Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Nuisance Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House members debate changes to farm-nuisance protections; committee shifts burden-of-proof and preserves plaintiff remedies
Summary
The House Judiciary Committee reviewed House Agriculture’s proposed changes to farm-nuisance protections, including elimination of the rebuttable-presumption framework, retention of a definition of generally accepted agricultural practices, a certificate-of-good-standing requirement for protections, and preserved remedies for plaintiffs who prove negligence or substantial harm.
The committee received a substantive briefing on proposed changes to nuisance protections for agricultural operations that were considered by the House Agriculture Committee and discussed how those changes intersect with judiciary considerations.
David Durfee, Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, told Judiciary members the Agriculture Committee had taken extensive testimony from farm groups (the Farm Bureau, NOFA, Rural Vermont and the Dairy Farmers Alliance) and had conducted in-depth review. Durfee said the Ag Committee’s vote on its proposal was "7-1-0" and that its versions remove the rebuttable-presumption structure in current law and shift the burden of proof to plaintiffs who bring nuisance claims.
Under the version Durfee described, agricultural activities are not a nuisance if conducted in accordance with "generally accepted agricultural practices" (a definition the Agriculture Committee retained from prior drafts). A person asserting the agricultural protection must demonstrate they are in "good standing" with state agencies — typically by obtaining a certificate from the relevant agency confirming no outstanding final enforcement orders. Durfee said the committee removed a statutory definition of "nuisance" and opted to let courts apply common-law nuisance standards, at the request of advocates.
The Ag Committee’s amendment drops a requirement that a farm must have been established before surrounding nonagricultural activity to qualify for protection, and it preserves protection when farms change the type of agricultural activity (for example, switching from dairy to vegetables) so long as operations follow generally accepted practices and applicable permits and rules. Durfee said mediation provisions were retained and noted the U.S. Department of Agriculture offers mediation services in this area.
Durfee and the committee proscribed several limits to protection: plaintiffs may still prevail if they prove the agricultural activity results from negligent operation, causes a substantial adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare, or creates an obnoxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of neighboring property. Committee members raised questions about subjectivity—what counts as "noxious" or "significant interference"—and observed that those thresholds are fact-specific and likely to remain contested in litigation. Durfee said the Agriculture Committee also removed language about protecting farms from claims tied solely to flooding and removed trespass language from the draft.
Members noted the proposal also contains a directive that the statute should be "liberally construed" to accomplish the law’s stated purpose. Durfee said the Agriculture Committee debated that language and left it in to ensure courts interpret the protection broadly for farms that diversify or restart after fallow periods.
The Judiciary Committee did not vote to change the draft at this hearing. Members recommended further legal review on open questions (for example, how the changes would affect water-related claims, the exact common-law nuisance standard to be applied, and whether any immunity would attach to members of public bodies). Durfee said Agriculture intended to continue testifying and that the committee might take formal possession of the report or transfer primary responsibility depending on next steps.
Ending: Judiciary members said they will coordinate with Agriculture and Legislative Counsel to resolve outstanding legal questions before the bill proceeds to floor action.
