Vermont farmers tell Senate Agriculture: make KO discharge permit clear, fund fixes and create neutral third‑party oversight

Farmers and watershed representatives told the Vermont Senate Agriculture Committee that a planned KO discharge permit must match federal Clean Water Act requirements, include clear definitions of what constitutes a "discharge," and come with funding and technical support to avoid shifting money from on‑the‑ground projects to paperwork.

"We feel that the state KO discharge permit should not reach beyond those EPA that EPA sets," Amanda St. Pierre, co‑executive director of the Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance, told the committee. St. Pierre said farmers supported creating a discharge permit under the Agency of Natural Resources but warned the state should not impose requirements that exceed federal standards while the Clean Water Act is under revision.

The recurring theme from farmers and technical service providers was three priorities: clarity, time and money. "Clarity, time, and money," Walt Gladstone, a Bradford dairy farmer representing the Connecticut River Watershed Alliance, told lawmakers. He said farmers need a clear, operational definition of "discharge" and expressed concern about language in the draft that would trigger permitting on a farm's "potential to discharge."

Technical service providers and farmers pressed for a neutral third party to set consistent inspection criteria and provide training so inspections are comparable year to year and across agencies. "There's a book of rules that's this thick," Tim Khart, co‑chair of the Champagne Valley Farmer Coalition, said. "The third party thing felt like a real way to kind of push that noise away and have it be someone that doesn't know us that has clear, clean water standard acts in front of them that's black and white."

Jonathan Chamberlain, a technical service provider who works with producers under current no‑discharge programs, said the draft stakeholder report captured the breadth of discussion but did not contain the definitive, enforceable requirements producers need. "Not that I've seen" will the report lay out "shall" and "must" provisions, he said; instead, the report offers options that require follow‑up technical work and a standing working group with authority to translate recommendations into practicable steps.

Farmers and watershed groups also warned that an overly administrative approach would divert scarce funds. Jeff Sanders of the Farmers Watershed Alliance told the committee that since 2016 Vermont and its partners have invested about $755 million in clean‑water projects, and that the agricultural sector delivered roughly 83% of documented phosphorus reductions in a key Lake Champlain segment while receiving about 16.5% of implementation funds. He warned that mandatory engineering certifications in a state discharge permit could redirect millions away from projects that reduce phosphorus and worsen outcomes if engineering capacity is lacking.

Several speakers asked the committee to keep the Agency of Agriculture heavily involved in non‑discharge oversight while ensuring ANR handles formal discharge permitting, to authorize and fund a neutral third party that can train inspectors and apply consistent criteria, and to enshrine the stakeholder group in statute or otherwise protect its continuity and role in implementation. Farmers said they lacked legal counsel during much of the stakeholder process and sought clearer due process for appeals and inspections.

Committee members asked who was driving the push to finalize the permit and whether state work should pause while federal revisions to the Clean Water Act are finalized. Witnesses said the process began before the federal revision and that the reopening of the federal rulemaking changed the landscape, arguing the legislature may need to guide agency timelines and statutory direction.

The hearing ended with repeated requests that the draft report include a clear, operational definition of "discharge" and a concrete plan—timelines, funding sources and an appeal process—before enforcement mechanisms take effect. The farmers said they will submit a written amendment and asked the committee to press appropriation committees for funds to support transition and third‑party work. The committee has not taken formal action; farmers and agencies are expected to continue negotiating report language and implementation steps.