Lawmakers debate bill to create Vermont fund to reimburse farms for uninsured weather losses

A legislative committee on Oct. 12 reviewed a bill that would create a special state fund to reimburse Vermont farms for uninsured or otherwise uncovered losses caused by eligible weather and growing conditions, including drought, floods, ice and wildfire.

The bill would establish a fund administered by the secretary of agriculture and allow grants that reimburse farms for up to 50% of uninsured losses, with a per-farm cap of $150,000 per year. The committee discussion focused on which weather events qualify, whether the secretary must verify events or may do so, how awards should account for existing insurance, and whether an independent review board or agency staff should make eligibility determinations.

The draft bill creates the fund and describes sources of funding — state appropriations, federal funds and private donations — and requires the secretary to administer awards after consultation with a review board. It lists eligible weather conditions and growing conditions and gives the secretary authority to set award criteria that could factor a farm’s annual net income against statewide medians. Applications may be submitted any time, and the draft ties application processing to available fiscal-year funds. The text sets a 15-day target for the review board’s recommendation on complete applications and another 15 days for the secretary to issue awards after a recommendation.

Manny Kempner, representing the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA), testified that vegetable farmers are subject to the state’s Required Agricultural Practices. “Vegetable farmers are subject to that,” Kempner said, adding the RAPs apply broadly once a farm meets income or acreage thresholds. Kempner also said the RAP-derived definition of “farm” in the draft would cover a wide range of operations.

Committee members pressed on verification and timing. One member noted that the draft allows — rather than requires — the secretary to verify eligible weather conditions, saying the word “may” gives the agency discretion and is “small but important.” The committee discussed options for verification, including site visits, data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and whether a nationally or gubernatorially declared disaster should be required for eligibility.

Members debated geographic scope and ownership tests. The draft’s definition of farm references parcels “subject to RAPs”; some members asked whether parcels must be located inside Vermont to qualify and whether an entity headquartered out of state but farming land inside Vermont should be eligible. Participants generally favored requiring the impacted parcel to be inside Vermont.

The committee raised several design issues the bill would need to resolve: whether awards should be computed as a flat cap or tied to fund size (for example, a percentage of total fund resources), how awards should coordinate with crop insurance or Farm Service Agency (FSA) payments, and how to prevent repeated annual claims from the same localized site (for example, a frost pocket that floods repeatedly). Options discussed included quarterly allocations, partial immediate awards with later reconciliation, or prioritizing applications by region or season.

The debate also covered governance. The draft creates a seven-member review board composed of individuals with prior disaster experience; members voiced concerns that board members who experience an active disaster might need to recuse themselves and that convening public meetings could slow timely awards. Agency witnesses had suggested that internal agency review might be faster but flagged capacity constraints.

Funding size and source were open questions. Committee members said an original version of the measure envisioned $20 million for the fund; a later House draft included $2 million and the Senate committee discussion had asked for $7.5 million. Lawmakers discussed dedicated revenue options — including suggestions previously floated to tax sugary beverages or redirect a small portion of existing programs — but made no decision.

No formal motions or votes on the bill were recorded during the meeting. Committee members said they will take additional testimony later in the week from the Farm Bureau, NOFA, the logging community and insurance representatives to clarify administration, eligibility, and the interaction with private and federal insurance programs. The committee also asked staff and legislative counsel to draft clearer language on insurance coordination, geographic eligibility, and whether verification should be mandatory.

The committee scheduled further testimony and follow-up work; no final decisions or amendments were recorded at the session’s close.