Vermont lawmakers hear farmers, lender urge stronger "right to farm" protections in S.45

Montpelier — Lawmakers heard more than two hours of testimony on S.45, a proposed change to Vermont's right-to-farm law, as vegetable growers, dairy representatives and a senior farm lender urged clarifying statutory language to reduce litigation risk for farmers and their business partners.

Justin Rich, a specialty vegetable grower who identified himself as president of the Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association, told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry that the bill's clarifications would protect first-generation and specialty crop farmers from nuisance claims when they begin new farming activities. "I am Justin Rich, from Burnt Rock Farm in Huntington, and I'm also the current, president of the Vermont Vegetable and Berry Growers Association," Rich said. He described running about 25 acres of vegetables on a roughly 45-acre land base and said that small commercial vegetable farms face different neighbor interactions than dairy farms, including complaints about late-night irrigation or tractor work.

The bill's key change discussed in the hearing would alter the rebuttable-presumption framework that currently can leave farmers required to prove their innocence when accused of creating a nuisance. Ellen Hourigan, representing HJNA Hourigan and Sons Inc. and speaking in part from her experience as a senior loan officer with VIDA (which she said she was not representing), said strengthening S.45 would protect farms and their lenders. "Strengthening s 45 would recognize this and help ease ease some of the angst farmers have of being sued and consuming large amounts of capital better spent on furthering their farm operations," she testified. Hourigan described her family operation as a seventh-generation farm with about 1,400 dairy cows and roughly 25 full-time workers and said an unfounded complaint previously delayed refinancing for a farm she knows, even though no wrongdoing was found.

Committee members asked detailed follow-ups about how the bill would interact with existing environmental rules and local ordinances. Witnesses repeatedly referenced Vermont's Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) de minimis withdrawal rules for irrigation: Rich said most vegetable farms he knows comply readily with RAPs and described irrigation practices designed to limit pump size and run-time to reduce neighbor impacts. Hourigan and others urged that statutory language tie protection to compliance with RAPs so neighbors retain recourse when farms are not following state practice standards.

Lawmakers also pressed on two recurring concerns: whether the draft trespass provisions could create new legal problems for adjacent landowners, and whether expanding protections could advantage large farms over smaller operations. Several representatives urged caution. One committee member asked for more study of how similar laws have affected small farms in other states. Another asked staff to consult with the Office of the Attorney General and ANR on enforcement and statutory drafting.

No motion or vote occurred during the hearing. Committee members said they intended to continue drafting and discussion; one member noted the committee would aim to refine language and coordinate with the judiciary committee and agency counsel, with a target to work on draft language around Jan. 24 and to hear a final witness the following day.

The discussion highlighted three practical examples witnesses said the bill should address: first, specialty-crop farmers who begin or expand operations after neighbors are already present and therefore risk nuisance claims under the existing statute; second, irrigation and manure-spreading practices that generate neighbor complaints even when done within standard practices; and third, the lending impact when allegations freeze financing even if no formal enforcement or lawsuit follows. Hourigan told the committee lenders treat unresolved complaints as "looming liability" during loan review and that delays can substantially raise borrowing costs or halt refinancing.

Committee members also asked for clarity on how S.45 would interact with prior legislation. Witnesses noted that H.89, an earlier law addressing agritourism liability, had already clarified some recreation-and-education liability issues for farms; several members suggested comparing S.45 language and enforcement mechanisms with that precedent.

The committee recessed planning to reconvene to continue drafting. No statutory text was adopted or voted on in this hearing; committee members said additional edits and consultation with counsel and agencies would follow before any formal committee vote.

This hearing brought both specialty crop and large dairy perspectives into the same discussion and underscored competing priorities: reducing legal and financing risk for farms while preserving neighbors' rights and preventing statutes that could be used to shield abusive or negligent practices. Committee staff will prepare revised draft language for further consideration.