Committee reviews draft of S 323 to limit municipal bylaws over farming, tweak RAPs thresholds

The committee spent its meeting reviewing draft language for S 323 (sections 1–3), a bill that would limit municipal authority over farming and change how the state’s Required Agricultural Practices (RAPs) apply to small-scale operations. Bradley Schoeman, Legislative Counsel, walked members through the draft and noted the text both restores earlier RAPs exemptions and expands explicit protections for backyard food production and poultry.

The draft would prohibit municipalities from regulating the cultivation or use of land for growing plants "including for food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, horticulture, viticulture, and orchard crops," and would permit the "raising, feeding, and management [of] small backyard poultry flocks, excluding producers," according to Schoeman. He told the committee the bill “restores the pre‑RAPs status quo” and “goes beyond the pretest status quo” in ways that could allow individuals to grow food and keep poultry in more places than before.

Members and counsel spent substantial time on the bill’s legislative‑intent paragraph and references to a recent Supreme Court decision. Several members argued for language that clarifies the General Assembly’s intent without implying retroactivity or directly attacking the court’s ruling. Schoeman advised softening phrasing where possible, saying the draft should make clear the Assembly’s intent rather than using definitive words like “overturned.”

Section 3 would amend how the RAPs determine whether an activity is subject to state regulation and therefore exempt from municipal bylaws. Key numeric changes discussed include raising the annual gross‑income threshold for RAPs applicability from $2,000 to $5,000 and changing the land‑size threshold so that livestock operations between 1 and 4 continuous acres could fall under RAPs jurisdiction. Schoeman said these adjustments "bring more people into the RAPs" while also expanding explicit protections for small backyard production.

The draft also includes a catchall provision allowing the Secretary of Agriculture, after notice and an opportunity for hearing, to assert RAPs jurisdiction if livestock are causing "significant adverse water quality effects"—a mechanism spelled out in the bill for municipalities that lack ordinances. Schoeman explained that an affected landowner would have the ability to request an administrative hearing to contest the agency’s jurisdiction, and the agency would carry the burden of proof in that hearing.

Committee members raised process questions about what "consultation with the appropriate municipal authority" means in practice, whether a hearing would be public, and who may request a hearing (the farmer or a complainant). Schoeman said "consultation" can be limited at the agency’s discretion and does not require municipal approval; the hearing process would be an administrative, quasi‑judicial proceeding available to an affected individual who seeks to appeal a jurisdictional determination.

Several members cautioned about reinstating a Schedule F‑style test as a threshold for farming status, arguing it can be "gamed" (for example, by selling a single animal then claiming farmer status). They favored objective criteria—such as the revised income and acreage thresholds—to preserve program integrity and avoid loopholes that could invite further legal challenge.

The committee agreed to leave the draft language for sections 1–3 in place for now and to revisit specific points if the Farm Coalition presents compromise language in its meeting later that day. No motions or votes were recorded on sections 1–3 during this meeting; members said they are close to finalizing the draft but will make further edits as stakeholder feedback arrives.

Next steps: the committee awaits feedback from the Farm Coalition and expects to reconvene language edits based on that input.