, which has taken a lot of testimony on it in recent weeks (see our Bill Monitor for a record). One notable piece of testimony came from Neil Ryan (video here), who shared stories and statistics to argue that Act 181’s tier system and the road rule was unjustly designed, has a disproportionate impact on those with less financial means, and even that it fails to prevent the wealthy from ecologically detrimental development – he (among many others) calls for not simply delaying Tier 3 and the Road Rule, but for striking them altogether.
Last week, an article by Vermont Public shared evidence that the committee may, in fact, be planning to remove Tier 3 and the Road Rule altogether; they discussed it in this meeting on April 14th, for example. At this time, however, the committee has not actually drafted a revised version of the bill that would take this action.
TAKE ACTION!
The Land Use Review Board is holding a 30-day public comment period from March 30 through April 30, 2026 on the draft Road Construction Jurisdiction Guidance document:
Draft Road Construction Jurisdiction Guidance is now available here: https://act250.vermont.gov/document/road-construction-jurisdiction-guidance-draft-3-25-26
Comments may be submitted via email to: Act250.Comments@vermont.gov
Comments may also be submitted by U.S. mail to the Vermont Land Use Review Board at 10 Baldwin Street in Montpelier, Vermont 05633-3201 to the attention of "Comments on draft Road Construction Jurisdiction Guidance document."
*Special gratitude to Lou White for suggesting several of the resources in this post. Lou is working on a website of information about Act 181. The views on the website do not necessarily match those of Rural Vermont, but it can provide a useful starting point for those hoping to gather more information and perspectives. Rural Vermont will be releasing our own educational materials in the coming weeks.
Hemp & Cannabis
HEMP or CANNABIS PLACEHOLDER
While Rural Vermont’s Policy Director, Graham Unangst-Rufenacht, is out on leave, we are leaning heavily on our coalition, particularly our friend and ally, Vermont Growers Association (VGA), to keep us informed and up-to-date on all things cannabis and hemp at the statehouse. Deep appreciation to VGA and VCEC (Vermont Cannabis Equity Coalition) for their support. You can read VGA’s 4.23.26 Legislative Update here.
This past Tuesday, April 21st, the coalition presented a letter of recommendations on the VT hemp market (S.323) to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry. The coalition made three recommendations: 1) Establish A Multi-Tier Processor Permit System That Supports a Rural Economy and Ensures Product Integrity and Safety; 2) Ensure The Current Federal THC Threshold Standard Remains, and 3) Allow Adult-Use Manufacturers To Process, Possess, And Sell Hemp And Hemp Compounds To Other Adult-Use Cannabis Manufacturers And Hemp Processors Permit Holders, And To Co-Locate With A Proposed Hemp Processor Permit Holder. These recommendations are all made with the needs of small producers in mind. You can read the coalition’s letter here.
Action Alert: Fair Share
The federal H.R. 1 (One Big 'Beautiful' Bill Act) gave immense tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations. As a result, the top 1% of Vermont income-earners are set to receive an average federal tax cut of $57,000 per filer in 2026. These tax cuts contribute to the underfunding of many key programs for Vermont farmers, such as S.60 (the farm and forestry disaster relief bill), which currently is slated to receive no funding - a real barrier to creating the program that was already signed into law by the Governor in March. We’re also seeing cuts to SNAP and healthcare subsidies, which will affect thousands of Vermonters. For more on unfunded programs relevant to farmers, see our reporting on H.951 in the From the State House Blog.
This week, the Vermont House Ways and Means committee has been discussing legislation that would recapture some of those taxes, raising taxes on the top 1% of Vermont income-earners. They are likely to vote on this during the week of 4/27.
*This action alert was supported by our partners in the Fair Share Coalition.
Bureaucratic barriers remain: Food Scrap Composting on Farms
The 20th Annual Vermont Organics Recycling Summit, held in Montpelier at the end of March, featured a policy update session, co-facilitated by Rural Vermont and the Compost Association of Vermont, focused on recent and pending changes to Vermont’s solid waste and materials management framework. Presenters from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation highlighted developments related to on-farm composting under Act 41 and proposed updates to the Solid Waste Management Rules, including new regulatory pathways for depackaging facilities.
The session emphasized that, since the passage of Act 41 in 2021—successfully advanced by Rural Vermont, the Compost Association of Vermont and partners—farms may import up to 2,000 cubic yards of food scraps annually for composting, an activity defined in statute as farming. Despite this, participants highlighted persistent bureaucratic and regulatory barriers that complicate farm-based composting as a viable diversification strategy within the profitable waste management sector.
A key challenge is the absence of clear, farm-specific rules from VAAFM governing the incorporation of food scrap management into agricultural systems. The legislature held multiple hearings to review progress on this mandate in April of this session. The VAAFM has yet to launch rulemaking specific for agriculture, and has indicated plans to initiate rulemaking and potentially integrate these provisions into the Required Agricultural Practices (RAP) rules later this year.
Practitioners also raised concerns about the applicability of national compost labeling standards being applied to on-farm operations. These standards were described as poorly scaled to smaller producers, limiting their ability to make agronomic claims about compost benefits and requiring precise ingredient disclosure despite the variable nature of feedstocks. Many see the upcoming RAP rulemaking as a critical opportunity to address these constraints and develop more practical, scale-appropriate labeling requirements.
Current Use Tax policy emerged as another significant barrier. The Vermont Department of Taxes has indicated that farms composting food residuals may risk losing eligibility for the Use Value Appraisal (UVA) Program, which provides property tax reductions for agricultural land. Because Act 41 did not update the statutory definitions of farming used within UVA, some farmers have reportedly been discouraged from adopting composting practices out of concern for jeopardizing their tax status.
More broadly, participants pointed to ongoing challenges including interagency coordination, uncertainty around permitting thresholds, and the practical implications of new and evolving regulatory requirements on existing infrastructure and operators. The session underscored a broader tension between Vermont’s ambitious diversion goals and the need for workable, clearly aligned policies that support on-the-ground implementation.
In response, Rural Vermont and the Compost Association of Vermont are reviving a coalition to advance policy solutions that make food scrap composting a viable pathway for farm diversification. Stakeholders interested in engaging with this effort are encouraged to connect with us directly.
The session fostered a more shared understanding of the evolving policy landscape while identifying priority areas for refinement as Vermont continues advancing its solid waste management rules.
A recording of the VORS session is available here.
Watch legislative hearings here:
Take Action!
Now is a good time to let the Department of Taxes know that: “It needs to be clear - farms that diversify into composting food scraps can stay enrolled in the UVA program!” The Current Use Advisory Board is in a rulemaking process, and has drafted updated Rules for Implementing Use Value Appraisal of Agricultural and Forest Land in Vermont. Even though the Department of Taxes stated to us in email that they believe the issue of composting food scraps might need to be resolved in statute and not in rule - let them know that this issue matters to you now! Submit your feedback through the public comment form at tax.vermont.gov/public-comments.