Vermont Land Trust, farmers urge full VHCB funding to protect working lands and reduce flood risk

Vermont Land Trust leaders and farmers told a legislative committee on Feb. 14 at the State House that the Legislature should approve the governor's recommendation of $36.9 million for the Vermont Housing Conservation Board to protect working lands and improve flood resilience.

The Vermont Land Trust’s executive vice president, Abby White, told the committee that full funding from the general fund — much of it derived from the property transfer tax — is “essential for ensuring affordability of both housing and land.” She asked lawmakers to “support full funding for VHCB, which would be about $36,900,000,” a figure she said matches the governor’s recommendation.

Why it matters: Witnesses said conservation easements and targeted restoration on farms and forests both protect natural resources and reduce downstream flood damage by giving rivers room to meander and by restoring wetlands and riparian buffers. White described conservation as a long-term investment: “Once land has been conserved, it is forever conserved and we hold those conservation easements.”

The Land Trust’s scope and recent results: White told the committee the Vermont Land Trust has conserved more than 640,000 acres (about 11% of the state), works with over 1,000 farms and stewards more than 2,300 conservation easements annually. In its last fiscal year the land trust said it protected roughly 8,000 acres (about two‑thirds forest, one‑third farmland), helped seven farm families gain access to land, protected 38 miles of river buffers, conserved 248 acres of wetlands and planted nearly 8,000 trees. White said VLT operates with 47 staff and an operating budget “just under $8,000,000.”

Examples from the field: Farmer Damien Boomhower of Bittersweet Valley Farm described a multi‑partner flood‑mitigation project that rerouted and widened a corridor along a stream, created floodplain area and planted willows and other vegetation to slow and store high water. He said the work included fencing to keep livestock out of restored wetlands and new water pipelines for animals. “We engineered it and they dug down flood plains… it slows it down,” Boomhower said, recounting that subsequent major floods produced no problems after the work was completed.

State and federal partners: White and Boomhower both described projects funded through a mix of state and federal programs. White identified a portion of the capital budget — referenced in testimony as roughly $2,800,000 in section 10 for land conservation, agriculture and water quality — as an important complement to VHCB general‑fund appropriations. She also described cooperation with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on specific restoration and buffer projects.

Quantified gains cited to the committee: According to testimony citing agency data, since 2019 VHCB resources have helped add about 80 miles of buffers on farms and protect some 1,400 acres of wetlands. Witnesses emphasized these measures as part of flood‑resilience strategies in light of more frequent extreme weather events.

Discussion highlights and limits of authority: Committee members asked operational questions about what “protection” means in practice (for example, whether protected buffer lands are left fallow, whether development rights were previously sold, and whether property tax treatment changes). White and Boomhower explained that conservation easements typically remove development rights in perpetuity, that affected acreage often qualifies for the state’s current‑use tax assessment (which lowers a landowner’s property tax bill), and that public access and hunting are negotiated case‑by‑case with landowners.

What lawmakers heard next: Witnesses asked the Legislature to act on the governor’s recommendation for VHCB funding and to preserve the capital‑budget allocation for land conservation and water quality. The committee did not take a formal vote during the hearing; witnesses provided project examples and answered questions to inform appropriation decisions.

Ending: Proponents said combined investments — land acquisition or easements, restoration work, and payments for ecosystem services for willing landowners — yield measurable benefits for water quality and community flood resilience and that sustaining VHCB funding now would permit further work on those priorities.