Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Stakeholders ask Legislature to extend CAFO advisory group, fund third‑party inspections and training
Loading...
Summary
Stakeholders who helped shape Act 67 asked the Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee to extend a statutory stakeholder group, fund a third‑party consultant for joint inspections and training, and allow ANR to phase in CAFO permitting, including pushing the general‑permit deadline to 2028.
Jared Carpenter, a representative of the Lake Champlain Committee, told the Legislature’s Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry committee that stakeholders who helped implement Act 67 want the working group that advised on CAFO permitting extended and formalized in statute. Carpenter said the group — composed of farmers, technical service providers and environmental organizations — met about half of eight sessions and should continue meeting quarterly to monitor implementation and “keep that dialogue moving forward.”
The request includes a separate ask that the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) contract a third‑party consultant to develop uniform inspection standards and deliver shared training for ANR and Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (AAFM) staff. Carpenter said the consultant should accompany roughly 10 initial inspections to help align practice across the agencies and build confidence among farmers.
“It’s important not to end that dialogue and to keep that dialogue moving forward as this process moves forward,” Carpenter said.
Michael Grady, presenting draft statutory language, described the consultant provision and the statutory design stakeholders seek: a working group with five livestock farmers (appointed by the Speaker of the House), three technical service providers (appointed by the governor), three environmental representatives (appointed by the committee on committees), the conservation district executive director, and ANR and AAFM in advisory roles. The group would choose co‑chairs — one from the livestock community and one from environmental advocates — and meet publicly with a narrow executive‑session exception to discuss specific farm circumstances or potential permit violations.
Grady flagged costs. “A consultant that’s going to do the development of those standards and then do training and 10 inspection visits” will likely cost “a couple [hundred] thousand dollars,” he said, and stakeholders suggested a $300,000 appropriation; committee members noted that the appropriation had not yet secured final budget placement.
Carpenter and Richard Nelson, who said he represented Derby and the farmers on the stakeholder team, framed the proposal as a way to implement EPA’s corrective‑action direction while preserving AAFM’s technical role. Carpenter summarized EPA’s finding that ANR — as the delegated Clean Water Act authority — must take the lead for CAFO permitting, monitoring and enforcement, saying that previous extensive subdelegation to AAFM had “undermined the state’s program” and produced regulatory confusion.
“By implementing and enforcing and requiring CAFO permits run by ANR … this would fill EPA’s requirements under the Clean Water Act,” Carpenter said. He and Nelson recommended an initial period of joint inspections so that ANR leads enforcement but AAFM’s technical experience is preserved and farmers begin to rebuild trust with the regulator.
The stakeholders also proposed a phased permitting timetable: beginning individual CAFO permitting this summer while pushing the statutorily scheduled CAFO general permit date (listed as 07/01/2026 in statute) to 2028 to allow ANR time to develop processes and staffing. Committee members pressed on staffing and financing, asking whether the agencies currently have capacity for expanded inspections and how the $300,000 would be found; Grady said the appropriation had passed a Senate committee but had not been finalized into the budget and that clean‑water funds or conference committee action could be paths.
Members asked for more detail on inspection mechanics. Presenters explained that ANR would lead on point‑source production areas and permitting decisions while AAFM would continue work on non‑point field practices and technical assistance; the third‑party consultant and joint inspections aim to standardize what inspectors look for (examples cited included barnyard containment, freeboard monitoring in manure storage, vegetative treatment areas and engineered retention systems).
Richard Nelson urged practical focus and cooperation: “Working together, we can forge ahead and do great things for agriculture and for the environment,” he said.
Several committee members raised balance and quorum concerns because the proposed statutory panel includes five farmer seats but only three environmental seats; presenters said co‑chairs and a consent‑driven approach were intended to keep agendas balanced. Members also discussed whether stakeholder members should be compensated for travel time; presenters said stakeholders had not requested stipends and that meetings have been a mix of in‑person and hybrid formats.
The committee did not take a formal vote; members asked staff to refine statutory language, identify funding options for the consultant, and return with final language and timing details. The hearing recessed with committee members noting they will continue conversations and that budget and permit deadlines may require parallel legislative steps to secure appropriations and adjust statutory target dates.
