Vermont farmers tell committee S.45 must protect value‑added businesses, guard against nuisance suits

Becky Castle, owner of Sisters of Anarchy Ice Cream and More in Shelburne, and Alex Thibault, a fifth‑generation dairy farmer in Colchester, told a legislative committee hearing on S.45 that the bill should shield farms and accessory on‑farm businesses from excessive litigation and preserve flexibility for farms to change operations.

Castle described her farm’s mix of production and value‑added activity and warned lawmakers against constraining how a farm may evolve. “You have to allow farmers to be nimble and innovative and to change what they're doing without too many restrictions on it, as long as they're following the rules that are in place that are required agricultural practices,” Castle said.

Why it matters: advocates said protections in S.45 would help farms remain profitable as agriculture changes in Vermont and as residential and commercial development moves closer to farm operations. Testimony highlighted risks beyond ordinary nuisance complaints, including allegations tied to water quality that can be hard to attribute to a single source and costly legal fights with well‑funded neighbors.

Castle told the committee she and her husband restored about 75 acres in Shelburne, planted their first crops in 2015 and now grow six types of fruit. She said the farm has about 35,000 row feet of fruit, produced more than 50,000 pounds of fruit last year and supports four revenue streams, including a branded ice cream line sold in roughly 50 retail locations, wholesale fruit sales and an on‑site bakery. She also said her farm produces dry ice and is currently the only producer of dry ice in the state, a capability they built for their own distribution and shipping needs.

Castle raised two concerns she asked the committee to address in S.45: first, that statutory language not unduly limit a farm’s ability to change its operations over time; second, that wording around trespass and water‑related complaints be careful because “what's to say that somebody who lives down the stream from us ... finds that the water quality is not good and then is like, oh, it's Fisher Brothers' farm.” She noted the difficulty in attributing water quality changes to a single neighbor when multiple properties — including golf courses and lawns — apply fertilizers or pesticides.

On accessory on‑farm businesses, committee members asked whether those enterprises would be covered. Castle said they qualify under the bill’s definition and urged explicit protection for accessory businesses, noting that many newer farms rely on value‑added activities to be financially viable.

Castle also described a dispute with a wealthy neighboring landowner over easements. She said the neighbor sought a quick‑release of an agricultural easement on his property and threatened litigation, telling her by email that he had “unlimited funds, and I will financially ruin you unless you agree to this.” Castle said finding legal representation was complicated because several area law firms had conflicts of interest with the developer.

Alex Thibault told the committee he milks about 80–100 cows (roughly 200 head total), farms about 400 acres and is in full compliance with required agricultural practices. He said farms in Chittenden County face intense development pressure and that a recent message from a potential homebuyer illustrated the tension: the buyer asked whether farm slurry odors were strong and whether they should still purchase a townhouse next to the farm.

Thibault said the farm recently installed a manure wastewater and runoff collection system and keeps nutrient management records. He asked lawmakers for “some sort of blanket protection” to reduce the likelihood that complaints or lawsuits would force farms out of business, saying farmers need legislative support “to take that big target off our back.” He listed typical sources of potential complaints — odor, dust, increased traffic around farm equipment, and the risk of accidents — and noted that farms already operate under permitting and pesticide‑use rules.

Several legislators questioned both witnesses about specifics such as pesticide licensing, whether accessory enterprises qualify for right‑to‑farm protections, easement arrangements and local hydrology. Representatives present included Representative Nelson, Representative Vang, Representative O'Brien and Representative Morgan; no committee vote or formal action on S.45 was recorded in the transcript of the testimony.

The hearing record shows discussion and requests for clarification but no committee decision; the next witness was called after the two producers finished.