Committee hears testimony on S.45 right‑to‑farm changes, including mediation requirement and new definition of generally accepted agricultural practices

The Judiciary Committee on March 25 heard detailed testimony and debate on S.45, a proposal to change the state’s right‑to‑farm protections. Staff and witnesses described a shift from a four‑part rebuttable presumption to a rule that an agricultural activity “shall not be or become a nuisance or trespass when the activity is conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices.”

Michael Grady of Legislative Council opened the committee discussion with an overview that framed the bill as a multi‑year response to farmers’ concerns about nuisance litigation. Grady compared several state approaches — including Vermont’s existing rebuttable presumption, Michigan’s statutory standard tied to agency guidance, and Oregon’s broad zoning‑based immunity — before outlining the draft’s components. He said the bill would define "generally accepted agricultural practices" to include compliance with the state’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs), the Agency of Agriculture’s pesticide rules, and practices consistent with customs followed by similar operators in the state.

Oliver Manning, a fourth‑generation dairy farmer from Swanton who said his operation milks about 550 cows and farms roughly 1,000 acres, testified in support. Manning described a nearby small strawberry farm that spent tens of thousands of dollars defending itself in court after a neighbor challenged whether the business…