Witnesses urge passage of S.124 and S.100 to create state capital pathway for large farms after EPA corrective-action letter

Jonathan Chamberlain, a farm consultant who said he works for Wardle Brothers, told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee on March 19 that recent bills in the Legislature — S.124 and S.100 — should be advanced together to give Vermont a clear pathway to address an EPA corrective-action letter and to create a capital program for larger farms.

Chamberlain said the early sections of S.100 would establish framework language for a capital program and that S.124 includes additional statutory edits that would clarify agency roles and make the state response to EPA’s concerns practicable. He described the current situation, in his view, as leaving large farms “in no man’s land” when the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) is referred a possible discharge and there is no state capital program to enroll farms for corrective work. “If for some reason a large farm needed to get one, there isn’t a program,” Chamberlain said. He urged the committee to move S.124 so ANR and the Agency of Agriculture (Agency of Ag) would have a statutory avenue to resolve EPA referrals rather than defaulting to federal Region 1 in Boston.

Chamberlain traced his experience working with farms and federal and state programs back to about 1999, described involvement with NRCS (the Natural Resources Conservation Service) and Vermont’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) process, and said a stakeholder group similar to the one that developed the RAPs should be part of any capital-program rollout. He said his firm works across Vermont and enumerated the farms his company serves: about 81 farms in total — roughly 15 large, 40 medium and 26 certified small farms — spanning from Rutland County to Orleans and Essex counties.

Committee members questioned how S.124 differs from the House bill (referred to in the hearing as H.146) and whether either bill alone would be sufficient. Chamberlain said he prefers the S.124 approach because it retains a formal stakeholder and rulemaking track that can adapt as technical standards (for example NRCS engineering standards) and practices evolve. He said H.146 appeared to be prescriptive and to “take the whole stakeholder piece out of it,” describing it as a bill that specifies permit and practice details rather than providing framework language and delegating technical implementation to agency rulemaking.

Committee discussion focused on timing and process. One committee member said they would prefer to move S.124 and send it to the other body; others suggested producing a side-by-side comparison of S.124, S.100 and H.146 to identify differences and to ensure the committee’s work would meet the Legislature’s crossover deadlines. A motion to move S.124 was spoken in the hearing record but no formal vote tally was recorded during the transcript provided.

What the committee heard

- Purpose: Chamberlain said S.124 provides statutory edits (changing certain discretionary words to mandatory ones where EPA sought stronger language) and creates the stakeholder/transition framework that would allow ANR to administer a capital program for farms referred for corrective action. - Stakeholder process: Chamberlain urged an ongoing stakeholder group to keep technical standards and practical requirements current, noting agriculture involves biological risks and evolving technology. - Alternatives and risks: Chamberlain warned that without state statute and programmatic capacity, ANR referrals may lead to federal NPDES/CAFO pathways (Region 1), increasing uncertainty for producers.

Action recorded

- Motion proposed: “Move S.124” (mover: Committee member — name not specified in transcript). Second: not specified. Vote tally: not recorded. Outcome: no formal recorded vote in the transcript; committee discussion continued and members agreed to further work, including a side-by-side comparison of bills.

Why it matters

Committee members and the witness agreed the bills affect how Vermont will respond to EPA concerns and whether producers will have a state-managed path to come into compliance. The matter ties to interagency roles (Agency of Agriculture, ANR), federal permitting (CAFO/NPDES), and to the RAPs framework that governs nutrient planning in Vermont.

Ending

Committee leaders agreed to further careful work and a side-by-side comparison of S.124, S.100 and H.146. Witnesses and members asked for continued cross-chamber conversation so that, if possible, statutory language, stakeholder processes and administrative funding align before crossover deadlines.