Committee reviews S.124 changes on winter manure ban, emergency exemptions and CAFO permitting

Montpelier — Lawmakers on the House committee overseeing agriculture on Oct. 11 heard agency officials describe S.124 as a technical fix that would put a decades‑old emergency exemption for winter manure spreading into statute, clarify which waters and permits trigger Agency of Natural Resources oversight, and change the certified small‑farm filing from an annual form to a one‑time certification.

The measure matters because it affects when farms may spread manure in winter, which state and federal permits apply, and how the state tracks and enforces compliance under the Required Agricultural Practices.

Steve Collier, from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, said the bill does not change practice but would remove a drafting anomaly that made it appear the seasonal exemption — created by the legislature in 2013 — was the only exception to the winter‑spreading prohibition. "We're not trying to change anything that's been in place for at least 30 years," Collier said. "We just want to be clear that we have the authority as necessary in an emergency to grant an exemption." He cited examples such as an overtopping manure pit or extreme flooding in 2023 when farmers asked the agencies for flexibility.

Collier told the committee that Vermont's winter spreading ban and the corresponding emergency exemption have been in rule since at least 1995, and that the 2013 statutory seasonal exemption unintentionally left ambiguity about emergency exemptions. He said the agency historically has granted emergency exemptions when it judged spreading would not cause a discharge to waters, and that the proposed statutory language would make that authority explicit.

Committee members asked how the change would interact with federal concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permitting and Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) roles. Collier said federal CAFO rules do not impose a winter spreading ban; instead, EPA guidance and individual permits include criteria (for example, spreading on frozen or saturated soils, or on snow) to determine whether spreading would cause a discharge. He described the EPA permit manual as lengthy and guidance‑driven and said Vermont currently has no active federal CAFO permit, so most farms today remain under state nonpoint‑source regulation.

On coordination, Collier said the Agriculture Agency and ANR meet weekly and plan to increase joint on‑farm inspections so staff from both agencies can evaluate conditions together. "When you're actually out in the field talking about things that's a lot different than sitting at a desk," he said.

The committee also heard a separate proposal in S.124 (section 6) to stop requiring certified small farms to file the same compliance certification every year and instead require a one‑time certification with agency discretion to re‑request information. Collier described the annual form as an administrative burden that does not change a farm's underlying obligation to follow the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and said the agency needs an initial registry of certified small farms but not a yearly paper renewal.

Members raised timing questions about a September 1 MOU‑style document that ANR will submit to EPA describing who enforces federal Clean Water Act matters in Vermont. Collier said the document largely repeats long‑running practice — that ANR administers delegated federal Clean Water Act authority and the Agency of Agriculture administers state nonpoint‑source requirements — and that EPA must be satisfied with the delegation language. He also warned that, in theory, EPA could de‑delegate the state's Clean Water Act authority if it found the state was not implementing the program correctly.

Committee members and Collier discussed practical implications for farms that transition between permit categories (MFO, LFO, CAFO), for accessory on‑farm businesses, and for applicants seeking state grants or technical assistance. Collier emphasized that many requirements are water‑quality focused and that differences between state LFO/MFO regulation and federal CAFO permitting will be addressed through the stakeholder process the agencies are convening.

The committee did not take a final vote on S.124 during the hearing and agreed to reconvene in the coming days to continue discussion. Collier asked the committee to preserve the emergency‑exemption language in statute to avoid creating regulatory confusion for farmers and agencies.

Collier's full remarks and the committee's questions reflected longstanding agency practice, statutory history dating to at least 1995 for RAPs and a 2013 statutory change for the seasonal exemption, and ongoing coordination with ANR and EPA. The committee scheduled follow‑up work and stakeholder meetings to clarify the interface between state practice and federal permitting.

Less critical to the immediate decision, but discussed: whether the definition should use "waters of the United States" or "waters of the state" to trigger federal permitting, how TMDLs and interstate waters overlap with that definition, and the administrative details of accepting certified small‑farm forms electronically or by mail. Those items will be part of stakeholder conversations before the committee advances a final recommendation.