Rural Vermont warns 30x30 implementation and new Act 250 interpretations could squeeze farmland and farm businesses

Rural Vermont urged the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry Committee to examine how the Vermont Conservation Strategy Initiative (BCSI/"30x30") and recent Act 50/Act 181 changes could affect farmland affordability and farm operations, and to clarify whether accessory on‑farm businesses now require Act 250 permitting.

Carolyn (Caroline) Sherman Gordon, legislative director at Rural Vermont, said Rural Vermont has "been quite dissatisfied with the transparency of the process" used for implementing Act 59 (the statute authorizing the conservation inventory), and cited a Vermont Law School memo that concluded the initiative's public records and outreach have been inconsistent with open‑meeting and environmental justice requirements.

Rural Vermont shared cost estimates from research it cited that permanent land conservation to reach a 30% conservation goal could cost roughly $375 million over five years, excluding administrative and land‑management costs. The group argued that relying on permanent easements and carbon market mechanisms could accelerate farmland price inflation and reduce access for beginning and working farmers.

Rural Vermont also flagged interpretations of recent land‑use changes that affect accessory on‑farm businesses. Caroline Sherman Gordon described recent legislation and said members have reported receiving rulings that farms offering farm stays or farm events now need an Act 250 permit unless the accessory business makes at least 50% of annual sales from products produced on the farm. "We started now to receive complaints from some of our members, about this new policy, who were saying exactly that we thought we were exempt from Act 50," Sherman Gordon said.

Committee members responded that the statute’s intent likely was not to expand permits to operations previously exempt. The chair said on the record: "I don't think there was any intent to require anyone to get an Act 250 permit who hadn't previously been required to get an Act 250." Several members asked for a legislative council opinion and for follow‑up conversations with Rural Vermont and affected members to resolve differing interpretations.

Rural Vermont also raised related concerns: that agricultural land mapped as "current use" may not be treated as central in the BCSI planning phase, and that regional planning commissions will have major new implementation tasks this year. The organization requested continued engagement with the committee and said it planned a follow‑up meeting with the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board (BHCB/BCSI) to seek clarity on stakeholder engagement and next steps.