Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Resilience Ag topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers and regional planners urge state fund for climate resilience after 2023 flooding wiped out crops
Summary
Witnesses backing H119/S60 said Massachusetts should establish targeted funding and technical assistance to help farms and fisheries adapt to climate stressors, citing multi‑million‑dollar crop losses and evaporated federal grant funding.
Farmers, regional planners and nonprofit agricultural organizations told the Joint Committee on Agriculture that House Bill 119 and Senate Bill 60 — bills to address the impact of climate change on farms and fisheries — should be reported favorably because farms face immediate, recurring losses and need direct funding and technical assistance.
Speakers described severe flood and inundation losses during 2023 and ongoing climate‑driven pressures such as pests, soil contamination and increased storm damage. Steven Taranto, climate program manager at Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA), said he speaks daily with farmers after extreme events and relayed several direct examples: one grower estimated "$500,000 worth of plants gone," another had "200 acres underwater, mostly potatoes," and Taranto summarized the scale: "We're talking about 6,000,000 pounds of potatoes lost from that one 200‑acre flooded field." He said farmers need direct payments and project support rather than loans.
Regional planner Karen Petinelli told the committee the bill's agricultural innovation fund would support climate‑resilient infrastructure — e.g., drainage and ditch maintenance, high tunnels, irrigation and other preventative measures — and would help rural communities that currently face higher barriers to state programs. Brad Fesmire of CMAP and others emphasized that federal climate grants and USDA programs that farms relied upon have been cut or delayed; Taranto referenced a $95 million regional Climate Smart Commodities project that supported adaptation planning but which "completely evaporated" after federal support was reduced.
Witnesses urged the committee to authorize funds for direct on‑farm resilience projects and technical assistance that farms can apply for to implement practices such as improved drainage, field reconfiguration, emergency infrastructure, and long‑term planning. Committee members asked for examples of projects; Taranto pointed to ditch clearing and reconnecting field drainage as costly but effective measures. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.
