Farmers, environmental group urge changes to Vermont's right-to-farm bill; disagree on adding trespass

Paul Dotan, a Barnard dairy farmer, testified in support of a state bill that he said would protect family farms from nuisance lawsuits while allowing them to continue routine operations. "If dairy and other types of agriculture and dairy especially because of its contribution to tourism are going to be continued into the future ... there needs to be a strong right to farm law in this state," Dotan said. "The bill that was passed by the senate gives us that path forward, and I support that bill."

The farmer described operations at Dotan Farm LLC, saying the farm runs about 100 Holsteins and that his son currently milks between "60 and 65." He told the committee the farm harvests hay on roughly 225 acres, buys about 300 tons of delivered corn silage at harvest, and travels up to six miles to secure forage. He described neighborhood friction over spreading manure and a recent dispute that was resolved without court action, and said the farm takes soil samples every three years.

John Grogan, policy and board program director at the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC), told the committee he supports the statutory goal of protecting farmers from frivolous suits but urged lawmakers not to add trespass to the statute or to attempt a new statutory definition of nuisance. "Trespass brings us into a whole other realm," Grogan said, explaining that trespass claims can involve physical invasions such as recurring drainage that moves water and contaminants onto neighboring land. "I don't think you should add trespass into the law just to deal with an issue that's never really been a problem."

Grogan also linked the bill to ongoing state and federal scrutiny of agricultural discharges. He said records reviewed by environmental groups and regulators show inconsistent enforcement of the Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been asked to intervene because two state agencies sometimes disagree on whether a farm is violating water laws. Grogan warned that layering a trespass standard into the bill could produce additional litigation, raise takings questions, and require courts to decide complex regulatory compliance questions in every case. "If the court believes that it could be considered a taking ... that's just inviting litigation on that issue," he said.

Committee members pressed for examples and clarification. Representatives asked about damage from loose livestock, pesticide drift that contaminated a neighbor's pond, and how negligence and gross negligence would interact with nuisance or trespass claims. Grogan said such lawsuits are difficult to win because plaintiffs must prove the source of contamination and quantify harm. He pointed to toxic-pollution cases as examples where plaintiffs litigated nuisance and trespass claims against manufacturers and employers rather than individual farmers.

Both witnesses described the social context: Dotan said farming families have long ties to their communities but face turnover in neighbors who may be less familiar with farm noise, odors and late-night operations. Grogan emphasized Vermont's limited history of nuisance litigation but urged caution in drafting statutory language that would define common-law concepts or add new categories that courts would then have to interpret.

The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Members indicated they would continue work on S.124 and related testimony in subsequent sessions.