[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6383761,"mediaKeyId","2123787-d219fa9e8d9b069bf777de12b56cc673","parentId",2123787,"title","Rural Vermont tells Agriculture Committee it will push for farm recovery fund, on‑farm slaughter and equity measures","audioSeconds",1567,"startMs",196000,"endMs",1763000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123787-d219fa9e8d9b069bf777de12b56cc673&start=196&end=1763","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123787-d219fa9e8d9b069bf777de12b56cc673/thumbnail_196000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6383761/Vermont/Rural-Vermont-tells-Agriculture-Committee-it-will-push-for-farm-recovery-fund-onfarm-slaughter-and-equity-measures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383761-37c668d2effa05fe9eedb1cbefec7179/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407380&Signature=igRdPiJTZ4uLCq4XIobWfkONrRJmENmyR-hfnvZJcHw432xXEVEWJhUut7EqHitQDV8LzK0iXcppEapkkC5kbRGD2mtvn7sErGaUcm6SORl1x3Ki5Q9X5RYTsNrugzXfJjKwbbs4~mNMw3iilTV3QbsvLlpZDthNtVzJAykUYIIprA1l40Z3jSSAuL8HSD~MhUVBMUDFagQfV~llfAQkoppSB-OUCH3gbVDQLnjzT~tmI4hcis5l~Q4-2-gTGp6QgK4jJmJy9t994XdM~KqbEHDik3gbkcLUu8e~iUJrPaLYX3yTF07ff0dItismlUW3rRSD8SbB6d3OSDlYbHzl5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-01-17T03:28:47Z","article","Rural Vermont representatives urged the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee to support a new state Farm Security Fund, to back continued federal and state work to clarify on‑farm slaughter rules, and to advance equity and market access measures for small producers, during a presentation to the committee.

The organization framed the proposals as responses to recent climate‑driven losses on farms and to structural barriers that keep small and new producers from earning sustainable incomes. Grama Ewing Stroopelt, policy director at Rural Vermont, said, \"We're asking the legislature to pass the farm security fund,\" a proposed program intended to provide \"reliable, rapidly available recovery funds for farmers impacted by climate emergencies and extreme weather.\"

Rural Vermont told the committee the state needs faster, local relief after disasters. The group cited the Agency of Agriculture’s post‑flood survey after 2023 flooding showing that \"70% of applicants were not covered by crop insurance,\" and added that insured farms often do not receive full recovery of losses. The presenters said Vermont may receive federal block grant funds that the state could allocate and that the Farm Security Fund language was still being finalized.

The group also renewed long‑running advocacy for on‑farm slaughter. Caroline (Carolyn) Sherman Gordon, legislative director at Rural Vermont, said the organization supports a federal clarification to the Federal Meat Inspection Act and described prior state action: \"We really celebrate and thank you for last year's passage of Act 93 that so now allows poultry producers to sell uninspected slaughtered poultry, not just as whole birds, but also in parts.\" Sherman Gordon said Rural Vermont and allied senators plan to re‑introduce related federal legislation to make the practice clearer at the national level.

Cannabis regulation and equity were another major topic. Stroopelt outlined several priorities: restoring or expanding direct market access for tier‑1 producers, establishing ongoing funding and expansion of a cannabis development fund to support smaller producers, striking language that allows new municipal powers over outdoor cultivation districts, and enabling legal public consumption venues. \"We are looking to strike language adopted last year allowing new municipal powers over outdoor cultivation, these quote unquote cultivation districts,\" Stroopelt said, adding that setbacks adopted last year could force 10–12 producers to cease operations.

Rural Vermont discussed broader policy and program requests, including support for FarmShare (which subsidizes CSA shares by paying roughly 25%–75% of costs for qualifying households), a $500,000 request for farm‑to‑school and early childhood grants and a separate $500,000 request for local food incentive grants. The presenters said they are also researching cottage food laws, which set home‑scale income thresholds for small bakers and food producers and have not been updated for inflation.

Other items raised included pesticide policy and implementation of last session’s PFAS/consumer product legislation (identified in testimony as S.25/Act 131 implementation), support for migrant farmworker programs, and continued work on agroecology education and international partnerships. Stroopelt described Rural Vermont as \"a statewide, member‑based, farmer and farmworker‑led not‑for‑profit organization,\" and offered the group as a resource to the committee for stakeholder outreach.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the Farm Security Fund drafting and about the impacts of recent statutes on accessory on‑farm businesses and on cannabis siting. Presenters and legislators agreed to follow up with draft bill language and additional stakeholder meetings.

Rural Vermont representatives asked the committee to consider holding small farm action days at the State House to enable direct testimony from affected farmers in the coming session.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Agriculture - 2025-01-16 - 9:35AM","oneSentenceSummary","Rural Vermont representatives urged the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee to support a new state Farm Security Fund, to back continued federal and state work to clarify on‑farm slaughter rules, and to advance equity and market access measures for small producers.","taxTitle","Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",36721,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6383757,"Rural Vermont warns 30x30 implementation and new Act 250 interpretations could squeeze farmland and farm businesses",975,1774000,2749000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2123787-d219fa9e8d9b069bf777de12b56cc673&start=1774&end=2749","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2123787-d219fa9e8d9b069bf777de12b56cc673/thumbnail_1774000.jpg","/articles/6383757/Vermont/Rural-Vermont-warns-30x30-implementation-and-new-Act-250-interpretations-could-squeeze-farmland-and-farm-businesses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6383757-8ce42e533db1199ad61625cb0faa46e0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775407380&Signature=Q3noNBtiRNOCcdFJHiQe-qBNVKkFCEUK8HU3BjChN3CCSXnRoiRjkkMFsY0eg-lmiJAVUgLRlaYf9f-KuNs9QmrwHzD-HG7N5NZ~ChpR1mESZaEmxhPr6iPpmmULdr-KmVE6VGZgdMuD7GZSE0bZx-hwkR2zsjW7ynmNggEXVLTQKiuBJ4uA-YZAeutsYjQPkkM14FzzkzDYxRHc2FyI~XjkD63Jcm8yqoh7wF8jYRRYQeBKWE2UewSJ0m7tpTvRwT9loo7Eh-E7AJlzdVUG01lVh2-OJ5Gv2AKiEY4HiCH4CEUv6oAPT59P7vN0qS6JrQQztqXEK6hg~ZggWlPmuw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Rural Vermont urged the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee to examine how the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (BCSI/\"30x30\") and recent Act 50/Act 181 changes could affect farmland affordability and farm operations, and to clarify whether accessory on‑farm businesses now require Act 250 permitting.

Carolyn (Caroline) Sherman Gordon, legislative director at Rural Vermont, said Rural Vermont has \"been quite dissatisfied with the transparency of the process\" used for implementing Act 59 (the statute authorizing the conservation inventory), and cited a Vermont Law School memo that concluded the initiative's public records and outreach have been inconsistent with open‑meeting and environmental justice requirements.

Rural Vermont shared cost estimates from research it cited that permanent land conservation to reach a 30% conservation goal could cost roughly $375 million over five years, excluding administrative and land‑management costs. The group argued that relying on permanent easements and carbon market mechanisms could accelerate farmland price inflation and reduce access for beginning and working farmers.

Rural Vermont also flagged interpretations of recent land‑use changes that affect accessory on‑farm businesses. Caroline Sherman Gordon described recent legislation and said members have reported receiving rulings that farms offering farm stays or farm events now need an Act 250 permit unless the accessory business makes at least 50% of annual sales from products produced on the farm. \"We started now to receive complaints from some of our members, about this new policy, who were saying exactly that we thought we were exempt from Act 50,\" Sherman Gordon said.

Committee members responded that the statute’s intent likely was not to expand permits to operations previously exempt. The chair said on the record: \"I don't think there was any intent to require anyone to get an Act 250 permit who hadn't previously been required to get an Act 250.\" Several members asked for a legislative council opinion and for follow‑up conversations with Rural Vermont and affected members to resolve differing interpretations.

Rural Vermont also raised related concerns: that agricultural land mapped as \"current use\" may not be treated as central in the BCSI planning phase, and that regional planning commissions will have major new implementation tasks this year. The organization requested continued engagement with the committee and said it planned a follow‑up meeting with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (BHCB/BCSI) to seek clarity on stakeholder engagement and next steps.

","Rural Vermont urged the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee to examine whether Vermont’s 30x30 conservation planning and recent Act 50/Act 181 changes threaten farmland affordability and to clarify Act 250 permit requirements for accessory on‑farm businesses.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rural Vermont tells Agriculture Committee it will push for farm recovery fund, on‑farm slaughter and equity measures

Rural Vermont warns 30x30 implementation and new Act 250 interpretations could squeeze farmland and farm businesses