Senate committee reviews S.124 to align Vermont farm rules with federal CAFO permitting

Senator Ross Ingalls, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told the Natural Resources & Energy Committee on March 21 that S.124 is intended to settle a dispute among the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Conservation Law Foundation, the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets and the Agency of Natural Resources so farmers can plan for permitting and compliance.

The bill, Ingalls said, would conform Vermont law to federal Clean Water Act requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations by changing statutes in both Title 6 (agriculture provisions) and Title 10 (water resources). "All that we are trying to accomplish is to settle this dispute between the EPA, Conservation Law Foundation, Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets, and the Agency of Natural Resources so that farmers can make plans," Ingalls said.

S.124 replaces repeated statutory references to an interagency memorandum of understanding with a requirement that the two agencies issue a document that sets out roles and responsibilities for implementing the federal CAFO permit program and the State’s nonpoint-source agricultural program. The bill would make the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) the entity that determines whether a discharge requires a federal CAFO permit; if ANR determines a CAFO permit is required, ANR would administer the federal permitting program in Vermont.

Key provisions and clarifications discussed in committee

- MOU replaced: Multiple sections strike language referring to an MOU and instead direct ANR and the Agency of Agriculture to issue a document describing each agency’s responsibilities for federal CAFO implementation and state agricultural nonpoint-source programs.

- Who determines a permit is required: The bill clarifies that ANR — not the Agency of Agriculture — will make written determinations about whether discharges require a federal CAFO permit and will therefore be the permitting authority for those operations.

- Buffer/setback rules: State minimum agricultural buffer requirements would not apply to farms ANR determines require a CAFO permit; such operations would instead follow setback and buffer requirements established in the federal CAFO rules.

- CAFO size thresholds and definitions: The bill uses the federal structure: a "large" CAFO is keyed to animal counts (700 or more mature dairy animals for Vermont’s definition discussed in committee); a "medium" CAFO generally spans 200–699 mature dairy animals with additional criteria; small operations may be designated by ANR only if they are found to be significant contributors to pollutant loadings.

- Fee and permit interaction: For large farms, S.124 would avoid double fees by specifying that an operation required to obtain a federal CAFO permit does not also need to pay an existing state operating fee (the transcript cited a $2,500 LFO fee) tied to the prior state permit structure.

- Nutrient management plans and public record: When a farm must seek a CAFO permit, nutrient management plans must be part of the permit application and made available to ANR; those plans will be part of the permitting record and accessible to ANR on request.

- Seasonal application ban and emergency exemptions: The bill codifies a December 15–April 1 seasonal restriction on manure application, with an emergency exemption available if a storage facility is at risk of failing.

- Presumption and enforcement: The bill removes a blanket presumption that compliance with the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) precludes a discharge determination; the transcript states the presumption "is not applicable to any AFO determined by the secretary's decision." Committee discussion highlighted that, under S.124, complying with RAPs will not automatically preclude ANR from concluding a discharge exists and issuing a permit requirement.

- Permits and terms: CAFO permits under the proposal would generally be issued with five-year terms and require renewal thereafter.

- Prima facie evidence of discharge: The draft statutory language lists observable signs (e.g., staining, standing water, prior discharge history) that ANR could treat as prima facie evidence of a discharge.

Process, timeline and agency capacity

Committee staff and agency counsel said EPA had issued a corrective-action request and that ANR provided a corrective-action plan with a timeline of years for implementation rather than immediate change. The transcript records that stakeholder working groups and pre-rulemaking processes are included; one statutory deadline cited in committee materials was February 15, 2026, for a stakeholder report.

Catherine Gessing, general counsel, told the committee that ANR plans outreach to farmers and that general and individual CAFO permits will follow a public process when promulgated: "the agency plans to have kind of a, outreach plan for farm where we will go out to farmers and talk to them about the changes and about the permits," she said.

Committee questions and open items

Members pressed on several implementation details that the bill text does not fully resolve, including whether the state should use the federal definition of "waters of the United States" or Vermont’s broader statutory definition of waters, whether medium-farm fee language needs to be added to avoid duplicate fees, and how ANR and the Agency of Agriculture will coordinate inspections and data-sharing while avoiding duplicate enforcement. Committee staff noted that staffing and funding requests appear in ANR's corrective-action plan (the plan, as described in the transcript, requests initial contractor support and additional full‑time equivalents to stand up the program).

No committee vote on S.124 was taken during the March 21 meeting. Committee members paused the CAFO discussion and scheduled further work; the committee noted that bill authors and agency counsel (including Michael Grady, whom the committee expected back to walk through the language) may return for additional detail in a future meeting.

Ending

S.124 would align state statutes in Titles 6 and 10 with federal CAFO permitting requirements and change which agency makes formal discharge determinations. Committee discussion on March 21 focused on definitions, fees, permit application contents, and how ANR and the Agency of Agriculture will coordinate implementation; no final action was taken and the committee left several technical items for follow-up and potential rulemaking.