Committee moves to fold S.100 into miscellaneous agriculture bill to address EPA CAFO concerns

The Vermont Senate Agriculture Committee on Thursday began moving language from S.100 into its miscellaneous agriculture bill to address an EPA directive that the state take corrective action on permitting for concentrated animal feeding operations, the committee chair said.

The move is intended to make the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) the clearer lead for inspection, permitting and enforcement of point-source discharges from confined animal facilities and to make nutrient management plans used by farms more publicly accessible, according to Legislative Council counsel Mike Grady.

The issue matters because EPA accepted a petition by advocates concluding Vermont was not adequately administering its CAFO permitting program and ordered corrective actions; the committee’s work is aimed at keeping Vermont’s federal permitting delegation. "I think what you have in front of you right now is the administration's preferred option for dealing with EPA's request for corrective action," Mike Grady said.

Committee discussion focused on three main points: which waters the federal CAFO program should tie to ("waters of the United States" vs. Vermont's broader "waters of the state"); what facilities trigger CAFO permitting; and transparency and inspection authority for nutrient management plans.

Key definitions and thresholds discussed in the draft track federal definitions, the committee heard. An animal feeding operation (AFO) becomes subject to federal CAFO rules when animals are confined and fed for 45 days or more in a 12-month period and the production area is effectively denuded of vegetation. The draft uses federal size brackets for dairy animals: large CAFOs (roughly 700 mature dairy animals or more), medium CAFOs (about 200–699 mature dairy animals) and small AFOs below that range; large farms with evidence of discharge would generally be covered by ANR permitting, the counsel said.

Committee members and agency staff debated the legal and practical consequences of tying CAFO permitting to "waters of the United States" (the federal jurisdiction) versus Vermont's broader "waters of the state." ANR staff said using the state definition would be more inclusive and ease administration because other state discharge permits are already based on waters of the state; others warned it could expand regulatory reach beyond EPA's minimum and urged consultation with farmers. ANR staff also noted that CAFO general permits allow some precipitation-related discharges under specified nutrient management practices, while Vermont's state program generally does not allow discharges.

The draft would require ANR to: conduct inspections (including on-site inspections needed to determine whether a small AFO should be regulated as a CAFO); maintain staffing for the program; require farms covered by CAFO permits to keep nutrient management documentation on-site and make it available to the secretary upon request; and make nutrient management plans and permit applications public under federal permitting procedures.

Tom Harris, a government staff member who spoke during the meeting, emphasized inspection practice: "We always seek permission before accessing the site," he said, noting limited exceptions for imminent illicit activities.

Conservation and watershed groups participating in the meeting emphasized the scale of change. Jared Carpenter of the Lake Champlain Committee, one of the petitioners that prompted the EPA action, said, "This is a major change in water quality policy," and urged thorough community review.

The committee did not take a formal roll-call vote. Members agreed to move forward with the S.100 language in the miscellaneous bill to provide a package for the other committee and to show EPA that the state is actively addressing the corrective-action items. The chair characterized the draft as "the minimum changes we need to be able to begin the work we've committed to do to EPA." That work will include rulemaking and a stakeholder process focused on agricultural interests but open to the public.

The committee set a revised near-term schedule in response to members' concerns about timing during the growing season: agencies will aim to provide more complete details by Dec. 1; the committee agreed to accept a later report date and set a target of Feb. 1 (moved from Jan. 15) for the written report summarizing stakeholder input and proposed regulatory structure. Parts of the ANR changes in the draft carry an effective date noted in the text as July 2025.

Officials and counsel warned that the legislative package likely would not be the final word. ANR staff said rulemaking will be lengthy and that the agencies will need to coordinate with EPA to ensure the corrective-action plan meets federal expectations. The Conservation Law Foundation and others who petitioned EPA retain options to seek enforcement or litigation if they judge the state's response inadequate.

The committee expects continued discussion in subsequent meetings and in the parallel committee considering S.100; the chair and members said advancing the draft now gives stakeholders and other committees material to review and preserves the state's ability to demonstrate progress to EPA.