Vermont committee weighs changes to farm nuisance law, agrees to add “final order” language

Members of the Vermont House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee on Friday debated proposed changes to a statute that shields agricultural activities from nuisance lawsuits, focusing on whether the draft favors large, consolidated farms and how enforcement actions should affect a farm—s legal protections.

The committee directed staff to insert language specifying that a farmer—s "good standing" — and therefore access to nuisance protections — should only be lost once an enforcement proceeding has produced a final administrative order, and agreed to reconvene the following morning to consider that change and take a straw poll.

Representative Bosland, a committee member, said the bulk of public input the committee had received appeared to come from large dairy and corn operations. "The huge majority of them are giant dairy farmers, and then there's some giant corn farmers," Bosland said, and added she had fewer contacts from smaller or organic operators who urged a slower approach.

Representative Burke said the draft moves the statute toward allowing farms to adapt to new methods while remaining covered. "I like the fact that it allows farms to adapt to new methods and still be covered," Burke said, adding that he was focused on whether the bill addressed nuisance concerns rather than on farm size alone.

A committee member identified in the transcript as Sabrina questioned whether the bill reflects a choice about what kind of agricultural industry the state wants to support. "This is a values based question. What are we trying to support for an agricultural industry in Vermont?" she said, adding that she had struggled with the bill because it did not align with her values.

Representative Lipsky urged urgency and expressed support for the bill, saying agriculture is vital to the state—s economy and that farms must be able to adapt and innovate to survive. "I would wholeheartedly support this bill. I just discussed very clear. I would like to see this bill passed this session," Lipsky said.

One committee member recounted a recent encounter with a small strawberry seller who faces a nuisance lawsuit, saying the proposed changes would protect such small operators. The member said the seller—s name was Britney Schump and described her roadside strawberry stand; the committee record shows the member invited her to submit written testimony.

Agency enforcement procedure and timing were central to the discussion. Steve Collier explained that the phrase "final order" reflects a sequence in which an agency first issues a notice of violation and a farmer has opportunities to correct the problem, request a hearing, and receive a final adjudication. "When we issue a notice of violation, the farmer can ask for a hearing... if we can't reach an accountable resolution of it, then the farmer has a right to have us present our evidence and for a hearing... and if it is, that's when there's a final order after the hearing," Collier said. He added that agencies also have authority to move immediately to an order when public health, safety, or the environment require prompt action.

Committee members also noted the bill—s preamble and legislative findings date back decades (the committee record cites an original enactment in 1981 and amendments in 2004), and that the statutory language reflects longstanding concerns about consolidation, technology adoption and the loss of small farms.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the bill during the meeting. Instead, members agreed that inserting the words "final order" into the good-standing definition would make it easier for farmers to obtain a certificate of good standing unless an agency had completed its enforcement adjudication. The committee planned to meet the next morning at 9:30 a.m. to consider the change and to review an unrelated bill coming from the Senate (H.401).