Vermont farmers, experts urge rapid payouts as committee advances Farm Security Fund proposal

Montpelier, Vt. — Lawmakers heard detailed testimony on a proposed Farm Security Special Fund on Thursday as farmers and agricultural experts pressed the Senate Agriculture Committee to approve a permanent state mechanism that can deliver fast disaster aid.

The panel heard that the governor included $2,000,000 in his proposed budget to seed a recovery fund, but witnesses and the agency said structures, verification and state payment processing could slow distribution. "I see in this bill it's a 10-day turnaround ... I think 10 days would be a pretty aggressive," said the Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, who briefed the committee on prior recovery efforts and the state role in administering grants.

The hearing assembled technical service providers, farm operators and risk-management specialists to outline how climate-driven floods, freezes and droughts have hit diverse Vermont farms and to explain why many farmers cannot rely on federal programs. "This bill is really about food security," said Sam Smith, farm business director at the Intervale Center, describing the need to keep payrolls and operations running after catastrophic weather.

Key details and testimony

Witnesses described local examples they said show why a state fund is needed and why speed matters. Sam Smith said the Intervale Center manages roughly 350 acres—about 100 acres in production and roughly 50 acres in intensive vegetable production—and that Intervale farms generate about $2.5 million a year in direct sales to the local community. Smith told senators rapid cash is often the difference between a farm continuing to operate and closing.

Melanie Harrison, who milks 75 organic cows in Addison and stewards 600 acres, told the committee that federal disaster programs frequently require county-level triggers and that localized drought or excessive moisture nonetheless can force farms to buy expensive winter feed or alter harvest methods. "This fund has the potential to mitigate the worst impacts of Vermont's changing climate by supporting vulnerable farms and [the] agricultural economy at large," Harrison said.

Simon Renault, general manager of Scott Farm Orchard in Shoreham, recounted a May 2023 freeze that knocked temperatures near 25 degrees and cost his orchard about 90% of its crop. He said his farm's crop-insurance payment arrived about seven months later and totaled $53,000—roughly 10% of the loss—forcing the operation to rely on loans and emergency fundraising to survive.

UVM Extension vegetable and berry specialist Verne Grubinger summarized what many witnesses called a central constraint: federal crop-insurance programs and other federal disaster assistance are structured for larger commodity systems and often fail to serve Vermont's small, diversified, organic and beginning farms. "Cash flow becomes primary importance," Grubinger said. "Some kind of rapidity in the response is needed."

Evidence and numbers offered at the hearing included the state's own loss survey: Vermont farms reported more than $44,700,000 in losses across more than 27,000 acres following recent weather events, and the agency's survey found about 70% of respondents reported no crop or livestock insurance. The secretary also said prior state recovery awards run through a program referred to in testimony as BGAP totaled about $2,800,000 distributed in roughly 82 awards.

Limits of federal risk tools

Testimony repeated and amplified a persistent theme: federal crop-insurance products either are unavailable for many specialty crops or impose documentation and eligibility rules that deter participation. Committee testimony noted that only a small share of Vermont farms participate in federal crop insurance programs (witnesses cited low single-digit enrollment figures), that Whole-Farm Revenue Protection and microfarm policies have seen little or no uptake in the state, and that the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) requires large percentage losses before indemnities trigger.

Jake Jacobs, who walked the committee through federal program options and limitations, said the 20th-century federal crop-insurance framework favors commodity production and that paperwork, agent availability and uneven product availability leave many Vermont operations underserved.

Administration, timeline and conflicts

Several witnesses and the secretary discussed where a state fund should sit administratively. The governor’s proposal included a $2 million appropriation intended to be administered through a lending/financial entity that already works with farms; committee members asked whether VEDA or another entity would manage the fund and how to avoid conflicts of interest if board members were themselves disaster-affected farmers.

Committee members pushed back on the bill’s 10-day turnaround for completed applications. Testimony cited fast philanthropic models—NOFA Vermont and the Vermont Community Foundation were mentioned as examples that turned small grants around within days to weeks—and contrasted those with state payment processing that can add additional weeks as payments move through finance agencies.

What the bill would and would not do

Proponents repeatedly framed the proposed fund as a "safety net" or an "ER" for agriculture: a pooled resource that could be activated quickly after localized weather events to cover immediate cash needs like payroll, feed, replanting and emergency repairs. Several witnesses emphasized the fund was not intended to fully replace insurance or to make farms whole for market losses; rather, they said the fund should blunt immediate liquidity crises and let farms survive long enough to access other recovery mechanisms.

Committee plans and next steps

Committee leadership said they intend to take up related legislation quickly; the chair told attendees the committee would "try to build this out tomorrow" and hoped to vote if there were no roadblocks. No formal committee vote or amendment was recorded at the hearing.

Ending

Committee members invited additional written materials and signaled readiness to refine the bill’s administrative design, timeline and eligibility limits to balance rapidity and accountability. Witnesses asked lawmakers to keep payouts simple and fast while preserving modest verification to protect public dollars and public trust.