Vermont farm leaders, Agency of Agriculture push to clarify nuisance law in S.45

Steve Collier, general counsel for the Agency of Agriculture, told the Judiciary committee on Feb. 20 that the state’s existing nuisance-and-trespass law is unclear and puts an undue litigation burden on farmers.

Collier said the statute’s rebuttable-presumption language effectively requires a farmer defending a nuisance claim to prove compliance with a host of laws and practices rather than requiring the plaintiff to prove the farm caused a legal wrong. “This flips that,” Collier said, describing the practical effect as forcing farms into costly, protracted litigation even when they are following regulatory requirements.

The proposed S.45 would set clearer standards, Collier and several farmers said. Collier pointed to Section 57‑51 (findings and purpose) and Section 57‑53 as the provisions at issue and said the bill would define “accepted agricultural practices” and tie protection to compliance with existing water‑quality and pesticide regulations. “The law should be clear so the farm knows if I’m doing these things, I’m protected,” Collier said.

Why it matters: witnesses said unclear common‑law claims and a shifting burden of proof make defense expensive and risk driving farms out of business. Collier noted Vermont has lost farms and farmland over decades and argued clarity would allow courts to dispose of frivolous claims earlier and preserve farms’ ability to operate and diversify on evolving practices.

Farmers described local experiences and urged the committee to preserve farming viability. Bradley Saint Pierre, a fourth‑generation dairy farmer in Berkshire, said the bill would protect investments farmers make in land conservation, storage, efficiency grants and education, and he backed a longer lookback for what counts as prior agricultural use. “This bill is important because it protects the investments that we are making,” Saint Pierre said.

Josh Poulin, owner of Poulin Grain & Feed, told the committee that litigation lasting years over odors or neighbor complaints can bankrupt farms. “You can’t be in court for 3 or 4 years for a nuisance claim…because your neighbor’s a little bit unhappy about how your manure stinks,” Poulin said.

Longtime farmers testified to practical conflicts with second‑home owners and development. One farmer said his family’s farm has been in place 157 years and that commuting cows on a town road draws both delighted onlookers and angry neighbors; he warned how changing neighbors could create future disputes. Oliver Manning, a Swanton farmer and town planning commission member, said a small berry farm has spent more than $40,000 and two years in court defending its status as a farm despite town permits and agency paperwork.

Supporters emphasized S.45 does not exempt farms from regulatory requirements. Collier clarified the bill would not remove water‑quality or pesticide rules but would make those regulations part of the standard a farm can point to in defense. He also highlighted a mediation provision in the draft that would not force parties to mediate but could provide a lower‑cost path before litigation.

Opponents were not recorded in this portion of testimony. No formal votes were taken during the hearing segment recorded in the transcript.

Ending: Committee members indicated they would take additional testimony; Collier offered to return. Several farmers asked for provisions in S.45 that balance protection for larger commercial farms with recognition of small urban gardeners and backyard livestock, and asked the panel to consider clarifying how lot size and context should affect “customary” practices.