Farmers Watershed Alliance urges clearer guidance, funding as EPA letter could shift farm oversight to ANR

Members of the Farmers Watershed Alliance told the Senate Agriculture Committee on a meeting day not specified that an Environmental Protection Agency letter and possible changes in permitting could push more farms from the Agency of Agriculture’s oversight into the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), creating uncertainty and additional costs for Vermont farmers.

"We wanted to...start a relationship so we can have that communication back and forth as policy moves forward," said Scott Magnam, board chair of the Farmers Watershed Alliance, in opening remarks about the group’s goals and recent work on water-quality issues.

The Alliance representatives told the committee they are seeking clarity on how the EPA letter will be applied, and whether Revised Agricultural Practices (RAPs) and farm permitting will remain managed primarily through the Agency of Agriculture or move toward ANR oversight. "Tell us what RAP is. Revised agricultural practices Requires are mainly field practices. We're not sure if those would be influenced by the shift because that's the capo permitting is mainly on farmstead," Magnam said, quoting the Alliance's reading of the distinctions between field-based RAPs and farmstead permitting.

Larry Jarvis, vice chair of the Farmers Watershed Alliance and a dairy farmer from Enosburg, said farmers are already incurring higher compliance costs and could face still-larger expenses if permitting shifts. "It's not will happen. It sounds like it's gonna happen," Jarvis said of the possible regulatory change, adding that larger manure storage, liners and covers can push costs into the six-figure range for farms that must expand storage or add engineered systems.

Alliance members described investments in record-keeping and precision agriculture as part of their response to tighter rules. Scott Magnam—who described his work as a dealer for Ag Leader Technology and a CWIP-grant recipient providing farmer training—said recent workshops drew 39 attendees and that the Alliance is hiring a precision-ag coordinator to expand on-farm research and data-sharing. "We had 39 people attend to learn more about that process," Magnam said, describing how GPS-guided recordkeeping and variable-rate nutrient applications let farmers target fertilizer and manure to parts of fields that need it.

Farmers said the recordkeeping and nutrient-management plans already carry significant ongoing costs. One participant described paying a private planner roughly $10,000 per year historically and rising to more than $20,000 as regulatory complexity increased; another said precision-farming hardware and installation can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Those costs, farmers argued, fall unevenly on smaller operations and may be harder for them to absorb.

Several speakers also raised local water-quality issues. Roland Ringo, a Farmers Watershed Alliance member from Franklin County, disputed a public figure he said attributed 85 percent of phosphorus loading to agriculture in a local lake. "When they said it, everybody around that lake believed it. So now it's all us farmers that are that are at fault," Ringo said, adding that subsequent analyses showed a more mixed set of sources. Residents and farmers described legacy phosphorus in lakebed sediments, riverbank erosion, failing or aging septic systems at camps along the shore, and recent higher rainfall as complicating factors.

Dan Larrabee, a landowner with a camp on Lake Carmelite, said the lake "was cleaner than ever last year because of all the rain," and questioned whether dredging or changing lake depth might be an alternative to chemical treatments. Wayne Fisk, who operates a beef farm at the headwaters of the Rock River, told the committee he sees riverbank erosion as a major source of phosphorus and urged state attention to stream and bank stability rather than attributing all loading to active farms. "I think a lot of it is as I watch it, riverbank erosion, which is coming off the sides that is going into Lake Champlain, and the farmers are getting charged for that," Fisk said.

Speakers also described practical problems unrelated to permitting: limited local slaughterhouse capacity and the need for better options to handle mortalities and carcasses; a perceived mismatch between permit approval timing and available funding for on-farm projects; and the conversion of flat farmland to solar arrays, which farmers said can make land less available for future agricultural use.

Committee members responded that they want continued engagement and information from the Alliance. The committee chair noted the panel is newly formed and encouraged Alliance members to keep the committee informed and to invite legislators to the Alliance’s annual meeting. The committee also offered to help convene follow-up conversations among state agencies and the farming community.

No formal actions or votes were taken during the committee’s meeting segment with the Farmers Watershed Alliance; the session functioned as a listening and information-sharing opportunity.

The Alliance requested more clarity and a transition period if oversight shifts proceed, and asked for predictable funding or grant timelines so farms can execute remediation projects when permits are issued. They also asked for consistent, documented guidance across agencies so farmers are not subject to conflicting determinations over time.