Advocates urge agency to finish Act 41 rules as farmers wait for clarity on composting and contamination

Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director of Rural Vermont, told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry committee that Act 41 (2021), which expanded the definition of farming to allow certain farm-based composting of food residuals, has not been implemented to its full extent.

"Act 41 from 2021 about composted food scraps on farms has not been implemented yet to its full extent," Gordon said, adding that the absence of an act-specific rule has left prospective farmers and small operators uncertain about setbacks, testing and other requirements.

Gordon described how Act 41 amended the Act 250 definition of farming and the Required Agricultural Practices (RAP) framework to permit the importation of up to 2,000 cubic yards per year of food residuals onto a farm for compost production, provided the compost is principally used on the producing farm or produced on a small poultry farm. That statutory threshold, she said, was intended to preserve the line between a farm and a commercial solid-waste operation.

But Gordon told the committee that market consolidation and the rise of mechanized "depackaging" facilities — which import packaged food and mechanically separate residuals from packaging — raise contamination risks when digestates or composts are land-applied. "We envision that results to micro and nano plastics, teeny tiny pieces of plastics and PFAS resulting in the compost," she said, noting coalition work with the Compost Association of Vermont, Conservation Law Foundation and others to press for management standards.

Gordon said the agencies (Agency of Natural Resources and the Agency of Agriculture) are preparing a draft rule that would, in her account, limit depackaging facilities' access to source-separated materials and add management standards that reflect how farmers currently reject contaminated loads and work with haulers. She said Ben Gauthier of ANR presented on the topic at the Vermont Organic Recycling Summit and that committee members should expect a draft and public comment period.

Committee members pressed Gordon on the rule's likely scope. Representative Bird asked whether the rule would specifically address poultry pasturing on compost; Representative Brian asked whether digestate quality and PFAS testing would be covered. Gordon said digestate quality and contaminant testing should be central to any act rule and that the science and testing protocols remain an unresolved challenge.

Several members raised questions about scale and counting. Gordon said agency presentations indicated roughly 11 farms currently doing the composting practice, but she cautioned that the list may undercount operators because registration is not required; she also said Rural Vermont had 200 member farms indicate interest in diversifying into the practice when Act 41 passed.

On permitting history, Gordon said Vermont Compost had an Act 250 permit and likely processes more than the 2,000-cubic-yard threshold; most other early advocates did not undergo Act 250 permitting. She said the public-facing RAP rule text on the agency website still shows older language and that stakeholders must currently consult disparate sources (the statute and agency fact sheets) to understand applicable requirements.

Gordon urged the committee to press the agency to complete a transparent rulemaking process rather than let changes be folded into broader RAP amendments without dedicated public engagement. The committee was told a staff meeting with agency officials was scheduled for April 15 to discuss the rule timeline.

The committee thanked Gordon and recessed briefly to await any additional witnesses or follow-up. No formal vote or motion was taken during the session.