Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right To Farm Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency of Agriculture urges clearer right-to-farm law, favors Senate version of S.45
Summary
State agriculture officials told the House committee S.45 would bring needed clarity to Vermont's right-to-farm statute by shifting burdens and defining 'generally accepted agricultural practices'; lawmakers pressed on impacts for small farms, trespass, public-nuisance scope and mediation requirements.
Steve Collier, from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry that Senate Bill S.45 would give farmers clearer legal standards and reduce costly litigation. "The current law is really poorly constructed," Collier said, calling the measure "a reasonable" way to define what farms must do to be protected from nuisance and trespass claims.
Collier urged the committee to prefer the Senate'passed text, saying the House Judiciary'Committee'version had introduced ambiguity that could make the law "less protective." He said the Senate passage (25'to—) and a 4'to— vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee signaled wide support in the upper chamber.
The agency emphasized four changes in the Senate text: (1) defining "generally accepted agricultural practices" to include compliance with water-quality rules in 6 V.S.A. chapter 215 and the Agency'of'Agriculture'pesticide control rules; (2) moving the evidentiary burden onto plaintiffs to show a farm violated those standards rather than forcing farmers to prove their innocence; (3) adding a required pre'suit mediation attempt; and (4) instructions to courts to construe the statute liberally in favor of agricultural operations. "If a farm is managing their manure appropriately, they should not be subject to a lawsuit," Collier said, summarizing the agency'position on manure-related suits.
Lawmakers pressed Collier on how common nuisance suits actually are and on possible side effects for small, in'town farms. Representative H. Boston asked whether the agency could quantify how many closures resulted directly from nuisance litigation. "I don't have any way of measuring that as a percentage," Collier replied, saying that while suits are not the only cause of farm closures, the threat of costly litigation can be enough to imperil operations.
Representative Supernat questioned whether nuisance protections would meaningfully address the broader structural problems facing Vermont agriculture, saying, "nothing in this bill addresses any of those outstanding issues" such as access to land, succession and market pressures. Collier responded that S.45 is not a cure for economic pressures but argued the bill clarifies when statutory and regulatory compliance will protect farms from successful private nuisance and trespass claims.
Members also asked about specific activities and edge cases. Representative Burt asked whether hemp or CBD farms would be covered; Collier said hemp is an agricultural activity and would be covered if producers follow applicable rules. Several legislators raised the prospect of a farm'activity changing over time (for example, dairy to orchard) and whether a "significant change" clause could strip protection; Collier said that was one of the most problematic, vague elements of the current statute and that the Senate language explicitly seeks to allow reasonable farm adaptation without losing protection.
On trespass, Collier and committee members discussed the intended scope: the bill is meant to shield responsible uses of a farm that produce collateral effects (odor, dust, spray drift, water) rather than to allow physical invasion of a neighbor's land. The agency asked the committee to consider narrowly defining trespass in statute if it is to be included.
Collier also reviewed historical context: he cited long'term losses of farms and harvested cropland in Vermont (examples noted to the committee included a decline from roughly 4,000 dairy farms historically to hundreds today and a 32% loss of dairy farms between early 2020 and 2025), and said farms now must make significant capital investments such as six months of manure storage to meet water'quality rules. He framed S.45 as aligning nuisance standards with a regulatory framework already governing farm operations.
The committee did not take a formal vote. Members agreed to invite agency staff back for further discussion and to review a House Judiciary'Committee working draft Collier had provided. Collier said the agency would return with clarifications and additional examples.
Ending: The committee paused the S.45 discussion for follow'up; members urged continued scrutiny of the House text'changes on burden, the catchall "accepted customs" clause, trespass language, and public'nuisance treatment before considering committee action.
