Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Nuisance Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves expanded nuisance protections for agricultural activities
Summary
The Vermont House passed S.45 to expand right-to-farm protections, shifting burdens in nuisance suits to plaintiffs, allowing newly used agricultural land and changed farming practices to qualify, and requiring mediation before court action. The bill now goes back to the Senate.
The Vermont House on the floor approved S.45, an act expanding statutory protections for agricultural activities from nuisance lawsuits.
Supporters said the changes shift the burden of proof in nuisance suits to the neighbor-plaintiff, allow farms that change operations or begin farming new land to keep protections, and require mediation before court filings. Representative Durfee (Member from Shaftesbury), speaking for the committee, summarized the bill and said it "expands on existing protections from nuisance lawsuit claims that Vermont farmers qualify for when they're engaged in typical or commonly accepted agricultural practices." The bill passed the House in concurrence with the committee's proposal of amendment and was messaged to the Senate.
The measure makes three main statutory changes. First, it replaces a multi-criteria rebuttable-presumption standard with a rule that an agricultural activity is not a nuisance if conducted in accordance with "generally accepted agricultural practices," and allows a farmer to show good standing with agencies via letters from the relevant secretaries. Second, it extends protection to lands newly used for agriculture and to farms that change their methods or products. Third, it clarifies that plaintiffs bear the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a farm is not entitled to nuisance protection.
S.45 preserves exceptions: nuisance protection does not apply where negligent operation causes a violation or where the activity has a "substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare," or a "noxious and significant interference" with a neighbor's use and enjoyment of property. The bill also includes a requirement that parties attempt mediation under the Uniform Mediation Act before bringing a court action; if mediation fails they may agree to arbitration and share its costs. The committee noted USDA offers a free mediation service for such disputes.
Floor debate included both support and opposition. A dissenting member said the bill risks enabling industrial-scale farming practices and would not address workers' rights or other challenges facing agriculture. Representative from Hartford (Member from Hartford) said she would vote no, asserting concerns that the bill could "create the perfect conditions to expand industrial farming in our state under the guise of protecting small farmers." Supporters stressed the bill applies to farms of all sizes and that plaintiffs retain routes to prevail if they can prove negligence or the heightened adverse-effect standards.
On committee votes: the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency, and Forestry Committee reported S.45 favorably by 7-1-0. The bill then passed the full House by voice vote; a roll-call tally was not specified in the floor record. The bill was sent to the Senate for further action as specified by the House message.
S.45 takes effect July 1, 2025, per the bill's effective-date section.
