Witnesses raise questions about scope and definitions in proposed right-to-farm bill S.45

A legislative committee heard extended testimony on S.45, a proposed right-to-farm bill, with witnesses saying the draft contains ambiguities that could reshape nuisance law for Vermont farms and their neighbors.

Freddie Nangstrifenak, identified in testimony as the policy director at Earl of Munt, told the committee the organization had reviewed the current draft and Senate versions and said the bill raises many unanswered questions about definitions, scope and enforcement. "We don't want farmers building this law into their business plans," Nangstrifenak said, describing the Farm Security Special Fund as an emergency backstop rather than something to rely on routinely.

Why it matters: The bill would change how courts evaluate alleged farm nuisances by tying protections to whether activities are conducted in accordance with "generally accepted agricultural practices" (the draft calls these RAPs or similar). Witnesses warned that shifting the legal focus from actual impacts (noise, odors, dust, water pollution) to compliance with practices could make eligibility for protections turn on technical regulatory or compliance questions rather than on measurable harms to neighbors or public health.

Key points from testimony

Definitions and the standard of review: Witnesses repeatedly flagged the draft's definition of nuisance and the new reliance on generally accepted agricultural practices. The draft language cited in testimony would treat an agricultural activity as not a nuisance if it is "conducted in accordance with generally accepted ag practices." Freddie Nangstrifenak said that clarifying what is meant by "conducted in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards" (a labeled subsection in the draft) is important because it could include both novel, beneficial innovations (for example, pasture‑raising poultry) and practices that some lawmakers fear could be exploited by bad actors.

Negligence, trespass and burden of proof: Several witnesses said the bill is unclear about how negligence and trespass claims are treated. Nangstrifenak noted the draft appears to fold claims labeled as nuisance, negligence or trespass into the same chapter and expressed concern that the bill later disqualifies a farm from protections if it is found negligent. Witnesses asked who must prove compliance or noncompliance in court: the plaintiff alleging a nuisance, or the farm asserting it followed accepted practices.

Small farms, bad actors and scale: Small farmers testifying said they value protections but worry the draft could shield deliberate bad actors. Farmer Frank Camp of Cabot described repeated harassment by a neighbor and the neighbor's claim in local court that "my land is agricultural. I can do anything want anything I want," saying the current enforcement system left him with little recourse. Camp urged the committee to ensure the draft does not protect malicious conduct and asked whether protections should be tied to farm size or regulatory status (he noted existing RAP rules and regulatory thresholds are often tied to farm size).

Fallow land and new farmers: The draft would extend protections to land returning to agricultural use after a defined fallow period; witnesses noted versions varied (one cited a five‑year standard; an earlier version used ten years). Some testifiers supported protecting new and returning farmers but wanted clear, consistent language so that newly established operations understand eligibility.

State context and comparisons with other states: Nangstrifenak urged lawmakers to consider Vermont's distinct agricultural structure — he cited state data showing about 6,537 farms and a heavy reliance on dairy (fluid milk accounted for 58% of ag sales in the cited analysis) — when comparing other states' right‑to‑farm laws. He said laws that worked in states dominated by very large corporate operations (examples mentioned in testimony: Smithfield, JBS) do not map directly onto Vermont's farm economy.

Requests for more information: Multiple witnesses and representatives asked for broader outreach and data collection. Nangstrifenak said VAFM and others had not undertaken comprehensive outreach about how existing protections work across Vermont's roughly 6,500 farms and recommended a more deliberate process — including a statewide survey or anonymized outreach — to learn how different farmers and neighbors experience nuisance disputes.

No committee votes: The hearing was testimonial and advisory; no final votes on S.45 were recorded during the session. Lawmakers indicated the bill will receive further review and that committee staff, counsel and interested stakeholders would likely continue discussions and possible amendments.

Ending: Witnesses told the committee they support protecting agriculture but urged clearer language and procedural guardrails to avoid unintended consequences for neighbors, new farmers and enforcement agencies. Committee members asked staff to consider additional outreach and technical clarifications before further action.