Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: We're back. We are going to continue the conversation. Miscellaneous bill S-twenty three, we're looking at sections one through three. We basically have stakeholders coming in today and giving their interpretations of how all of this is affecting them, and we're going to continue on with Maddie Kepner, Policy Director for NOFA. Welcome, floor is yours.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: Thank you so much for having me back, nice to see you all. So I will be brief also, and you know, Jake really presented the position of our coalition that NOVA is a part of very clearly, and so I just want to emphasize a few points that have already been covered and also respond to some of the committee's specific

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Absolutely, we definitely want to hear, we want to hear the order of positions, so, even if it repeats whatever. It's very important to us.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: Great. Well, I will start by saying we support responding to the Supreme Court decision in a way that doesn't require opening the REPs, first and foremost, with the exception of, as Jake mentioned, some technical corrections as needed. We'd like to see the changes happen in Title 24 to the extent possible. And just at a really high level, it's very important to us and our members that there is a clear and consistent very liberal environment for farms. I think you all understand that, and that's been said, but I'll repeat it. That's really a high priority for us. Around this issue, for that reason, I do wanna emphasize a couple other specific points. One is that we take some issue with the carving out in the agency's proposal of farms under one acre. It doesn't sound like a lot of land, but we do have farms in our membership that have commercial operations on that acreage or thereabouts. And so just wanna be clear about that, that one acre sounds small, but there are farms that are that are operating in a commercial bay on, you know, that small of a of a plot. And okay. Just to stop. So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: is there a limit, or what do you deem too small? If anything.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: I don't think we would propose a limit or a minimum threshold in terms of acreage, and in part, it relates to not necessarily making these changes in the RIPs. We really want to protect the right of people to grow food, including livestock, and I do want to say in terms of the protecting of the right to grow food, I'm really heartened to hear so much testimony across different stakeholders about protecting that right. That's something that you've heard from the league, you've heard from the agency, you've heard from our coalition, and so I feel really excited and hopeful that we all seem to share and understand that people's right to grow food is essential for food security and for the culture of this state, so I feel really heartened by that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: So just to drill into that a little secret, really isn't the plant growing that the one acre is bothersome to you, it's the livestock part of it, where you're talking about the people that you have a livestock. Must be the people you're talking about have livestock. The one acre is problematic.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: Both. We have producers who are only doing vegetables in a small acreage in Berlin, for example, in a suburban area, and we have folks who are also raising livestock on small amounts of acreage. We do support the agency having the ability to regulate in those instances. We understand that there is a need for there to be an arbiter of how many livestock is the appropriate amount in what area. Certainly

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Even if it's can't just to regulate through a complaint basis because I think the agency pretty much said it's pretty hard for them to get out there and regulate that small of a parcel.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: I mean, I think that our position on that is that the agency are really the ones with the expertise to be able to determine what's an appropriate amount of land for a certain number of certain type of livestock, and that's just in line with our goal of having clear and consistent regulations.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: If that can be applied by the agency across the board, across municipalities, that's what we would like to see.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: I also just want to raise one point around that too, which is that there are a lot of folks who only have access to small amounts of acreage in urban or peri urban or suburban areas of this state, and who don't necessarily have access to or the ability to afford greater amounts of acreage that are in more rural areas, and we really want to protect the right of those people to raise livestock for their families or their neighbors for cultural reasons. There's a lot of equity considerations in protecting those small plots for us, so I just want to emphasize that too. And then on the question of raising that threshold from 2,000 to 5,000, think Jake was clear about our position that we want to keep it at 2,000, and I've heard in this committee and upstairs some conversation around that and around that there's been a lot of inflation in the last ten years since that threshold was set. I want to emphasize that farmers are also facing those inflationary pressures and are subject to them and deal every year with the cost of increasing labor, increasing fuel costs, increasing the cost of other supplies, and that doesn't necessarily come along with a corresponding increase in the pay price they're receiving, especially for farmers like dairy farmers who are getting a set price for their product. So, I don't think that inflation necessarily is a good justification for raising that threshold because it's not necessarily that farmers' income has gone up in a corresponding way. And then I think the last thing I would say is to respond to the league's position around really wanting to have some consistency around tier 1A areas, in particular regarding agriculture. We, I think, would be open to, and I will speak for myself and for Nofan on this point, at the moment, that we'd be open to seeing and working on some affirmative language that makes sure, again, that there is support for inappropriate circumstances and density, the right to grow food in those tier one A areas, and that protects, as Jake referenced earlier, urban agriculture and supports urban agriculture to happen because there are a lot of benefits, you know, access to a customer base, people's exposure to agriculture and all that it entails, which is really aligned with just the culture and the values of Vermont. So we would be really open to seeing some affirmative language and working on some affirmative language that protects agriculture to the extent possible in those downtown areas.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Is that your affirmative language, or you would have more than that? It would go broader than what you just said.

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: I think it would need to have some it would need to be worked out. I don't have language specifically to propose on that point, but would be open to coming together with you all and the stakeholders in

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: the room to figure out what

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: that should look like. I know we have big swings.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Okay. All set, Ann. All

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: right. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Thank you very much. Amber.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Good

[Maddie Kepner, Policy Director, NOFA-VT]: morning. For the record, Amber Perry, Administrator and Policy Director of Vermont Farm Bureau. Thank you, committee and Chair Ingalls, having myself in today to discuss with you sections within the Bill three twenty three. I'll keep it brief, but I do want to touch on that I think it's worth

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: noting that while all of

[Amber Perry, Administrator and Policy Director, Vermont Farm Bureau]: the organizations in this Farmers Coalition involve or represent a wide range of perspectives, we share a common understanding of the importance of this issue and worked collaboratively to find areas of alignment. That's something you normally don't see all of us coming in together, so I just want to emphasize that. We also want to touch on that many farms are operating across different towns. We look at our large dairy farms, they're farming within nine, eight different towns sometimes. We're asking that the regulations from town to town could become confusing or burdensome. Consistency is going to be critical for farmers to remain compliant while continuing to operate efficiently. At this time, we also recognize and support the right of individuals to grow their own food if they choose. Affirming and protecting that right across all types of development is essential for fostering equitable access to farming and food for all Vermonters. As you've heard in previous testimony, we think that we can resolve this issue without opening the wraps. Farmers are familiar with these standards and manage their operations daily in accordance with them. Amending or altering the wraps could, at this time, introduce unnecessary confusion or could potentially hinder any of the progress we're trying to make. The proposed acreage language within the RAPs on page six and seven, that one to four contiguous acres, we just feel like could be confusing, And then also, is there capacity issues at the agency within that? And based on the Supreme Court ruling back in May, was clear that the legislative intent was not portrayed, which means that any legislation that we put forward on this matter should be very clear and precise on what the intent is. I'm gonna touch on the increase of the threshold income, just for a bit. Like, did this number come from? Where did 5,000 come from? Is it inflation? And if so, farmers are also being subject to paying higher costs for inputs, but at the end of the day, the price that they're being paid for their product remains to be the same or decreased. It also isn't clear how many farms this increase from 2,000 to 5,000 would capture. Are we eliminating some startup farms? That's an area of concern too. And then as for the planned potential growth areas, we know many farms are operating within these areas. I know in my town alone, they've deemed an area, a potential growth area, that's currently open farmland and is being farmed. Once agricultural land has lost development, it's gone forever. We must be mindful of the policies and protect and strengthen agriculture rather than create additional pathways that could threaten the long term viability. Vermont's agricultural landscape is an invaluable resource and it deserves thoughtful, balanced policy solutions. That's all I have for him.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: So I'm gonna ask you a question I asked earlier. We've had quite a few discussions with the Farm Bureau here or elsewhere. How has this decision affected you folks?

[Amber Perry, Administrator and Policy Director, Vermont Farm Bureau]: So, I like to say that Farm Bureau is an umbrella of all different types of farming. We have the smaller farms operating within these tier 1A areas, and we also have large dairy farms that are operating just outside of these tier 1A areas. So it does affect us.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: You didn't mention the scale up. Matt didn't either, but I'll take the Right. The J, and so you're all in it. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Caroline.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Thank you. Good morning, you all. Good morning to you. Morning. Testimony. Yeah, for the record, Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director of Rural Development, thank you all so much for having us in today and for your effort to reinstate the municipal exemption so far. Yeah, shortly after the Vermont Supreme Court ruling in May, we'll have month again outreach to other agricultural organizations, worked with the Farm Bureau and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and Foodie Markets to address this issue with the goal of reinstating the reading of the law as it has been commonly understood since 1987. And over the past six months, this group has grown to include a large and diverse group of the most significant ag and food system stakeholders in Vermont, including also Ebermark, Cabot, the World Dairy Producers Alliance, NOFA Vermont, the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts, the Connecticut River Watershed Farmers Alliance, PRO2PLETE, the Land Access Opportunity Board, and also American Farmland Trust. Over this time, we have come to alignment on the legislative proposal that we are grateful to discuss with you today, and we come to you with the United Strong message that we need to clearly and plainly reinstate the municipal exemption as it was understood since 1987 by clarifying only the language in Title 24, leave the RNP rule in place as is, and that we also need to codify a right to grow food to prevent municipalities from interpreting the housing development agenda of Act 181 as a mandate to push farming and food production out of the hard and plant growth areas of our communities, significantly altering the character of Vermont, which prides itself as a working lands community. The historic settlement pattern of Vermont has occurred in the places that farmers found most suitable for food production. They surely made their choice based on soil and water quality. So there's a direct conflict between the public interest and planning for housing development and food security. As you know, I'm a German American dual citizen, and through my bachelor's degree in environmental law from Germany, I've learned about the Central Places Principle. This principle was developed by Walter Kristeller, a German geographer, in 1933, and the Central Places Principle was enshrined in the German Building Code in 1965 as a mandatory statute that doesn't allow residential development outside town centers. This principle was now adopted into Vermont's statute with the passage of Act one hundred eighty one twenty twenty four, as a goal for Vermont's development to maintain the historic settlement pattern of compact villages and urban centers separated by rural countryside. In Germany, this is the mandate, and only explicit statutory land use of rural lands are allowed for development in the landscape surrounding towns and urban centers. Thereby farmers have been privileged as the only people legitimately allowed to develop Germany's countryside with infrastructure aside from permissible, enumerated utility infrastructure developed, such as the development projects for electricity, gas, telecommunications, heat, water, septic, or research projects. That's it. In consequence, Germany prides itself on how its mandatory law effectively maintains the landscape as about 86% of the country is not developed and about 51% of the territory is still used agriculturally today. I provided a link to that statistic in my testimony. In The United States, the ship of development has left the harbor since the onset of colonization and hasn't been effectively regulated since. The American Farmland Trust found through their GIS based research in Vermont that farmland development occurs on 83% due to low density residential sprawl outside of village centers. And there's a presentation in my testimony where you can see that data on slide 15. When I say that development hasn't been regulated effectively today, what I mean is that neither up to 50 nor the current use program nor conservation easements effectively prevent farmland loss because the programs are either voluntary or don't capture residential development outside of town centers. For example, we're well under where to lose an additional 61,800 acres of farmland by 2014, And American Farmland Front has testified to the House that even their worst case rules, sprawl scenario, that the current data they have showed that we're exceeding their data development by 49%. So we're much worse on the way that they are projecting. Simultaneously, New England Feeding New England is projecting that the Northeast Region will need to bring 401,000 underutilized acres of farmland and additional 588,000 acres of cleared land into agricultural production just to supply 30% of its population's consumption by 2030, with Vermont and Maine being projected to carry the lion's share of that supply based off their advanced food systems. ACT 181 led nothing to change this year, actually, and its legislative process was not concerned with agricultural land laws at all, as it will never pass an agricultural committee. Instead, its clear focus is the continued development of the state for housing and not to keep the working lands open. The Vermont League of City and Towns represents municipalities that are well underway to implement Act 181 at this time, and we urge the legislature to ask what signals it's sending to municipalities that work to implement its present land use agenda. Farms, food production and agricultural land are under threat from a number of areas. In parallel with this new Vermont Supreme Court ruling, we are concerned that agriculture will inevitably be pushed out of town centers. We have heard from a service provider's on the ground experience that some land trusts may not invest in preserved parcels of land that are marked for development in regional plans. But farmers rely on those investments that they can make based on the sale of their development rights. Likewise, many farms do not accumulate adequate savings and are in the position of selling their farms with farmland or part of them into development to affect their ability to age and move on from farming. We are concerned that there is no legal mechanism that stops developers from taking Verma's most valuable assets agricultural soils, as these are often also the most appropriate and easy soil for development. This could result in a PACMAN approach toward ever expanding and eventually emerging towns and ever diminishing agricultural land. Our coalition does not believe that this was the legislature's intention behind Act 181 at all, as this body just passed the right to farm law in 2025 that underscored in its filings that, quote, 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, 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. I will add that also the Right to Farm Act 61 is not a policy that functions to keep the working lands open, prevent farmland loss, or to make farming more affordable as it solely protects farmers from nuisance losses when they are in good standing with the RIP rule. In consequence, are asked to reinstate the municipal exemption for farming and to codify a right to grow food that can be prohibited by a municipal exemption, and I will add that private homeowner associations, will be critical to ensure the food sovereignty and food security of our state. Food sovereignty is both an individual right to use subsistence in food cultivating practices, as well as the ability of our communities to define their own food systems. Our coalition's proposal is seeking to bar towns from issuing zoning codes that get in the way of farming practices at any location or scale. Towns need more of a clear signal from the legislature, addition to the set housing agenda, that they can use their local zoning powers to protect agricultural land use, and this proposal is not intended to stand in the way of towns that have aspirations to set any sort of incentive for citizens to engage in food cultivation practices. I appreciate that Samantha had mentioned from Rhode Island the example that there is also legal language out there how other states have incentivized towns to be more proactively in protecting farmland. Obviously Vermont needs more housing, especially since the state is known nationwide as having four of the most safe counties, L'Amoyle Orange, Blanket and Essex, to live in the country in thirty years from now, given the projections of climate change risk related to extreme heat, wildfire and sea level rise that Probublica reported in 2020, projecting the increased migration into the state for those reasons. The goal of all of us in Vermont Shulte to develop this place in a sustainable, resilient and food secure way so that the public interest in housing development and agricultural land and farmland walls need to be weighed and balanced in a much more careful and accountable way moving forward. Over 70% of Vermonters cultivate some of their own food today, according to the Feeding New England Vermont State Brief, and I assure you that many people of my generation come here to engage in farming and the food system as well. The Vermont Supreme Court ruling now establishes the legal basis for town by town farm regulation variances, possibly creating a confusing and complex patchwork of regulatory frameworks across the state which will be difficult to navigate and that existing and beginning farmers will have to face. Depending on where a farm is located, it could be subject to different levels of local regulations and oversight that others are not exposed to, creating unfair markets and conditions while we keep losing farms and farmland. We believe the Vermont Supreme Court's guidance points to the need for a clear and consistent regulatory framework across farming scales and municipalities. Legislative Council shared that the ruling would now result in the applicability of the RRPs across scales and regardless of farming determination, and that the court called the existing criteria that distinguish what is farming based on patterns such as someone is keeping 14 or 15 goats as leading to anomalous results. Our coalition agrees that we want to avoid a patchwork regulatory environment for farming in Vermont that is confusing for anyone growing food, is desiring to become a farmer, is beginning to farm as well as for existing farmers. Allowing municipalities to regulate farming would also be a continued source of contention and acrimony in our communities. I also want to talk about the Schedule F and Income Threshold criteria for qualifying for RNP regulation from my personal experience as a beginning farmer. I started my sheep farm, foods farm on seeds, in 2022 with a purchase of 20 wheat lamps. My 20 sheep are obviously more than 15, but lambs are not mature use. Raising a flock of sheep for meat production means that I had to raise those lambs for two years before they could be bred the first time. This is because if I would have bred the lambs the year they were born, the pregnancy could have stunted their growth and result in malpresentations or even birth defects during lambing the following year, ruining the outbreak of a healthy and full grown breeding flock that will produce high quality market lambs year after year. During 2022, 2023, and 2024, I was investing about 15,000 to $20,000 a year to launch my small farming operation out of pocket, not harvesting income from lands until the first slaughter in the 2024. Through filing Schedule F with the IRS, I could at least write off my investments during those years. Furthermore, as I started farming in our particular location, we noticed during those first years that we had excess groundwater right at the entry of our barn in our barnyard, right where we needed to store and pile the manure. Obviously, we knew that this was totally against the RIP water quality rule. In order for the young business to not lose its good standing right from the start, we needed to be eligible for best management practices funding with the AIFM. Because we were able to receive our farm determination by the agency early, we were able to receive a BMT grant in 2024, one year after our initial application, to redo our bar yard and to install a new manure pad so that we're now in compliance. You see, the changes the agency proposing could possibly limit their jurisdiction and lead to further anomalous results, considering the goal of supporting beginning farmers like myself with being in good standing with the rules. The agency argues that their proposal would still allow for beginning farmers to become subject to the RPs because of the existing criteria that gives the Secretary of Agriculture power to approve someone's business plan. Again, as a German who spent my teenage years in East Germany where the GDR was generally viewed as a communist state that heavily regulated what farms had to produce exactly what, giving and Vermont agencies so much authority that they can approve or not approve a beginning farmer's business plan based on their own discretion without clear checks and balances written into law does not seem to be a favorable idea at all. In summary, we don't see any reason based on the Vermont Supreme Court decision to open up the RFP statutorily as anyone who claims they are farming as a sole proprietor with the IRS consequently should be subject to the rules that apply for farmers. That is a matter of policy coherence and accountability, not a matter of agency capacity and budget. Most importantly, it is a matter of setting a little incentive for people to start farming businesses to access the competitive resources available for farming practices. Furthermore, I'm almost at the end furthermore, our coalition has much sympathy for the desire to produce who donate their crops more cleanly and to the proving of the RIPs, each coalition member has a set of their own agendas with regard to the needed and desired RIP amendment that would exceed the scope of what we're trying to achieve in the remedy of the May 30 Vermont Supreme Court ruling. As you know, for Rule Vermont, it is important, as we noted earlier, that the agency has promised us to reopen the RIPs for rulemaking after the session. This commitment was made to us prior to the session to remedy that they have not implemented the last statutory changes to the RFP rule in 2021, when Act 41 redefined the definition of farming last to include composting of food residual best farming. Long story short, there's no reason for the agency not to propose rule changes more equitably for all stakeholders that need to be at the table for that with a proper rulemaking process after this session. We are hopeful that we all find good common ground here today as our coalition at the Vermont League of City and Towns mean that there's no need to reopen the RITs to solve this issue presented by the Vermont Philippine Foot Ruling. We are very thankful and in line with the idea that was not the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets to codify a right to grow food Because no one said that. We are living in a northern climate. Here we can grow plants year round. Hosporyl livestock is really crucial as a conservation practice and as a meat and dairy product present year round nutrition and value the source of protein as a central part of our region's food security. We also have been doing, and will continue to do all these for our members on this issue, and the encouragement to come forward to you guys with their own concerns about this matter. Thank you so much for listening through this. This is all the points I wanted to make today.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Questions? You go first. Senior Senator for sure. Well, thank you. As usual, Caroline, very good testimony. I don't know about you, but I'm tired from just watching you read all that. But I do have a question. One of the things that you brought up was a private homeowners association, which seems to me to be a new part of this. Right. Is that happening where people

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: It's one of my experience when I was looking for land access. I was coming across a community in Randall where there were beautiful 50 acre parcels they were selling off for individual residential homes, but their bylaws were prohibited of agricultural activity. Oh. Even if we do this, this is just a rule one stance at this point, not a coalition ask, because we also really see the need that we need to get this done. But just to bring it to your awareness, we do this, private homeowner associations do their own dance.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Okay. I just, it seemed to be expanding the scope of what we're looking at. I'll ask her, can they legally do that? If you buy it, can they, oh, go ahead. She's very good. I'm not real.

[Samantha Shannon]: Samantha Shannon, again. Homeowners associations can enforce covenant requirements and prohibited land uses that are not consistent with municipal or state regulation. A really common example that we care a lot about is accessory dwelling units. So, state law says municipalities have to permit accessory dwelling units. We happen to like them and track it happy with that, but a homeowners association can bring

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: that On that larger parcel of a prop property that, hey, I'm he had 200 acres, let's say, cut it into four, and you could start a home association that says just go

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Yes.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: That no agriculture, that would stand up in the court.

[Samantha Shannon]: Yes, and it happens, it's prolific.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Yes. I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: guess that may be the following up, and can't be done.

[Samantha Shannon]: There is a bill

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: in

[Samantha Shannon]: the House, I won't recall the number right now, that proposes some changes and restrictions. Actually, there's one in Senate right next door. They don't currently include protections for agricultural uses or right to grow food, but some other changes related to housing and like the rental of properties and homeowners.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Good job.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Alright. Thank you. Okay.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: I wanna thank all of you to come in. Thank We're gonna speak keep on talking about this a lot more. But I I I think the thing that I'm happiest about I'm not saying this is where it's gonna go. The committee's got a lot to to digest and discuss, but we are a lot more aligned than a lot of situations that we see in this building. And I think that you have seen us over and over and over again that we are going to protect farmers as hard as we can. But we also have to be realistic about what we can get done. And we have other people in the building that we have to. Contend with of our decisions have to be in agreement with. 25 other senators and then we have to get it over on the other side and get that to work as well. I think that we're in a good position. We're gonna keep on talking. We're gonna keep on asking you guys those questions, and and we appreciate all of you very much.

[Caroline Sherman Gordon, Legislative Director, Rural Development]: Thank you all. Thanks, Steven.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls, Chair]: Committee, I don't really want to open up on anything else today other than anything that we have. Any more discussion that you want to have openly about this right now? All good. I'm still reading Caroline's.