Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Water Quality Cafo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over S.100: whether it will satisfy EPA demands after Vermont CAFO de‑delegation findings
Summary
Conservation advocates told the Natural Resources & Energy Committee that S.100 largely preserves split authority between ANR and the Agency of Agriculture, potentially falling short of EPA expectations; ANR officials said S.100 provides essential statutory groundwork while they finalize an updated corrective action plan to EPA.
Scott Sanderson, director of the Conservation Law Foundation’s Farm and Food Program, told the Natural Resources & Energy Committee on March 14 that S.100 does not, in his view, resolve the problems EPA identified in its September 2024 findings and could leave the state vulnerable to partial de‑delegation of Clean Water Act authority.
Sanderson summarized EPA’s conclusion that Vermont’s divided regulatory structure—where the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) controls point-source permitting and the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets (AAFM) oversees many farm inspections and required agricultural practices—has impeded adequate monitoring and enforcement. He said EPA cited inadequate inspections, lack of enforcement, permitting gaps on discharging CAFOs, and manure-management failures as primary concerns.
"Mostly my understanding is that it maintains the status quo, including split jurisdiction between ANR and AAFM," Sanderson said of S.100, adding that the bill relies on a new memorandum-like agreement between agencies and does not clearly create objective, predictable criteria for when an NPDES (Clean Water Act) permit is required.
Secretary of Natural Resources Julie Moore said ANR has been working with EPA through a corrective action process that began after a March 2022 petition and a two-year EPA investigation. Moore said ANR submitted a draft corrective action plan and received EPA feedback asking for clearer consolidation of authority in ANR, stronger resourcing, and more detailed milestones. "S.100 contains the very essential changes that we feel strongly are needed this session in order to enable the work we need to do to respond to EPA and the petitioners," she said.
Legislative counsel and ANR staff walked the committee through statutory language in S.100 that would add federal permitting terms to state law, define concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), give the ANR secretary access to nutrient management plans, and require ANR to issue general CAFO permits and update rules. The bill also requires a stakeholder process and a series of reports, including an assessment due in December 2026 of long-term staffing and resource needs.
Sanderson contrasted S.100 with H.146, a House bill that would consolidate agricultural water-quality authority in ANR, require regular inspections of jurisdictional farms, and shift state permits to mandatory NPDES permits for large and medium farms over a 3.5‑year transition. He argued H.146 aligns more directly with EPA’s requests for consolidated authority, regular inspections, and clearer permitting criteria.
ANR officials acknowledged resource constraints and said the governor’s recommended budget includes two positions and some contract resources to begin bolstering ANR’s CAFO program; they also said they plan to start hiring within existing authority and to inspect several medium and large farms in the coming field season. ANR staff emphasized that the evolving federal definition of "waters of the United States" complicates jurisdictional clarity and urged stakeholder engagement with farmers and agricultural representatives before finalizing statutory language.
No formal committee vote on S.100 was recorded during the session. Committee members asked for further discussion and indicated the bill would be part of an ongoing, iterative process with EPA and with the House and Senate agriculture bills.
