Vermont Farm Bureau backs S.60 farm relief fund; insurers and lawmakers warn crop programs leave many farmers exposed

Montpelier — Supporters of S.60 told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry on Wednesday that the bill to create a state farm relief fund should be administered by the Vermont Agency of Agriculture and include forestry losses under narrowly defined conditions, while witnesses and lawmakers warned that federal crop-insurance and disaster programs leave many Vermont farms without timely or sufficient aid.

"This is a program to get money into the hands of farmers immediately so that they can continue with their livelihood," Jackie Bolsom, president of the Vermont Farm Bureau, told the committee. Bolsom said the Farm Bureau coalition supports housing the fund at the Agency of Agriculture and keeping a farmer-majority review board to assess claims.

The bill as drafted would set up a relief fund for farms; the committee discussion focused on whether to explicitly include forestry and how to structure decisionmaking and eligibility. Bolsom said the coalition has favored including forestry but suggested limiting forestry claims "possibly to include forestry only if there is a contract between a logger and a property owner," so a landowner could document a loss that also harmed the contracted logger.

Why it matters: Supporters said the fund would supply rapid, short-term aid after a calamity, distinct from longer-running federal programs. Committee members and witnesses warned that crop insurance and the federal Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) often pay too late or too little for farms that need emergency cash to meet payroll or replant.

Insurance expert Jake Jacobs, who coordinates the Northeast Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network and has worked on agricultural risk management at the University of Vermont and White River NRCD, briefed the panel on federal coverage gaps. He said Vermont is "underserved by crop insurance," with roughly 7 percent of Vermont farmers participating and about 9.5 percent of the state's farm acres enrolled, while national coverage of planted acres ranges from roughly 85–90 percent on major commodity crops.

"Crop insurance just has not been a reasonable option for Vermont farmers," Jacobs said, citing barriers including small, diversified operations; limited insurable commodities in Vermont; paperwork and agent availability; and insurer data requirements that keep many specialty crops from qualifying for multi-peril coverage.

Jacobs described NAP as a disaster-assistance program, not crop insurance, noting it requires at least a 50 percent loss before a payment is triggered and then reimburses only a portion of the loss beyond that threshold. He said that contributed to reports of farmers receiving only modest payments after major floods.

Legislators pressed for details on program design and funding. Several members, including Representative Nelson, asked how forestry and loggers would be treated if roads or stands were blocked after storm events. Representative Lipsky and others raised concerns about the equity of a buy-in model. The Farm Bureau and many committee members opposed a requirement that farmers pay into the program as a condition of eligibility, citing administrative complexity and the diversity of farm sizes in Vermont.

Bolsom said the coalition had supported a $7.5 million appropriation that was later removed in the appropriations process and urged lawmakers to seek funding. Committee members warned that any appropriation would face competition in a tight budget year and discussed alternative funding mechanisms, including modest mandatory fees, but committee witnesses said those ideas could be hard to administer and politically difficult to sell to small-scale producers.

The committee did not take final action on S.60 during the hearing. Committee leadership said they plan more testimony: witnesses named in the record to appear later include Maddie Kempner, Dana (last name not specified), and Mary White, the Farm Bureau's first vice president and a crop-insurance agent, who was not present but was expected to provide technical detail on crop-insurance timing and claims.

Committee members also asked the Agency of Agriculture and the proposed farmer review board to clarify eligibility criteria, including whether the program should cover structural damage (for instance, roofs collapsing under snow) in addition to crop and timber losses. Bolsom and Jacobs both acknowledged that some building types—such as hoop barns—may lack private insurance and could be considered for relief under narrowly defined rules.

Other details discussed included a proposed per-claim cap in the bill (committee discussion identified a $50,000 cap in current draft language) and the Farm Bureau coalition's recommendation for a farmer-majority review board with alternates to limit conflicts of interest. Bolsom emphasized that farmer reviewers would bring practical knowledge about on-farm calamities and costs.

What happens next: Committee members said they will hear additional testimony and consider language changes, including how to define eligible events and whether to expand or restrict forestry coverage. No vote was recorded at the hearing.

"We would like very much to thank you for considering this because we've got a great coalition," Bolsom told the committee, urging lawmakers to refine the bill and pursue funding. Jacobs told the panel he would provide slide materials and additional data on program availability and barriers to enrollment.