Lawmakers Hear Conflicting Views on S.45Right-to-Farm Protections for Nuisance and Trespass

The House Judiciary Committee heard two hours of testimony on S.45, a proposed change to Vermont—s right-to-farm law that would clarify when agricultural activities are protected from private nuisance and trespass lawsuits, on Oct. 12 during a virtual hearing.

The bill drew contrasting positions from the Agency of Agriculture and conservation advocates over whether the measure properly balances farm viability with neighbors— property and environmental protections. Steve Collier, representing the Agency of Agriculture, told the committee the agency supports a standard that places the burden on plaintiffs to show a farm violated required standards and urged preserving trespass protection in the statute. "We want the law clarified," Collier said. "If a farm is doing everything that we require them to...that standard should govern their relations instead of an individual court deciding an ambiguous law."

Advocates for environmental and public-interest groups said S.45 as written would extend "right to farm" shields too far and risk cutting important remedies for impacted neighbors. Scott Sanderson, director of the Conservation Law Foundation—s Farm and Food Program, said nuisance and trespass suits against farms are rare and that the bill as drafted could make litigation more complex while weakening long-standing drainage and other protections. "Right-to-farm laws are supposed to protect farms from unfair suits while preserving neighbors— recourse when their health or property is actually harmed," Sanderson said.

Why it matters: Committee members were presented with competing priorities. Agency witnesses emphasized predictability for farmers by tying legal protection to compliance with required agricultural practices (RAPs), pesticide and nutrient rules and, where applicable, CAFO permits. Collier said the state has roughly 6,500 farms and that clearer statutory standards could reduce uncertainty for farmers trying to diversify or remain viable. Conservation witnesses cautioned that the bill—s proposed definition of "nuisance" and other text could implicitly extend protection to some trespass-style claims (for example, particulate drift or water drainage) and erode established duties that prevent upslope landowners from shifting flood or drainage harms onto neighbors.

Key points from testimony and discussion

- Burden of proof and rebuttable presumptions: Collier said the agency prefers shifting the burden so a plaintiff must show the farm violated applicable standards rather than requiring the farm to prove a negative. House Judiciary—s draft kept a pathway allowing a plaintiff to overcome statutory protection by showing "substantial adverse effects on public health or safety," language Collier argued conflates private nuisance claims with public-health enforcement.

- Trespass vs. nuisance: The Senate draft included both nuisance and trespass protections; House Judiciary removed trespass but broadened the statutory nuisance definition to include air emissions (dust, odor, particulates), noise and vibration while excluding some water claims. Collier said the agency still prefers trespass protection but suggested a compromise: protect trespass unless application of that protection would create a constitutional taking. Conservation witnesses and other testifiers warned that adding trespass protection would be a major policy shift and that Vermont would be an outlier among neighboring states if it shielded trespass claims.

- Water, drainage and CAFOs: Witnesses discussed the difficulty of water-related claims. Collier stressed that RAPs and nutrient-management requirements already regulate discharges and that a farm meeting those standards should not be subject to private nuisance claims for routine runoff. He suggested preserving nuisance protection for water quality if trespass proves too controversial. Conservation witnesses flagged provisions in S.45 that they said could protect upslope actions that worsen flooding or drainage on downslope properties and urged removing the bill—s novel drainage language to preserve established drainage law.

- Good-standing requirement: House Judiciary—s draft added a "good standing" clause (no outstanding final orders from the Agency of Agriculture or the Agency of Natural Resources) as a precondition for statutory protection. Collier said that creates a procedural hurdle because farmers would need paperwork proving good standing, though he did not oppose the concept substantively.

- Scope of "generally accepted agricultural practices": Conservation witnesses recommended that the bill reference relevant federal and state laws broadly (for example, air- and water-quality rules and permits) rather than enumerating a fixed list so courts can consider the full range of applicable regulations when evaluating protection.

Committee process and next steps: The committee paused testimony to accommodate additional witnesses and follow-up. Several representatives pressed witnesses on practical scenarios (pesticide drift, dust from harvest or agritourism traffic), and witnesses emphasized mediation and local conflict-resolution resources as alternatives to litigation in many neighbor-farm disputes.

Quotes from the hearing

"We want the law clarified...if a farmer is doing everything that we require them to...that standard should govern their relations," said Steve Collier of the Agency of Agriculture.

"Right-to-farm laws are not supposed to shield farms from well-founded claims...they're supposed to protect farms from unfair nuisance lawsuits, while preserving neighbors' use of the courts when that use is justified," said Scott Sanderson of the Conservation Law Foundation.

What was not decided: The committee did not vote on S.45 during this session. No formal amendments or votes were recorded in the hearing transcript excerpt provided.

Ending: Committee members told witnesses they would consider written comments and draft language revisions. Multiple witnesses offered to submit suggested statutory text and further evidence; the committee scheduled additional testimony and indicated it would revisit the bill in future sessions.