Committee reviews bill to study compensation for private landowners who host public trails

A draft bill, S.79, to establish a Recreational Access Compensation Study Committee was presented and discussed during the Natural Resources & Energy committee meeting. The bill would create a panel to review whether landowners who allow public recreational trail access should receive compensation and to report findings to the General Assembly. The draft calls for the commissioner to convene the first meeting and for a report by Sept. 15, 2025; the Department requested a $250,000 appropriation for contracted economic analysis.

Supporters and stewardship organizations said private landowners are central to Vermont's trail system and that more data is needed to assess whether and how to recognize or compensate owners. "Private landowners in Vermont host over 70% of our public access trails," said Hany Fannett, executive director of the Vermont Mountain Lake Association and chair of the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council, describing the scale of reliance on private property for recreation.

The bill text presented lists committee members from state agencies and stakeholder groups, including a designated representative from the Trails and Greenways Council and subject-matter experts in trail planning and maintenance. The committee's duties in the draft include: cataloguing how private land is used for public trails; summarizing costs and liabilities that owners incur; assessing available data and methodologies to evaluate the economic value trails provide to state and local economies; and recommending whether private landowners should receive compensation or other recognition.

Several committee members and witnesses questioned the $250,000 appropriation request for contracting economic analysis. A staff presentation noted the department had previously sponsored statewide recreation-economy studies, and some committee members said they wanted proponents (including the Department and partner organizations) to explain why the new contract amount was necessary. The transcript records a mix of support for commissioning a formal economic analysis and skepticism that the requested amount might be excessive.

Testimony emphasized variation among private landowners and the need to differentiate land types and situations if any recognition or compensation program were pursued. Fannett told the committee that landowners range from individual homeowners and farmers to nonprofits and timber companies, and that a useful study would determine which, if any, land categories should be eligible for recognition or support.

Committee members raised concerns about fiscal side effects if compensation were tied to property valuation or current-use programs. One member warned that any mechanism that increases property tax burdens or adds costs to the education fund would require careful review; proponents replied the study should explicitly address those risks and estimate both costs and benefits.

Witnesses also described a driver behind the bill: anecdotes of landowners withdrawing access or declining to renew access agreements, and the potential local economic harm when high-use trail corridors are closed. Witnesses described these cases as largely anecdotal and said the study would be intended to collect systematic evidence rather than assume a problem already exists.

The committee did not take a final vote on S.79 during this session. The bill's sponsors and witnesses requested additional testimony and data, and said they would invite agencies and stakeholder organizations (including organizations that run stewardship programs) to provide further information about compensation models, liability, overlap with current-use tax treatment, and economic valuation methods.

The draft bill would require the study committee to report back by Sept. 15, 2025. The appropriation request for contracted analysis—$250,000—remains part of the draft and will be a topic for follow-up testimony and questions from committee members.