Agency of Agriculture reviews decade of water-quality work, funding and enforcement since Act 64

Laura DiPietro, Agency of Agriculture Water Quality Division, summarized a decade of activity since Act 64 (the Vermont Clean Water Act of 2015) and described the agency's mix of education, technical assistance, financial grants and regulation to reduce agricultural nutrient runoff.

DiPietro told the committee that the agency has increased grant-making and federal partnerships and now tracks detailed project and funding data in a Power BI dashboard intended for public use. "We educate, we help implement projects, we provide financial assistance, and we regulate," she said, summarizing the division's roles.

The presentation outlined funding sources and trends. DiPietro said the agency has pursued federal grants and other funding in addition to the state Clean Water Fund, and cited a cumulative funding figure she described as about $18,400,000 for programs directed to farmers (figure given in the presentation). She identified specific federal sources including USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) grants and funds tied to the federal Farm Bill and noted that American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and capital funding affected year-to-year totals.

DiPietro described the agency's emphasis on combining rulemaking, education and partner capacity-building. She said farmers must complete required education in order to operate under the current rules created after Act 64, and that the agency has empowered partners such as conservation districts and UVM Extension to deliver much of that outreach and training.

On results, DiPietro said farms are producing a large share of statewide phosphorus reductions: "the ag sector has a goal ... farms have already achieved 33% of that reduction," she said, and added that statewide all sectors had achieved about 26% of the overall reduction goal for Lake Champlain.

On enforcement and oversight, DiPietro provided counts of agency activity: she said last year staff completed roughly 334 site visits that produced reports to farmers and that the agency averages about 50 enforcement actions per year (a rate she said has roughly doubled since Act 64). She also said the agency has referred farms to the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) for additional investigation and cited that 55 farms were referred in the most recent period reported.

DiPietro explained the boundary between state agriculture rules and federal Clean Water Act permitting for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). She told the committee that federal law and court decisions limit EPA permitting to actual discharges; the agency's other rules and programs are aimed at preventing problems before they become discharges. She said that if a farm becomes a CAFO under federal law it can become ineligible for certain EPA financial assistance, although other federal and state program funds (for example NRCS or Agency of Agriculture grants that are not EPA funds) remain available.

DiPietro highlighted several conservation practices and program features shown with before-and-after photos, including buffer and filter-strip installations (one example cited a farmer who installed a 70-foot-wide filter strip rather than the 25-foot minimum), manure storage and alternative water systems for livestock. She said many practices are designed to be cost-effective per pound of phosphorus reduced and noted that farmers have implemented roughly 500,000 acres of conservation practices in the period she described (figure cited in presentation).

She also described program design choices: many capital projects are structured as one-time payments to cover installation and initial inputs rather than ongoing annual payments, with typical practice lifespans she described as about 10 years and periodic checks thereafter.

DiPietro closed by demonstrating a public Power BI dashboard that the agency uses to show project locations, funding streams, practice counts and enforcement referrals; she said committee members and the public can filter the dashboard by county, funding source, practice type and year.

The committee scheduled follow-up discussion: DiPietro said the group will return the next day to review an MOU between the Agency of Agriculture and ANR and to walk through related reports. Representative Supriana (who spoke during the session) asked about investment distribution between large and small farms; DiPietro said the agency's dashboard shows significant investment in small farms and that programs are available to farms of different sizes.

Ending

DiPietro emphasized that implementing the regulatory and program changes required substantial staff and partner capacity, and urged continued attention to funding and local implementation. She said Vermont's approach emphasizes preventing discharges through rules, training and capital projects while keeping data and project-tracking public through the dashboard.