Legislators consider fixes after Vermont court narrows municipal control over farms

The committee reviewed the legal status of Vermont’s required agricultural practices and the implications of a recent state Supreme Court interpretation that, according to legislative counsel, limited the municipal exemption to water-quality-related practices.

Michael Grady, legislative counsel, told the committee that “the required agricultural practices are currently rule, and they have been rule since they were first authorized in 1991,” and that the General Assembly in 2015 (Act 64) replaced the phrase “accepted agricultural practices” with “required agricultural practices.” Grady said the agency’s RAP rule has long included provisions beyond water quality, including construction and siting for farm structures and a variance process administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.

Grady summarized the court’s approach as a plain-language reading that treated the statutory phrase as focused on nonpoint-source water pollution and not necessarily as a reference to the broader agency rule. “They treated it as a reference to what the agency was supposed to adopt,” he said, describing why the decision could be read as narrower than the agency’s longstanding rule.

Members pressed on what this means in practice. The committee discussed whether municipalities can now enforce local noise ordinances, setback rules, traffic or hours-of-operation limits against farms whose activities were previously governed by the RAP rule. Grady said several practical questions remain unresolved by the court and could be addressed by further litigation or by statute.

Committee members also focused on edge cases and thresholds that the agency used to limit the universe of regulated farms — for example, Grady cited numerical thresholds used in past RAP determinations to distinguish hobby or backyard operations from farms. He offered examples of counts that the agency has used in the past.

Grady warned that agency rulemaking to broaden the definition could itself prompt litigation. He said an administrative redefinition might be possible but could invite court challenges and take time to resolve. Committee members signaled interest in pursuing legislative language to clarify the General Assembly’s intent and to restore the scope of protections and exemptions for longstanding farm operations.

The committee scheduled follow-up testimony from the Agency of Agriculture and from farming stakeholders, and expects the League of Cities and Towns to present municipal views. No formal vote was taken at this meeting; members framed the session as a fact-finding step toward a potential legislative response.