Senate committee hears S.60 to create Farm Security Fund for weather-related losses

A Senate committee heard more than two hours of testimony Feb. 21 on S.60, a bill to create a Farm Security special fund to provide grants to Vermont farms that suffer qualifying losses from extreme weather.

Committee counsel Michael O'Grady described the bill’s purpose and structure, saying it would “create a … Agency of Agriculture to administer specific special funds, to provide financial assistance to farms that experience certain qualifying losses due to weather conditions.” The draft sets eligibility, creates a review board, and authorizes grants that would reimburse up to 50% of uninsured losses to a maximum of $150,000 per year per qualified applicant.

Supporters and agency officials said the program aims to reach small and medium diversified farms that federal crop insurance and other relief do not reliably serve, and to speed payments after disasters. "The payment should be turned around within 2 weeks for an approved application. And that 2 week period is really essential," said Maddie Kepner of NOFA-Vermont, citing growers’ need for immediate funds to cover payroll and recovery costs.

But state staff and recovery officials emphasized unanswered operational and funding questions. Nicole Dubuque, chief operating officer for the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, said the agency is “in full agreement” with the concept but warned that administering the program — staffing a review board, meeting tight timelines and complying with state grant rules — would require new capacity or dedicated resources. Chief recovery officer Doug Farnham said the state must balance assistance for agriculture with sustainable approaches for the wider business community and suggested a governor’s disaster declaration would be an appropriate trigger for the fund.

What the bill would do

Under S.60 as presented, the bill: - Defines eligible weather conditions to include high winds, moisture/flooding, precipitation, heat, freezing, fire, hail and drought, and allows the review board/secretary to consider other severe growing conditions. - Uses a farm definition tied to existing Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) thresholds (examples read into the record: 4 equines, 5 cattle, 15 swine, 100 laying hens, and certain pound thresholds for aquaculture). - Creates a Farm Security special fund administered by the secretary of agriculture and attached review board, and directs the secretary to award grants reimbursing up to 50% of uninsured or otherwise uncovered losses, capped at $150,000 per applicant per year. - Requires the review board to evaluate administratively complete applications within 10 days and recommends awards; the secretary would issue awards within two weeks of a recommended application. - Calls for the agency to recommend an appropriation equal to 50% of the average documented losses over the prior three years, with the review board to submit a recommended appropriation before Jan. 15, 2026.

Several witnesses stressed the need for predictable funding. NOFA-Vermont asked for a $20 million appropriation for FY2026 to give the fund immediate capacity; agency staff said the review board would need time to set a baseline and that the program might not be operational until mid-2026 without appropriations.

Insurance, federal aid and administrative overlap

Speakers debated how S.60 would interact with existing insurance and federal relief. Crop insurance agents and adjusters said federal programs and private crop insurance do cover many losses but are not a good fit for many smaller, diversified Vermont farms. Charlie Roy, a claims specialist with experience at FSA and private insurers and a former dairy farmer, said crop insurance is a "major safety net" and that agents help farmers file claims; at the same time, several farmers and NOFA testified that many small diversified operations either cannot practically enroll in available multi-crop or whole-farm products or find the premium/coverage tradeoffs untenable.

Maddie Kepner and other farm witnesses pointed to gaps and delays in federal assistance: much of the federal relief after the 2023 floods moved slowly and some localized events do not meet county-level thresholds used by FEMA or federal programs. Doug Farnham said a governor’s statewide disaster declaration would be a useful trigger for a state program because FEMA’s county-based thresholds can exclude communities with severe localized damage.

Data from the committee hearing

Testimony and reports cited in the hearing included: - The Ag Recovery Task Force and agency surveys that identified about 264 farms affected in 2023 and estimated roughly $44.7 million in direct farm losses in 2023 (about $69.5 million when including broader food-system businesses), and an aggregated figure across recent years presented in testimony of about $57.7 million in reported damage and losses. - Findings presented by NOFA that, in the 2023 survey, about 70% of respondents reported no livestock insurance and that average income losses reported by affected farms were in the tens of thousands of dollars (average income losses cited: about $61,000 in 2023 and $65,000 in 2024 for respondents cited in testimony). - The bill text’s written provisions that grant awards may cover wages, replacement income from destroyed crops and impacted livestock, debt payments, replanting costs, livestock feed replacement, infrastructure or equipment repair and repair of farm access roads, among other eligible losses.

Operational concerns and recommendations

Agency staff recommended several clarifications or changes to improve administerability: define the data sources the secretary may use (one senator urged replacing an explicit NOAA reference with “federal or state certified weather data sources” to give the secretary flexibility); consider how to capitalize the special fund beyond an initial appropriation; and design an application process that farmers can access during busy parts of the farming season. Dubuque said the agency supports the concept, but implementation “would definitely require additional capacity for us.”

UVM Extension director Roy Beckford and farm witnesses described the bill’s nonfinancial benefits as well — including giving farmers a local review role, increasing trust in distribution of funds and providing a faster, agriculture‑specific option when federal or other programs are too slow or too narrow.

Where the discussion stands

No formal vote or committee action was recorded during the hearing. Lawmakers questioned how the fund would be capitalized and how it would balance against crop insurance incentives. Several senators flagged the statutory $150,000 cap and the 50% reimbursement rate as policy choices that could require adjustment to match state resources and program goals.

The committee asked the Agency of Agriculture and the recovery office to provide additional information about administrative capacity, expected federal relief that may arrive as a block grant through USDA, and estimates of affected farms and losses. Several witnesses offered to help refine application design and eligibility language.

If enacted, the Farm Security Fund would create a standing, agriculture‑specific relief program intended to pay quickly for uninsured or otherwise uncompensated losses after qualifying weather events; the timing and scale of any initial payouts will depend on how the special fund is capitalized and how the review board and agency implement the program.

Sources and attribution

Direct testimony in the hearing is attributed to Michael O'Grady (committee counsel), Nicole Dubuque (chief operating officer, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets), Maddie Kepner (NOFA-Vermont), Doug Farnham (chief recovery officer, State of Vermont), Roy Beckford (UVM Extension), Charlie Roy (claims specialist), Mary White (crop and farm insurance specialist), Andy Jones (Intervale Community Farm), and Justin Rich (Burnt Rock Farm). No committee votes were recorded during the Feb. 21 hearing.