Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cafo Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Champlain Committee urges stronger CAFO enforcement, cites EPA findings
Summary
A Lake Champlain Committee representative told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee that S.124 improves CAFO oversight but falls short of EPA recommendations; he read out parts of an EPA Sept. 9 letter documenting inspection and enforcement gaps and urged statutory changes to make ANR the primary compliance authority.
Jared Carpenter, of the Lake Champlain Committee, told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee that S.124 is a “good start” but does not fully meet changes EPA required after reviewing Vermont’s CAFO enforcement program.
Carpenter read passages from a Sept. 9 EPA letter and summarized the agency’s findings: “ANR’s delegated obligations regarding the enforcement and compliance monitoring of the CAFO program are not being met. In general, ANR fails to conduct sufficient and timely inspection and fails to [take] appropriate enforcement actions to deter and mitigate violations.” He said EPA found that ANR relied heavily on the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (AAFM) for on‑the‑ground inspections and that referrals and complaints were often unresolved.
The EPA records cited by Carpenter showed 113 complaints from February 2021 to January 2023, with 26 (23%) unresolved, 51% concluded as “no violations found” despite documentation, and only 7% noted as Clean Water Act violations. Carpenter said EPA conducted independent inspections in 2023–2024 and identified several farms with evidence of ongoing discharges that appeared unaddressed.
Why it matters: EPA’s review led environmental groups — Lake Champlain Committee, Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Natural Resources Council — to petition EPA and to press for statutory changes. Carpenter said the petition and EPA review were not “against farmers” but were prompted because “the system was broken,” with dual jurisdiction between ANR and AAFM leading to inconsistent outcomes.
Carpenter outlined seven EPA recommendations he wants reflected in law: ANR personnel should inspect all potentially jurisdictional farms to determine CAFO permit requirements; ANR should review nutrient management plans and issue permits consistent with federal and state requirements; ANR must comprehensively track permitting, monitoring and enforcement; ANR must enforce against farms discharging without permits; ANR must have sufficient personnel to implement these duties in a timely manner; ANR should seek statute or rulemaking authority necessary to meet Clean Water Act requirements; and ANR should include a date‑certain corrective action timeline.
Carpenter said portions of S.124 implement parts of those recommendations but that the bill does not make ANR the primary enforcement authority for all farm discharges. He urged the committee to consider statutory language to make the federal CAFO standards a regulatory floor (minimum) rather than a ceiling and to allow state law to remain or to be more protective if federal definitions change.
He also pushed back on two draft bill elements: a broadly worded emergency exemption for manure spreading and the use of the federal “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) definition rather than “waters of the state.” On the emergency exemption, Carpenter asked for clearer, narrower criteria (for example, whether an exemption would be statewide, countywide or farm‑specific and what conditions would trigger it). On jurisdictional definitions, he argued that the advocates prefer “waters of the state” because it is broader and more certain than the shifting federal WOTUS standard.
Committee exchange: Committee members asked technical questions about buffers and setbacks under CAFO rules versus state setbacks, and about inspection frequency. Carpenter recommended codifying inspection schedules in Title 10 (large CAFOs annually, medium every three years, SFOs every five years) and removing presumptions that compliance with a nutrient management plan (RAP) proves no discharge has occurred; he said ANR should make written determinations after inspections when discharges are suspected.
Next steps: Carpenter said a stakeholder group will meet over summer and that an MOU (memorandum or document of responsibilities) between ANR and AAFM is being developed; he recommended waiting for stakeholder recommendations before finalizing the MOU. He said he is available to meet individually with members to walk through suggested drafting changes.
Ending note: Carpenter read the EPA letter into the record to ensure committee members had the agency’s findings on file and said he would provide the full Sept. 9 letter for the legislative record.
