Vermont farmers, advocates urge lawmakers to back S.60 Farm Security Fund after repeated flood losses

At a committee hearing, farmers and farm-support organizations told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee that the state should create a standing Farm Security Fund through S.60, the Farm Security Act, to provide fast, reliable aid to producers hit by extreme weather.

The measure is meant to give farms a predictable source of emergency support so they can replant, keep employees, and preserve local food systems. "Iwant to say the hope is that farmers aren't expected to carry the risk of extreme weather events on their own," said Hillary Martin, co-owner of Diggers Mirth Collective Farm in Burlington, adding that the farm lost its entire crop in both 2023 and 2024 flood events.

Why it matters: Witnesses said federal programs and available insurance are inadequate for Vermont's small and diversified operations, and that ad hoc philanthropy and one-off grants are not a sustainable backstop. "In 2023, using the BGAP formula the state provided, I calculated my crop and equipment losses from the July storms to be $84,647. On 07/02/2025, I received my USDA net payment for $1,400.92," Amanda Andrews, who operates a 25-acre vegetable farm in Plainfield, said. She added she waited 542 days for that USDA payment.

Farm experiences and gaps in coverage: Martin described operating 12 acres in the Intervale (about eight acres in vegetables, with the Intervale Center as landlord) and said both 2023 and 2024 floods caused near-total losses of fruiting crops. She told the committee that her farm's 2023 flooded-crop loss alone was about $250,000 and that NAP (the federal Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program) had produced only roughly $1,300 to date for a 2023 claim. "We received a tremendous amount of support from the state BGAP, grants from NOFA Vermont, and donations from our community," Martin said, crediting those sources with allowing the farm to rehire staff and continue operations.

Amanda Andrews told legislators she left prime river-bottom land after Tropical Storm Irene and moved uphill, yet still faced a multi-week deluge that left saturated soils and rot. She described investing in irrigation after earlier drought, then seeing major losses from repeated, wetter seasons: "All of this while wondering, can I take another season like this?" Andrews said, arguing S.60 would let farmers "concentrate on adaptation practices, soil health, and stewarding my historic farmland."

Technical assistance and scale: Sam Smith, farm business director at the Intervale Center, said his advisory work shows many new and beginning farmers assume disproportionate risk and lack programs tailored to diversified production. "Crop insurance programs like you heard from Amanda really don't meet the needs of our small and midscale farms," Smith said, noting events that once would have been treated as rare floods are occurring more frequently in some watersheds.

Broader coalition: Mike Snow, who runs Post Mills Eggs and Grains and directs the Connecticut River Watershed Farmers Alliance, said the fund would serve a wide range of operations, not only direct-market vegetable farms. He and other witnesses said BGAP-style rapid payments and NOFA Vermont's emergency fund were valuable but unpredictable, and that a persistent, predictable state fund would reduce the scramble to find money after a disaster.

Questions from committee members focused on program mechanics and who would be eligible. Witnesses said they had not settled on a dedicated revenue source and suggested the fund could accept public, philanthropic, and community contributions. Sam Smith said the first priority was to create an administrable structure so money can be released quickly: "It's not an if, it's a when at this point."

Committee response and next steps: Committee members voiced support for the policy intent and for the Intervale and other affected farms, but the hearing did not include a formal vote or final action on S.60. Staff and legislators asked follow-up questions about funding mechanisms, cross-border farm eligibility along the Connecticut River, and how the fund would interact with existing federal and state programs. Witnesses offered to help the committee define eligibility and administration.

Ending note: Testimony closed with several members saying they were eager to advance a solution that is fast, reliable and sufficient; no formal motion or vote on S.60 occurred during the hearing.