Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
State agriculture officials credit decade of Act 64 for phosphorus reductions, outline funding, inspections and permit framework
Loading...
Summary
Agency presenters told a legislative committee the 10th anniversary of Act 64 coincides with measurable phosphorus reductions tied to farm practices, summarized investments and inspection activity, and explained how federal CAFO permits differ from state medium/large farm permits; no formal votes occurred.
Secretary (unnamed) opened the Agriculture division presentation on water quality, saying the session would focus on progress since Act 64 and introducing Laura DiPietro to present program details.
The presentation and discussion centered on the 10th anniversary of the Significant Water Quality Act (Act 64), investment and on-farm work to reduce phosphorus loading to Lake Champlain and Lake Memphremagog, and the state’s regulatory approach to farms, including permit types and inspection cycles.
Laura DiPietro, presenter with the Agency of Agriculture, described the agency’s three main roles as education, financial support for on‑farm projects and engineering, and regulatory inspection and enforcement. She said the agency conducts both capital projects and lighter technical-assistance work and has developed a public dashboard to show investments, on‑farm practices and enforcement activity.
DiPietro summarized several 2024 and program‑level figures the agency reported: about 1,274 on‑site technical visits to farms in 2024; roughly 101 outreach and education events in 2024; and state investments of about $18.4 million in 2024, primarily for infrastructure and program support. She said the agency supported roughly 558 clean‑water projects and recorded about 334 compliance assessments and enforcement actions in the year. DiPietro also said the agency’s program dashboard shows roughly $115.6 million spent in agency programs since 2016 and nearly 64,000 acres with conservation practices recorded on the portal.
On outcomes, DiPietro said the presentation’s data show agriculture is achieving a substantial share of the reductions needed under the Lake Champlain Basin TMDL (total maximum daily load) and that agriculture has delivered a disproportionately large share of phosphorus reductions relative to its portion of the water‑quality budget. She described several project types — barnyard infrastructure, riparian forest buffers, filter strips and grazing plans — and noted many cost‑share agreements run 10 to 15 years and typically include farmer cost participation around 20%.
A committee member, identified in the transcript as Tyler, asked who determines the target phosphorus levels. DiPietro replied that the Lake Champlain TMDL was prepared under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency oversight with scientific contracting (she named the contractor Tetra Tech) and that decades of water sampling informed the modeling behind the TMDL.
DiPietro also described the state’s regulatory framework for farms and permits. She explained distinctions between the federal CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) permit program and Vermont’s state medium‑ and large‑farm permits: CAFO permits are federal and may allow limited discharges under specific circumstances, while the state’s permits are designed primarily to prevent discharges and contain additional state requirements (for example, longer buffer widths and a winter spreading ban). She said Vermont has not issued any CAFO permits to date and that the Agency of Agriculture currently administers 97 medium farm permits and 36 large farm permits, with inspection cycles set at every three years for medium farms and annually for large farms as minimums.
On enforcement and interagency coordination, DiPietro said the agency has memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR/DEC) and the Attorney General’s Office to refer direct discharges or more significant cases for state environmental or legal action. She said complaint referrals to ANR occur when inspections find direct discharges and that most agency findings are production‑area issues, recordkeeping shortfalls or field‑practice problems.
DiPietro invited committee members to use the agency’s public dashboard to examine funding, phosphorus reduction estimates and inspection activity by watershed or county. She stressed the agency’s emphasis on outreach and coordination with partners including UVM Extension, conservation districts and watershed organizations to align funding and technical assistance.
The discussion included comments from the committee and the chair praising the farming community’s engagement and noting cross‑jurisdictional sources (New York and Quebec) affect Lake Champlain. DiPietro and the chair also described a multi‑year outreach effort and an agricultural working group convened before regulator changes so farmers could provide input on what practices could be implemented in the field.
No formal motions or votes were recorded on this topic during the session.
