Rural Vermont warns shifting required agricultural practices rule to ANR could weaken farmer representation

Carolyn Sherman Gordon, legislative director for Rural Vermont, told a March 12 legislative committee that a House bill proposing to move the state's required agricultural practices rule from the Agency of Agriculture to the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) could strip farmers of representation in decisions that define agricultural practice.

"This miscellaneous ag bill is really something we've been hoping for," Gordon said, praising parts of the miscellaneous-agenda bill but warning that the House proposal would be "such a radical move" that it requires "thorough due diligent consideration with lots of farmer engagement." She said Rural Vermont prefers the language in S.100 and two alternate bills that would address administrative oversight without wholesale transfer of the required agricultural practices rule.

Gordon said Conservation Law Foundation and Vermont Natural Resources Council have proposed the House approach to shift the rule to ANR, and she urged the committee to protect the Agency of Agriculture's role. "A and R starting to do their job should not be on the backs of farmers who need the support system of their agency that's literally there to represent them," she said.

A committee member (unnamed) noted that under the House proposal ANR "is going to sort of become the lead enforcer if there's a CAFO permit involved," and said the existing memorandum of understanding between the agencies would likely disappear. That member said agriculture would remain part of the picture but expressed concern that moving water-quality oversight and the required agricultural practices rule in full to ANR would leave "ANR" without the farming representation needed to define agricultural practice.

Gordon also said the agencies themselves are not in support of the House proposal and that two other bills would address ANR's administrative oversight role in a different way. She cautioned that the House measure appears to be progressing without the level of farmer engagement she said is necessary and warned of outside lobbying pushing for a larger shift than federal (EPA) direction requires.

The discussion on March 12 was advisory and did not include a committee vote on the House proposal. Committee members said they intend to seek language that ties the miscellaneous-ag bill and S.100 together or otherwise preserve opportunities for farmer input before any transfer of the required agricultural practices rule.

No formal action or vote was recorded on the proposal during this hearing.