Supporters urge fast, state-funded disaster aid for Vermont farms under S.60

Supporters of S.60, the Farm Security Fund, told legislators at a committee hearing that Vermont needs a permanently funded, quickly distributable aid program to help farmers recover after extreme-weather events.

Maddie Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, said the fund should “be simple to apply for. It should provide as, as fast a turnaround on payment as possible, ... [and] be flexible and proportional” to farmers’ needs.

Advocates said the bill responds to repeated localized and statewide extreme-weather losses in recent years. They described $58.2 million in reported farm damage from two recent growing seasons (about $44.7 million in 2023 and $13.5 million in 2024), compared with roughly $6.9 million distributed through charitable grants and BGAP in the same period. The coalition backing S.60 asked the Legislature for a $20 million appropriation for fiscal year 2026 to seed a special fund that could accept state appropriations, federal funds and philanthropic donations.

Why it matters: Supporters said existing federal and state disaster programs, and private charitable funds, have been important but insufficient or slow. Maddie Kempner and other witnesses described slow turnaround on prior programs, uneven insurance coverage for diversified Vermont farms, and examples where federal disaster declarations did not produce quick, usable aid for individual operations. Kempner said congressional- and USDA-based programs often leave small and diversified farms “with pennies on the dollar.”

Program design and administration: Witnesses said S.60 would be administered by the Agency of Agriculture with a review board that includes farmers. Rural Vermont’s policy director, who also farms in Marshfield, said farmers’ direct participation would improve on-the-ground decisions about eligible losses, timeliness and equitable distribution.

Timing and application process: The original sponsor language Kempner described would have required a one-week review and a two-week payment turnaround; committee language lengthened those intervals. Kempner said the coalition still supports a faster turnaround and that the statute should set expectations instead of leaving timelines entirely to implementation. Committee members pressed witnesses about the committee’s current compromise language requiring 15 days for the review board to act on a complete application and another 15 days for payment to issue.

Equity and eligibility concerns: Witnesses discussed application materials that would demonstrate a commercial farm operation, such as a Schedule F or a profit-and-loss statement, and debated whether review-board members should include farmers who previously received disaster aid. Rural Vermont said the coalition favored farmer participation on the review board because of their lived experience adjudicating losses and because farmer input can improve equity and practical administration.

Farm testimonials: Farmers and technical-service providers gave concrete examples of recent losses. Bruce Hennessy of Maple Wind Farm described losing birds, a tractor and a production barn during the 2023 floods and said BGAP and other relief helped but were a fraction of total losses. Hennessy said he received BGAP and other funds but still faces rebuilding costs and loan obligations; he described receiving an eventual $11,000 indemnity payment after a yearlong appeal to FSA and roughly $617,000 from BGAP that covered about 30% of one year’s losses.

Technical context: UVM Extension’s vegetable-and-berry specialist reviewed differences among the major flood events, explained how FDA and market rules affect whether flooded produce can be sold, and said many horticultural crops are effectively not served by crop insurance. Extension testimony noted gaps in data collection across events and recommended codifying a permanent emergency fund to avoid re-creating ad hoc grant systems after each disaster.

Next steps: Committee members said they will continue to take testimony and discuss bill language and implementation details, including fund size, review-board makeup, application timelines and outreach plans. No committee vote was recorded during the hearing.

Ending: Supporters said a standing Farm Security Fund would smooth and accelerate relief, protect farm businesses and farmland, and reduce near-term closures that threaten Vermont’s food production. The coalition asked the Legislature to fund S.60 at $20 million for FY2026 while acknowledging smaller appropriations would still be useful if scaled and administered to maximize equitable access.