Agency of Agriculture urges clearer standards on S.45 to resolve farm-nuisance uncertainty

The Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee heard extended discussion on S.45 on a pause day in the hearing schedule as Steve Collier of the Agency of Agriculture urged the committee to clarify the bill's standards for farm-nuisance claims.

Collier told the committee that the bill, as drafted, raises significant uncertainty about what plaintiffs must prove and what protections farmers actually receive. "If you adopt the language that's proposed and if a neighbor can prove that a farmer is violating the water quality regulations or the pesticide regulations or is not practicing in accordance with standard practices, they have a claim," Collier said. "But right now, they don't have to prove any of that." He said the statute's current rebuttable-presumption language creates "holes" and will lead to inconsistent outcomes and expensive litigation.

The debate matters because S.45 would reshape how nuisance and trespass claims interact with existing regulatory regimes. Collier framed the issue as one of clarity: whether plaintiffs must prove a statutory or regulatory violation (for example under the state's required agricultural practices) to prevail, or whether the common-law nuisance standard would remain the controlling test.

Collier described the statutory landscape the agency enforces as broad and "incredibly comprehensive," saying chapter 215 and the state's required agricultural practices (RAPs) set out nutrient-management plans, setbacks, vegetative buffers and timing restrictions governing manure and nutrient application. He drew a legal distinction the committee returned to throughout the discussion: "There's waste and then there's water," Collier said, explaining that appropriately applied nutrients that run off in stormwater are treated differently from a discharge of waste and that federal Clean Water Act claims also remain available to citizens.

Committee members asked practical questions about thresholds and scope. Collier said the agency presently uses a 4‑acre threshold as a default farm test and that a separate provision makes commercial activity at $2,000 in agricultural sales sufficient to qualify as a farm. "That $2,000 threshold is the most permissive one," he said, noting concerns that inflation has eroded the intended meaning of that figure and that municipalities and state law treat small-scale and large-scale operations differently.

Several senators and committee members pressed Collier on past litigation the bill seeks to address. He cited a court decision in which a judge enjoined a farm's manure smell and warned that a standard that would allow a court to forbid normal manure odors could be "completely untenable." Collier and other speakers referenced an Iowa Supreme Court decision that shaped earlier statute drafts; the committee agreed to circulate the case to members.

Participants discussed possible next steps. Multiple members suggested the bill could be refined to point explicitly to the state's regulatory standards (RAPs/chapter 215) and leave technical enforcement questions to the Agency of Agriculture or to the committee on agriculture. Collier said the Legislature should set the standards so "farmers and neighbors understand what the law is," and committee members agreed that work in the Senate Agriculture Committee could address outstanding technical thresholds such as the farm-definition, the negligence language in the draft, and tile‑drain issues repeatedly raised during public testimony.

The committee did not take a formal vote on S.45 in this session. Members concluded the session and said the topic will be revisited at a future meeting; housekeeping items for the next meeting were previewed separately.