Committee weighs S.124 to clarify state CAFO permitting, delays vote until next morning

May 22 — The Ways & Means Committee took an extended briefing on S.124 on Thursday, a bill that would clarify that the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) is the state authority that determines whether a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) is discharging and, if so, issues federal Clean Water Act discharge permits. Committee members agreed to delay a final vote until the next morning at 9:15 a.m.

“The Clean Water Act requires certain permits for certain types of activities. One of those activities that requires a permit is for discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations,” said Michael Grady, legislative counsel, during the committee’s briefing on the bill.

The bill grew out of a petition from environmental advocates and an EPA finding that Vermont had not been adequately implementing federal requirements for CAFO discharges, Grady said. EPA has required a corrective-action plan; if the state fails to comply, EPA could remove Vermont’s delegated authority to administer multiple federal discharge programs and instead implement them directly.

S.124 would remove references to an existing memorandum of understanding between the Agency of Agriculture and ANR and replace that MOU with a document the two agencies would prepare “in consultation with U.S. EPA” that lays out roles and responsibilities. The bill would make ANR the entity that determines whether a discharge has occurred and, when required, would require ANR to direct a farm to obtain an NPDES/CAFO permit.

The draft law sets out CAFO definitions and thresholds consistent with federal categories: large CAFOs would include operations with 700 or more mature dairy animals (1,000 cattle or cow‑calf pairs in another count), while medium CAFO thresholds are described in ranges the bill mirrors from federal rules. For medium CAFOs, the bill retains the federal trigger that a permit is required only when there is an actual discharge to waters or certain conveyances, or when runoff originates outside the production area and then contacts confined animals.

The proposal would also change where some permit fees are deposited. Large CAFO permit fees are $2,500 annually and medium CAFO fees $1,500 annually; under the bill, farms required to obtain a CAFO permit would pay ANR the applicable fee and would not pay the same fee to the Agency of Agriculture. J. Stephanie of the Joint Fiscal Office told the committee the change would be revenue‑neutral for the state overall: “If I’m a farmer paying $1,500 for my medium farm operations permit right now, I will pay $1,500 for my CAFO permit,” she said, noting that fee revenue would shift between special funds but not materially change total state receipts.

Committee members raised implementation and cost questions. The Joint Fiscal Office reported there are 98 medium farm operation permits and 36 large farm permits currently overseen by the Agency of Agriculture; those fees generate about $240,000 annually, while routine transfers from the Clean Water Fund to the Agriculture Water Quality Special Fund have recently been on the order of $6.7 million. J. Stephanie said routine backfills make the fee revenue modest relative to total program funding.

Other bill provisions discussed include: a requirement that nutrient‑management plans used for permitting be submitted to ANR and that portions would be publicly filed as part of an application; possible changes to vegetated buffer or setback requirements (transcript references suggested state law currently cites a 25‑foot cropland/top‑of‑bank buffer and a 10‑foot ditch buffer, while federal guidance references a 35‑foot vegetated buffer or alternate sediment measures); a stakeholder group to report recommendations by Feb. 15, 2026; and a temporary statutory “clamp” that would treat references to federal requirements as applied and interpreted on Jan. 1, 2025 (repealing that clamp on April 1, 2029).

Grady described a central policy disagreement between the House Agriculture committee and the House Environment committee over how the statutory standard should read: one committee’s language would require state rules to be “consistent with an equivalent to” federal requirements, while the other proposes language requiring the state program to be “at least as stringent as” federal law. Grady explained that the “equivalent to” phrasing can be interpreted to tie state standards to whatever federal standards exist at a future date, potentially reducing protections if federal standards are weakened; the “at least as stringent” phrasing would allow the state to maintain or adopt stricter protections than the federal baseline.

A number of technical and practical issues were noted in discussion: how often ANR would inspect CAFOs (the environment committee seeks an inspection schedule proposal), how public disclosure of nutrient‑management plans will work in practice, how subsurface tile drainage will be handled, and whether farmers will face additional compliance costs if discharges are found. Grady said ANR and Agency of Agriculture drafted the bill language and have asked for adjustments; he also said the agencies sent a joint letter supporting the bill with requests for specific changes.

The committee did not take a final vote. Members discussed proceeding with a vote that day but ultimately agreed to reconvene the next morning for a recorded decision, pausing the bill’s immediate movement so members could consult with colleagues and review the pending environment committee amendments.

Next steps: The committee scheduled the vote for the next morning at 9:15 a.m.; if S.124 advances, the bill would require rulemaking and implementation steps at ANR and stakeholder reporting by Feb. 15, 2026.