 Good morning. We are now this is a combination of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee We're taking up s268 Right to farm bill somebody say something Senator star is the chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee and we will be co-hosting this event So we're gonna start off with Michael O'Grady who's the Legislative Council to give us a brief walk through Meg Nelson if you would thank you very much Go ahead. Good morning Committees, my name is Michael Grady. I'm with the Office of Legislative Council With senator parents approval. Can I give a little background to how the this bill originated? Yeah So There has been I think as many of you know ongoing litigation regarding Nuisance for a farm in Addison County That inspired a lot of questions from the farming community About the state's right to farm law and how it compares to other states right to farm laws senator apparent was interested in that discussion and Engaged with me and looking at ways to strengthen the state's right to farm law in Drafting and researching and drafting the bill. I had our paralegal Jesse Tracy Pulled down the right to farm laws from 28 states And we did a review of those laws and Basically, there's a whole spectrum Farm laws across the country You can characterize some as being very very very protective such as Oregon, which does not allow nuisance or trespass claims Unless basically there's there's death or serious injury as a result And then there's Vermont, which is basically on the other end of the spectrum Which allows a rebuttable presumption if certain conditions are met But that rebuttable presumption can be overcome if certain standards are met And then there's a lot in between So what I did is I work with senator apparent Mainly using the right to farm laws from Michigan and Arkansas But those laws are also Duplicated or provisions of those laws are duplicated throughout many other states right to farm laws. So What this bill is intended to do is to strengthen the Vermont right to farm law Based on existing right to farm statutes in other states, but doesn't go as far as Right to farm protection could go as evidenced by Oregon and some other states So with that as background I'll just start walking through the bill if If you would like me to and I will share my screen if you would like me to yep Before you add I just want to Suggest the witnesses they keep their remarks to five to ten minutes Because we are jam-packed I'd like to hear from everybody if possible It's important to hear from you But if we can be brief we'll get through this day without Problems Thank you, Mike. If you want to briefly walk us through the bill Okay, I'm going to share my screen if that's okay Yep So can everyone see my screen Yes Okay, yeah So the first section Is amending the chapter and title 12 Which is the chapter regarding court procedure Or the title regarding court procedure and the chapter related to nuisance suits Against the existing laws agricultural activities, but the term will be changed to farm operations So in the legislative findings agricultural activities has changed to farm operations I think the the key Finding which would remain the same or relatively the same Begins at the bottom of page one The general assembly finds that farm operations are potentially subject to lawsuits based on the theory of nuisance And these suits encouraging could force premature removal of farmland from agricultural use There's a purpose of this chapter to protect farm operations from nuisance lawsuits Then there's the definition section The term agricultural activity remains, but it is expanded to include farming As farming is defined under act 250 the act 250 definition of farming is also the definition of farming under the required agricultural practices So it is effectively the default definition of farming in state statute There's also a definition of farm Which is fairly intuitive the land plants animals buildings or structures on a parcel of land used for farming And then farm operations. So the protections for nuisance suits under s 268 Will move from agricultural activities to farm operations Agricultural activities are now going to be incorporated under what a farm operation does But the actual protection is being extended to the farm operation The farm operation means the operation and management of a farm or a conditioner activity that occurs at any time Is necessary on a farm Including all those activities defined as agricultural activities and all of the following Marketing produce at roadside stands generation of noise odors dust fumes and other associated conditions composting Ditching and subsurface drainage of farm fields and the construction of farm farms handling of livestock waste and byproducts Operation of machinery and equipment necessary for a farm including irrigation and drainage systems The movement of vehicles the field preparation and ground and aerial seeding and spraying The onsite storage and application of agricultural inputs the use of alternative pest management management storage transportation utilization An application of farm byproducts including manure and the conversion from one farm operation to another farm operation And the employment and use of labor. So that Is what is going to be protected those activities Um Then we can skip over farm product and livestock and go right to 57 53, which is where the protection from nuisance lawsuits Is provided You'll see that the title is changed to reflect the change from agricultural activities to farm operations Then you'll see the existing law. Why don't we walk through this because you'll probably hear testimony about this Agricultural activities under existing law shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption That the activity does not constitute a nuisance the agricultural activity meets all of the following conditions It is conducted in conformity with federal state and local laws including the required agricultural practices It is consistent with good agricultural practices It is established prior to surrounding non agricultural activities And it has not significantly changed since the commencement prior surrounding not agricultural activity So that is how you qualify for the rebuttable presumption That a farm activity here an agricultural activity is not a nuisance But that presumption can be rebutted and it's rebutted on on Page six line eight It does not constitute a Of a nuisance by a showing that the activity has a substantial adverse effect on health safety or welfare Or has a noxious and significant and interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property So around the country in the 28 states that that we looked at In researching the draft of the bill there are a couple of states that have this the standard this ability to Rebut the presumption or a presumption basically But vermont is probably the the most lenient In an application of the presumption Then you go on to what the new language would be a farm or farm operation Shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance under one or more of the following the farm Or farm operation existed before a change in land user occupancy of land and proximity to the farm And it before that change in land user occupancy of the farm the farm or farm operation would not have been a nuisance Then you get to the farm operation or farm Alleged to be a nuisance is in good standing with the secretary of agriculture under six vsa chapter 215 60 vsa chapter 215 is the agricultural water quality standards That the agency issues it's it's where the required agricultural practices originate from it's where the medium farm Operation permit is it's where the large farm operation permit. It's where the small farm certification is Some people might say that this is this is too lenient, but this is actually based on an iowa standard Which says that a farm is um Has an absolute defense to a nuisance or trespass claim If they comply with the required agriculture or the the agricultural practices set by the agency in iowa, so this is this is This is not exactly the same as iowa, but it's based on iowa and it's a standard used in other states And then third the farm or farm operation has been conducting the agricultural activity at issue For two or more years prior to the date a nuisance action is commenced Determining the duration of an agricultural activity on a farm or farm operation Initial date of operation shall be when the agricultural activity commenced on the farm or farm operation And then you'll get to a separate subsection where nuisance protection is extended And it's when a farm or farm operation that is conforming with state and federal law They shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance as a result of any of the following the change in ownership of or size temporary cessation or interruption of farming Enrollment and governmental programs adoption of new technology or a change in the type of farm product being produced now this is a provision that is included in many Right to farm laws across the country michigan arkansas colorado That could go on so this is this is a fairly standard provision and right to farm laws across the country And moving out of the section regarding protection of of farm operation From nuisance suits there is 57 54a And any nuisance suit brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance If the defendant farm or farm operation prevails The court shall require the plaintiff to pay the actual amount of cost and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably Encured by the farm or farm operation and connection with the defense of the action including attorney's fees Um, you know attorney's fees are are not Popular attorney's fees provisions are not popular among your committees But you have provided for these in the past And this is fairly common. It's not it's not in every state right to farm law, but it is fairly common in state right to farm laws and then last Pardon me I guess that My biggest question is i'm trying to find the definition of nuisance That's that's a great great point senator sears. Um It's it's there isn't a definition of nuisance in this chapter Um And I don't think there's a great definition of nuisance in the statutes in general Um But that it's a common law cause of action When the use and enjoyment of a person's property is being affected or impaired by an activity on a neighboring property or not necessarily neighboring but but A property in close locations I mean describing something as a nuisance Suit to me is and then me having all this language about nuisance suits without a definition is troubling to me Because I don't know what what's the difference what's a nuisance to me may be a A complete catastrophe to somebody else Well, that that's that's that's a great point There's what's called private nuisance versus public nuisance of private nuisance It's it's going to impair the private individuals Use and enjoyment of their property and there's a standard for that in the common law And the public nuisance is when it's going to affect the use and enjoyment or the public health In general, but I can I can I think that's a fair question Senator Sears and I can I can look into that to provide you a standard again. I don't think there's a great definition and statute but I can go To to do some research from promont supreme court to get some precedent for you several years ago as a result of an Addison county Situation with an apple or should I believe? We did the coming to the nuisance standard And so if you were there before the nuisance And I don't know that we ever defined nuisance there, but I I do remember that That legislation there was an important piece of legislation Um to protect the farmer in this case The neighbors were complaining about trucks operating at 4 a.m. With refrigerated trucks making quite a bit of noise and um Then we had the ridiculous situation on the shooting range in ritzman Where the people had bought the property from the shooting range and then complained about the noise from the shooting range, right So various types of I understand those types of suits, but this is I just uh, I think I need more information So I'm glad that we've got such a Line-up of witnesses my problem is I can't print out the What the change witness list that Peggy sat me because it's in word and I can't get my iPad to do it So I'm going to keep going to the iPad To see but are there any other questions of michael o'grady Could I just make some two follow-up points based on what you said about about the apple The an apple orchard was trickets versus versus ox and the the court at that point said the right to farm law did not apply And that's when the general assembly amended the right to farm law to To basically its current form, but while you were doing that the the Iowa supreme court said iowa's um, right to farm law constituted a taking of I know somebody's talking They're going over the bill James isn't there yet Um, yeah, whoever it is. I've had tea's phone You're on the phone tea's iphone you can press star six to meet yourself, please And if you could identify yourself because we don't know your name so and In any event the when iowa's supreme court said that that their right to farm law could affect taking It's samber was the drafter at the time and he worked with your committees to to come up with the the existing Vermont right to farm law and it was it was drafted in a way to avoid um, those claims of takings if they would occur But as right to farm laws have evolved around the country including in iowa They have become much stronger and much more protective of the farm operation Than than existing Vermont right to farm law is and i also want to note that the right to farm law is not a shield to litigation So, you know farmers that i've talked to this this season Are are surprised that anyone can even bring Litigation against a farm because the right to farm law exists that and that just Is a misunderstanding of how this law works right to farm laws are all fact dependent They're all about the activity that is ongoing. It's all about the activity that's alleged to be a nuisance It's all about the interference with the neighboring properties use So it this does not prevent someone from bringing litigation Against a farm it it directs how a court will review That litigation and how it is directed to find if the facts play out As they are set forth under this law Any other questions from mike Thunder star and here committee members Thank you, michael. I'm very helpful Our first witness is gary tarrant chair of environmental law section of romont bar association And again, i'm gonna ask that people keep their remarks as brief as possible to 10 minutes no more than 10 minutes So that we can hear from everyone Thank you gary Can you hear me? Yes Okay, thank you very much I received a message from terry corson's yesterday afternoon and asked if I had heard From anyone within the environmental section on this bill And I noted to her that it was only in the last few days that I had And several lawyers had commented to me Concerns about the bill Um the added nuisance protections Uh are believed to possibly have the unintended impact of increasing legal liability um I understand protecting ditching and subsurface drainage tile from nuisance suits Could encourage their use However, it's also believed by these lawyers and others The ditches and drainage tile are point Sources under the federal clean water act An unpermitted discharge of pollutants from a point source For example silt and manure discharged from a ditch into lake shamp plain Gives rise to a clean water act citizen suit in federal court 33 usc section 1365 A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys fees and expert costs in federal court A prevailing defendant is allowed to recover fees only if the citizen suit was unfounded The point, um these lawyers were trying to make to me and I'm trying to convey to you is that Um this language Um does not prevent federal action And indeed I sent um a case um From federal court to peggy before this hearing started There was written by judge oaks back in the 1990s Uh, which found a number of different types of activities to be Uh under the clean water act uh in vermont um It's still good law um The final point I'd make is I I think This kind of law requires further research With respect to how the the dc the vermont department of environmental conservation would permit discharges um Because if they're unpermitted discharges from a point source then it goes under the clean water act And that's basically what I wanted to convey to you that I think that this is a law that Needs to be refined a little bit more to be understood better um because otherwise You're going to be forcing more litigants into federal court and the um Consequences may be more severe to the farm By going to federal court. So in other words it would have the The Opposite effect from the could have the opposite effect from what the sponsor has desired Yes, sir Any other questions from mr. Tarrant Something is going on here that i'm hearing Thank you. Could you hear me? I think senator Sears that you know we could check that out with the feds and uh at least uh plaintiff would Have a an avenue of Litigation if if that is accurate if they go to take the farm or the federal court um And I don't think we're in a position to regulate federal law But we can can and should regulate our state laws But we should move on and hear the testimony of all But I Okay, thank you. Any other questions mr. Tarrant any other comments mr. Tarrant No, um, the only follow-up. I would say is that This could give Farmers and Local lawyers some local lawyers that have not been to federal court and are not familiar with the clean water act more confidence to bring these kinds of lawsuits That would be probably That are probably Suits that should be brought in federal court The the suit that I sent to peggy this morning identifies the kinds of activities that would be considered to be Point sources and therefore under the clean water act and and they clearly talk about the drainage and ditching and tiles and things like that um And that's that's all I like to mention. Thank you Peggy do you is that posted I don't see that language Oh that that yes, it's posted. I posted as the meeting started Oh, okay. Well All right you I've got to start over then I looked at what was on our webpage Before All right. Thank you mr. Tarrant. You're welcome next What witnesses a j la rosa attorney with msk attorneys Hi, thank you. Um, morning. Good morning. Thank you all members For hearing me today I was uh Alerted of this bill and asked to share some comments as somebody who has litigated cases Just like this in my career um and share some of the concerns or thoughts I had as A party to the united party but as a representative of parties to these lawsuits First I do want to express how exceedingly rare and I do mean exceedingly rare New since lawsuits are against farmers in the state of vermont The current right to farm bill was passed in 2003 There are two Decisions involving the right to farm bill. It has come up twice in 20 years And in 45 in there are 45 citations in westlaw going back at least 70 years of now Admittedly the westlaw records aren't perfect back in 1950 But the term nuisance and farming together in a case appears 45 times in 70 years going back to pretty good 1950. So these are exceedingly rare cases. Some are Public and some are not but they're very very rare and One of the members of the committee my video wasn't quite working right asked what a nuisance was nuisance as a common law right As defined by the vermont supreme court and as defined by the restatement of second of torts is generally The principle that every person has a duty to make reasonable use of their property So as to not cause Unnecessary damage or annoyance to a neighbor nuisance protects an individual's Right to quiet enjoyment of their property and balances on a common law equitable principle My rights to enjoy my land and your rights to enjoy your land and what makes you sense unique it is a very complex in terms of fact question of law That with trespass which is Often referred to as the other side of the coin depending on what the invasion is into the use and enjoyment uh, they are very fact sensitive inquiries and The point of a nuisance case is to balance the very Specific facts of each individual Complainant and each individual actor In all the nuisance case I've been involved in there is extensive fact analysis and what makes This bill a bit concerning from a practitioner's perspective Is that it takes away the judicial authority To do the equitable balancing that for over 150 years of jurisprudence nuisance law has been designed to address The judicial Branch is very well suited to hear and adjudicate these fact sensitive questions And removing its ability to do so erodes its authority In particular, you must view this in light of trespass actions Which are the actual physical invasion Of too much of my property without permission Nuisance nuisance and trespass can occur at the same time From the same thing, but don't have to Water let's say for example um A farm pond spills Pig waste and fouls my well There are three causes of action nuisance trespass And negligence This bill would only address one of those three and it should not address trespass. There has been a physical invasion without permission Now one might say well They're not in compliance with the required agricultural practices. So this provision wouldn't apply Maybe they are in good standing. Maybe they aren't maybe for some reason this wasn't addressed in the permitting process Regardless, you have two other causes of action that exist and you have now Litigation over whether or not they're in good standing Under this new provision without actually even being able to talk about whether there's an unreasonable invasion or not So when when a practitioner looks at this they just see different litigation Without the court having the ability or the authority To do the fact balancing that it's been doing for over 150 years And as an extremely rare subset of land use litigation nuisance suits against farmers A practice at least from my perspective this is um This I this doesn't address the core concern and appears Unnecessary a rebuttable presumption is an extraordinarily high standard to bust And serves very well in the context of other permits For example, if there's a stormwater problem The existence of a stormwater permit creates a re rebuttable presumption And we know how to deal with those and we know what the standards and burdens are under that And so, you know practitioners rarely cite this and when they do it seems like it's in accordance with 100 years of nuisance jurisprudence and just Practitioner wise. I'm not sure this changes very much Or serves a very efficient perspective given the court's Well-reasoned practice in nuisance law. That's my thoughts Thank you Are there questions for mr. LaRosa? Thank you so much. We really appreciate your testimony Next is scott sanderson farm and food fellow conservation law foundation Good morning. I'm coming. All right. Yes, you are. Okay. Good morning chair sears chair star members of the committees For the record, my name is scott sanderson and i'm a legal fellow with conservation law foundations vermont office Thank you for offering me this opportunity to testify on s268 legislation that clf believes would upset the careful balance that vermont's existing right to farm law already strikes So there's a little bit of background clf is a non-profit member supported advocacy organization that protects new england's environment for the benefit of everyone We use the law science and the market to create solutions that preserve our natural resources build healthy communities and sustain a vibrant economy clf works to support resilient sustainable agriculture in vermont for the many health environmental and economic benefits that farms provide to our communities In addition clf's legal food hub provides free legal assistance to income eligible small farmers in vermont and across new england In vermont, we operate the program in partnership with vermont law school center for agriculture and food systems And we've served about 44 farmers and food organizations in the state since our launch here in 2018 So turning to the bill clf opposes s268 because vermont already has a carefully balanced and successful right to farm law So the best right to farm laws recognize that conflicts sometimes do develop when non agricultural land uses encroach upon traditionally agricultural areas Farmers may face unwarranted nuisance lawsuits brought by new neighbors who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with what farming entails Good right to farm laws also recognize power imbalances in vermont. It's sometimes the case that a farms new neighbors are uncomfortable or unfamiliar with farming And because of that They they may bring a lawsuit and they may have more resources than a farmer To pursue that lawsuit than the farmer has to defend it In those circumstances lawsuits that unfairly waste of farmers limited time and resources May force a farmer who did nothing wrong to back down And this is especially true when farmers face difficult economic times just like vermont's dairy farmers do today Now the best right to farm laws respond to this by protecting farms from unfair nuisance lawsuits while simultaneously Preserving their neighbors access to the courts when that access is justified such as when health safety or welfare are in jeopardy Good right to farm laws are a balancing act They prevent they protect a farmer's right to farm free from harassment with a neighbor's right to use and enjoy their property in good health and safety Good right to farm laws don't pick a side Instead they create conditions that allow farm communities to thrive even as they welcome new neighbors who may or may not be farmers Now I think vermont's current right to farm law is among the best in the country As a result vermont's farmers are really not threatened by unwarranted nuisance lawsuits So as we heard from earlier witnesses, vermont's existing right to farm law entitles farms to a rebuttable presumption That their agricultural activities do not constitute a nuisance If those activities are consistent with the law are consistent with good agricultural practices Existed before surrounding non agricultural activities and have not changed significantly since the surrounding non agricultural activities began A farm's neighbor can only overcome that presumption if they can show that the agricultural activity in question Has a substantial adverse effect on health safety or welfare Or has a noxious and significant interference on the use and enjoyment of the neighbor's property Here we see the balancing that is characteristic of good right to farm laws a farm that follows good Agricultural practices and the relevant regulations can't be a nuisance just because a new neighbor doesn't understand farming But that neighbor's access to the courts is protected if the farm goes beyond what is reasonable and begins to threaten health safety or welfare Moreover vermont's current right to farm law carefully combines legislative and agency expertise with the judicial systems core competences Right now lawmakers and expert agencies like AAFM make the first decision with respect to what can be considered a nuisance in vermont If lawmakers and agencies don't think that a farming practice is normal or that it threatens public health They can prohibit that practice and deny farmers right to farm's rebuttable presumption Otherwise farmers benefit from presumption and the scales tip in their favor The current law then goes on to recognize that lawmakers and regulators can't think of everything Activities that are entitled to right to farm's rebuttable presumption may nonetheless threaten health or safety Consequently the law gives courts their traditional role to apply the law to fill the gaps And do so in a way that is consistent with law policy regulation and precedent This leaves the courts a limited but important role in dealing with unforeseen or extreme situations that threaten health or safety Now vermont's careful balancing has succeeded and nuisance lawsuits against vermont's farms are very rare Now even if vermont lacked a right to farm law It would still be relatively difficult to show that a vermont farm is a nuisance under most circumstances As the vermont supreme court has explained to be considered a nuisance an individual's Interference with the use and enjoyment of another's property must be both unreasonable and substantial To be substantial the harm must be more than the customary interference a land user suffers in organized society And it must be offensive to the normal person in the community A normal person in vermont realizes that their neighbors may be farmers And they know that living in a farm community means that they need to accommodate farms It follows that the vermont supreme court has also explained that in general the unsightliness of the thing Without more does not render it a nuisance under the law in other words nuisance isn't about taste It's not enough for a neighbor to dislike farming The neighbor must suffer an actual real harm So when vermont's existing right to farm law appears with the state's nuisance law farmers are very well protected In fact based on my research the vermont supreme court has only mentioned vermont's current right to farm law in a couple of cases And right to farm didn't play a role in those decisions The takeaway I think is that vermont already has a balanced right to farm law that protects farmers from unfair lawsuits And preserves their neighbors access to the courts when health safety or welfare are truly on the line With this law in place nuisance lawsuits are rare against farms and there simply isn't a problem here for new legislation to solve Now s268 would substantially change vermont's policy and upset the careful balance that vermont has already struck I'd like to emphasize that s268 is not an update. It's a wholesale policy change Instead of carefully balancing a farmer's and a neighbor's interests by creating a rebuttable presumption s268 dismisses the neighbor's concerns altogether It would prohibit the courts from finding that an agricultural activity is a nuisance in a variety of circumstances Including if the farm is in good standing with aafm s268 provides no exceptions even where a neighbor's health safety or welfare is threatened While vermont's current right to farm law protects the right to farm free from harassment s268 attempts to go much further than that s268 also upsets the careful combination of legislative agency and judicial expertise that vermont's current right to farm law embodies Does this by cutting out the judiciary effectively denying their courts? They're limited but important role in dealing with unforeseen or extreme situations that threaten health or safety Of course, it's true that right to farm law similar to vermont's has become very rare in the united states While vermont supreme court commented in 2003 that other states have right have retained a rebuttable presumption component in their right to farm laws The fact that vermont's right to farm law is unique however, doesn't mean that it's outdated or deficient vermont often finds itself in a national minority when it passes and retains well considered effective legislation That's right for vermont. Here vermont should stand unique and leave its existing right to farm law in effect vermont has managed to protect its farmers from unwarranted lawsuits while also protecting neighbors That balance is a very rare achievement So for these reasons clf urges these committees to leave vermont's right to farm law in place and not to support s268 Thank you for your time Well Senator star or anyone questions does anybody have any questions? Thank you very much scott. Appreciate your testimony Next we have john groveman from the vermont natural resources Good morning, and can you hear me? Okay. Yes, great. So good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify Um for the record, uh, i'm john groveman policy and water program director for the vermont natural resources council or vnrc um My testimony today, uh is informed by my work as an environmental lawyer for over 30 years It's part of my work as an environmental lawyer. I've served as general counsel for the agency of natural resources and vnrc I also teach an environmental law Of course at norwich university that includes a unit on environmental liability As you will go through my testimony, which is pretty brief you explain the reasons why vnrc opposes s268 which We view as a significant expansion Of the right to farm law in vermont So vnrc agrees with clf that vermont's right to farm bill is working And then s268 represents a significant policy shift that would disturb the careful balance that scott articulated between shielding farms from liability When people move Near existing farms that are operating compliance with the law While also under the current law, vermonters are able to seek relief to address legitimate threats to the use and enjoyment of their property Which have you heard from clf and uh, attorney larosa is Shorthand for the legal standard for uh for for nuisance um In addition given the fact that you've heard Facts that you've already heard from the previous witnesses that vermont has seen so few nuisance lawsuits Against farms it appears to vnrc that the right to farm law is working as is And s268 appears to be a solution in the search of a problem I like to focus on A major way that s268 removes the balanced approach from vermont's right to farm law Kind of just paint a picture. So under the existing law The existing right to farm law all elements of the right to farm statute must be met to shield a farm from nuisance liability For example under the current law to be shielded from liability A person must move to the nuisance so the farm existed before the person moved near the farm and um And raised concerns about the farm And and the farm must be operating system with good practices and compliance with the law So both elements would be needed in contrast under s268 Simply demonstrating compliance with agricultural practices would be enough to shield a farm from liability Whether the person moved to the nuisance or not Accordingly a farm could start up in an area that may be near residential commercial uses And the neighboring property owners would be precluded from addressing Any activities on the farm that basically came to them as if the farm could show that they were complying with state agricultural water quality laws In vnrc's view there are several problems with this approach One is that a nuisance may have nothing to do with agricultural water quality For example a common nuisance example involves air quality Secondly vnrc has for years been tracking instances where There are significant disputes regarding whether compliance with agricultural water quality laws actually protect public health and the environment Our analysis has been that compliance with state law does not always ensure That will be there will not be impacts on public health in the environment If you're in good standing with these laws But this would preclude a nuisance lawsuit Under under s268 is drafted It's important to note that farms will already exempt from virtually all environmental laws in vermont And there are other provisions that shield farms from liability under vermont law or shift liability One example is 10 vsa section 1676 a if a farm contaminates a public water supply The public water supply is required to abandon its water source at its own expense vnrc believes these kind of limits and shifts in liability When anyone is responsible for causing harm including a farm should be curtailed rather than expanded And to that end we see s268 as a move in the wrong direction It is vnrc's understanding that an argument in favor of the bill Is that most states take a right to farm approach that is consistent with s268 vnrc does not believe this is a good rationale for abandoning a right to farm approach that has worked in vermont There are a number of examples when vermont takes an approach that differs from a majority of states because it is a policy That works for and fits vermont for example As the committee is well aware the senate has now three times passed a law That would allow for a cause of action for medical monitoring if a person has been harmed by the release of toxic pollution Only 16 other states allow for this cause of action However, this committee and the vermont legislature has decided that the minority approach to this liability issue Will better serve vermonters vermont has a history of tailoring legal policies that are right for us The right to farm law is such a vermont policy that works for vermont and it shouldn't be changed Finally vnrc understands That one of the things driving this bill is the legal action taken against um A farm in addison county that paternity or grady referenced at the beginning of the hearing vnrc is aware of this case and believes is an example of the significant impacts farming can have on water quality Even if state water quality laws are being followed However, we don't know as we sit here today what the court will find with regard to the nuisance claim made in that case And we don't know whether the right to farm law will shield the farmer from a nuisance claim Or if the court decides that it doesn't what the analysis was Accordingly We just it doesn't seem right to to make this whole salad shift in vermont policy that has Significant raises significant issues as you've already heard Based on a lawsuit that we don't even know the outcome of Those are that is the remarks I wanted to make today again. Thank you For the opportunity to testify on the bill and happy to answer any questions john in in light of the The one lawsuit that brings this bill um And in light of mr. Terrence comments about unintended consequences Do you agree with that? There may be unintended consequence where the farm would actually be more liable under this under federal law I I see mr. Terrence point and I was contacted by a couple of uh, the same lawyers have probably contacted Mr. Terrent and I hadn't thought of it, but I I do see The arguments that I think what mr. Terrent and the attorneys raising this issue were saying um, if you cut off state courts as a avenue it it'll force people to look at federal courts and Exercise that right in federal law. So I like to think about it more because I I haven't researched it myself, but I I certainly understand The arguments they're making and it seems to have merit Okay, thank you Next witness is uh, james moroney from Addison county oliver hill farm Jay welcome Jay and I go back Over 60 years now That ages us both doesn't Yeah Welcome Jay Thank you, uh, senator sears, uh for this opportunity. Um, I uh, I had prepared remarks I've had to delete most of it because you've asked us to keep this short. So My full remarks are posted. I think peggy delaney has posted my My remarks for today. I'm going to read the what I consider Uh, the most important, uh parts of it. I'd like to begin by by saying how important it is that uh, senator sears asked Uh, why the bill doesn't define nuisance? Uh, and uh, that's an excellent point. Uh, and I'd like but I'd like to I'd like to assert um that um That the state of vermont Has always regarded uh farm, uh pollution incidents such as the one, uh in the vorstavell hopper Case as incidental that is to say, um, there's a little this farm is, uh, uh Not following the rules here and we have to deal with that but in in my view, um What the hoppers should have been asserting in their lawsuit was not an incident Uh from the that is emanating from the Uh, from the vorstavell farm and transiting their land on its way to the lake The the real cause of the problem here is uh systemic not incidental Um, I'm going to assert in my remarks that the problem with vermont Farming, uh, is related to its adoption in the 1950s or early 60s of what we now refer to as conventional farming I also think it's pretty interesting that in the in the, um Hour or so that we've been discussing this issue. I've not heard one mention of the state's new global warming solutions act not one mention Uh, and uh, uh, I would also assert that if the that that perhaps the instigation or the motivation for act 268 Uh, or uh, he or s 268. I mean to say It is an awareness on the part of vermont conventional dairy that it is a nuisance Uh, and therefore, uh, oh my god, we better, uh, we better do we're nervous about this I mean, why does the why does the state of vermont or why do the farmers for that matter if they're ready to concede that that That they need a bill. Are they not conceding at the same time that that? That farming is a nuisance and I don't mean an incidental nuisance. I mean a systemic ones So here are some uh, I'm going to read a little bit from my prepared remarks Conventional farming was predicated on the notion that farmers did not need to rely on the slow Natural methods they had relied on for millennia. They could buy artificial nutrients derived from cheap plentiful petroleum The new paradigm offered farmers the welcome opportunity to exchange costly Time-consuming crop rotation and mechanical weed control with chemicals The paradigm worked wonders for early adopters yields rose and costs fell But the chemicals did not dissipate harmlessly They were toxic and they were accumulating in the atmosphere in the water more troublesome for farmers Higher yields for early adopters Quickly translated into surpluses that drove down farm prices for them all Farmers were famously advised to get big or get out Most of them got out But allocating taxpayer dollars to dozens of programs designed only on their faces to save farming and protect the lake Fail to do either in the mistaken belief that farming was conservation The legislature enacted laws designed to keep them on the land by exempting them from sales and property taxes labor laws and liability from nuisance But farmers applied the savings to pay for new capacity Sending more milk to markets already saturated and more poison into the already polluted lake and atmosphere These laws have never been scrutinized So they're all still in effect. The undeniable result of them is a severely polluted lake An existentially polluted atmosphere and a dairy industry reduced from 11 000 farms in 1945 To only 650 today an attrition of 94 percent Getting over a lot of what I wrote There is a bill before the legislature to strengthen the right to farm law the state legislative The stated legislative intent of which was to protect farmers from nuisance soup brought by neighbors Who object to noise and or pollution generated in the course of doing the farm's vital work i.e producing our food quote unquote But vermont agriculture does not produce our food It produces barely one percent of the nation's milk supply and a vanishingly small part of the nation's supply of meat vegetables fruit and fiber The right to farm laws first intent was to suppress development Its second was to protect the stream of taxpayer support to an industry losing money and polluting the lake Its third was to assure farmers that they were free to apply chemicals and toxins to our soil water and air And its fourth was to shore up the state's flimsy contention That the required agricultural practices rules were saving agriculture and protecting the lake A live example of this point of view is the state's implicit support of the vorcevelds The target of a suit brought by a neighbor alleging that descendants are allowing runoff from their farm to transit plantation and flow into lake champlain Both sides have stipulated there is pollution coming off the farm I have no doubt the court will find the vorcevelds have inadvertently broken some minor rule But are otherwise in compliance with the rapes The court will require them to adjust their practices and then allow them to go on about their business as usual A conventional farming supporters want to strengthen the right to farm law to avoid suits like this But chiefly they want to avoid opening up the rapes or any kind of examination of vermont's agricultural policies These same people are urgently petitioning the legislator to allocate even more tax dollars to support not vermont dairy But the illusion that the industry is robust vibrant strong vital and resilient These same people if they have thought about it at all are unconcerned that the purpose of the right to farm law and the global Warming Solutions Act are contraindicated. They urge us to pay conventional dairy farmers for so-called echo services I pay them extra to continue farming conventionally These same people want the vermont agency of agriculture to double down on its disinformation Campaign to keep the public from knowing how the state has shielded conventional vermont dairy farmers from the inescapable laws of economics Distinguished members of the senate judiciary I implore you to stop and consider what 60 years of vermont Of vermont's agricultural policies hath wrought In your own lifetimes 94 percent of vermont dairy farmers have watched as a flood of cheap Toxic chemicals all permitted under the rapes have reduced years of hard labor and billions of dollars worth of farm capital to ashes Three billion taxpayer dollars up the flu and the still and the state still permits this industry To send its wastes into the lake in the atmosphere Who wanted this result? I'll be happy to answer your questions If you have thank you jay. Are there questions for uh, mr. Moroni Okay, thank you very much. Um, appreciate your testimony and and thank you for keeping it brief uh, I did read your testimony on That you've written and it's on our web page Thank you. So thank you for that And uh, perhaps we'll get together in the near future The reminisce about old times All right, uh, diane, um I'm sorry diane buddhaf boss field administrative services director agency of agriculture is our next witness Uh, thank you senator sears and and other assembled legislators. Thank you for inviting us to speak today Our general counsel steve collier is also listed. So I'll let him talk to the legal aspects I will let you know that the agency, uh, received several calls Each year asking what's going on with this farm. They're bothering me. They're causing causing issues This is all types of farms. This is from somebody who has 10 chickens in the backyard a few beef cattle All the way up to the largest farms in vermont. Uh, it's a level of education That uh, these practices that yes, the cows move in the morning when they're hungry It may be 5 a.m. But they do move or the chickens clock or the brooster Crows so this is all types of farms conventional organic as well as you know Our small backyard folks who are just trying to feed their families all the way up to our largest farms in vermont so it is a variety of Questions that the agency receives and we try to provide education That may be why there are few suits. I'm not sure But certainly an area of concern There was also a report earlier this year called vermont voices that I think I will provide to your legislative assistant so you can look at that it talks about the imbalance between the agricultural community and those that are In the NGO community at the agency of agriculture, etc So several folks that spoke today Are paid and paid well to be here Just like me and I would see the rest of my time so that you can hear from the farmers That have not had a chance to speak yet Who are independent business people and every moment they wait on this call is a moment that they're not being paid For their labor, so I would seed my my time at this point, but thank you very much And I will I will answer questions if needed Does the agriculture support the bill? The bill was not introduced by the agency of agriculture, but the agency of agriculture could support the changes Thank you. Yeah, thank you Mr. Collier general council agency of agriculture food and markets Thank you so much senator sears and thanks to all of you for inviting us to talk about this very important topic and To be clear on senator sears last point the agency absolutely supports this bill And thinks it's very important for farmers I'd like to start if I may by just quickly addressing a couple of the points that came up in earlier In earlier conversations. The first is the issue about subsurface drainage and tile That is in the current statute So I'm not sure how that would how the the new version and the new bill would change that in any way It's already protected under the current right to farm bill The second is a comment made about 150 years of nuisance litigation and how nothing has changed I would suggest that it's changed dramatically because 150 years ago Almost everyone in vermont was a farmer today almost no one is That's a very Important difference when considering farming. I mean, please keep in mind that what this bill addresses is Farmers performing their jobs legally There are not many professions where somebody can be sued for a nuisance when they're performing their job legally at their home Farmers can be and it is not at all surprising to me that all of the lawyers Who have spoken to date are very pleased with the current law Because it is in fact riddled with holes And and what I what I would urge all of you to look at very carefully Is the intent section of the current right to farm law? If you read that intense section You would come away believing that farmers are very well protected That vermont has taken the policy position that farming is important That farming is critical in fact to to our state our economy to our local food development You would believe that the state of vermont has protected farming. That's what the purpose says It also talks the intense section also talks about Preserving changing farming and innovation and farming and that's a critical point when you when you evaluate whether this change is warranted When you read the statute itself, however All it does is create a series of factual questions. It creates first the farmer First in order to be complying with the right to farm law. There are four different factual questions that are at stake Even if the farmer can show that they've met all of those standards including including complying with all federal state local laws And the required agricultural practices That's one thing they have to they have to be able to prove at the outset to be able to Have this defense apply to them Then there are a series of other factual questions that they have to look to have to be able to prove That for the defense to apply and even if they meet those four first factual standards They then are subject to a rebuttable presumption where the plaintiff can still overcome that defense If they can if the plaintiff can show an adverse impact on their safety health or welfare Or a noxious interference with their use of property So the reason I bring up these things at all is that factual questions Are not a good way to create a meaningful defense if you actually want to help farmers from dispensing with litigation quickly Factual questions mean extensive litigation. They mean arguments on all sides They mean a trial rather than disposition on a motion for summary judgment Each one of these different criteria is something that that by definition Has to be developed in a factual way Now the reason that's important is that farmers As we all know have limited resources And if you are defending a suit against your neighbor in court It's probably going to cost you about two to three hundred dollars an hour to hire an attorney So that means for one week of an attorney's time That's about eight to twelve thousand dollars for one week of an attorney's time If an attorney has to develop factual questions like Is the smell when a farmer agitates their manure pit a noxious interference with their neighbor's property? If you have to get experts to talk about that if you have to interview people or depose people If you have to marshal the evidence to determine Whether the smell from agitating your manure pit so that you can spread it which is required by the way Or it can be a required practice depending on what the manure pit is on the farm But we do require farmers to have manure pits so that their manure is contained and can be spread appropriately And not be deposited into our rivers and streams That that issue can take months and months of an attorney's time to To litigate that even if the farmer wins So what I would suggest is that the nuisance action by itself is A plaintiff can win simply by having their day in court Irrespective of whether they win in the end it can create tremendous pressure on farmers It can create tremendous pressure Irrespective of whether a plaintiff neighbor files a suit Because the leverage that currently exists in the law allows neighbors to apply pressure to farmers if they want to So I think the question from from the agency's perspective is if the state Protect farming if you want to meet that intent that's in the intent section I think mr. O'grady's version of the bill actually is designed to effectuate the very intent That was adopted long ago and it's not in any way an absolute bar from nuisance suits There are still a number of criteria that have to be met for farmers to comply They can't just be you know doing whatever they want But the question I think is who should be setting the farming standards if we value farming in vermont If we believe it's important to have local food production and to actually be able to consume our local food And not to rely on food that's trucked in From somewhere else and and we'll never meet that standard completely But everyone I think recognizes in this era of the pandemic and in the supply chain issues That not having access to local food is a risk that really none of us should want to take But if we value that having local food if we value our landscape, which is 80 wooded Most of the open land is farmed If we value our farming industry, which is about five percent of our GDP, I think If we value the tourism that our farms bring and that our landscape brings if we value those things I think the question becomes Who do we want making the policies about what is allowed for farming in vermont? Do we want it to be the state and by that I mean by state through regulation because farms are heavily regulated now That's another big difference from 150 years ago Farms have been increasingly regulated every year Including since the right to farm act was first adopted the regulations have gone way up So if we value farming and we are regulating farming in a way that we believe is in the public interest Do we want an extra layer where every neighbor to every farm can also dictate what is permissible farming? Does does every neighbor have a say and whether the smell of a manure pit is too much Whether the noise associated with farming is is too much When you look at the time that the supreme court did interpret the right to farm law They said that an apple orchard which had law As they started waxing their own apples and storing them on their property that was not covered because that was a significant change in use Our current statute still has that that Provision that if there is a significant change in use in farming the right to farm protection does not exist If you look at the intent provision You would you would believe that changes in use were absolutely allowed. We encourage our farmers to diversify We have less than 600 dairy farms left in the state We we encourage them to do everything they can to be able to make enough money If we are going to allow them to do that Then they need to be able to grow change adapt the current version of the statute does not protect anyone Who's involved in a significant use? So I think I would love to say more. I recognize I'm getting a little bit long already already I really appreciate your time But there are very important changes at issue here And I would just encourage everyone to look at the intent of what the law current law says and see if the statute meets it And I and I don't think it does Whereas the bill in s268 actually does meet the intent of the original statute that you already adopted So, thank you so much. Thank you. Are there any questions for mr. Collier Thank you very much. Our next witness is Heather Darby associate professor at uvm extension I don't see Heather. Oh, there she is I don't see her yet Well, I see her she's muted and I don't know if she heard us Why don't we jump to david werner owner of werner tree farm? Oh I'm sorry. Heather go ahead please With mr. Darby on Heather but david werner on deck Go ahead. Heather if you're Second I'm trying to There you're going waiting to see you now Heather And an interesting morning here with the the ice and the snow Yeah Um, all right. Sorry about that trying to get situated in here All right. Well, thank you again for for having me this morning and just a minute To talk about this important important bill And um, it's funny over Over the almost 20 years now that I've been with extension I feel like so much of my work has been as a social worker between farmers and their neighbors and It you know, although I think I heard Diane Boffeld mentioning we don't have a lot of lawsuits that come up a lot of those are commonly diverted by trying to communicate and trying to educate But it's definitely becoming increasingly harder and more difficult to do that in every instance because You know the number of farms we have relative To the number of people that don't farm in vermont You know that disparity is just growing and growing and growing and I think we all know the desire of people To move and into our state is high and getting higher And and certainly the projections with climate change We know that there'll be just even more increasing pressure For people to move here because you know our location Is desirable and sort of out of the main The main impacts around climate change not that we're not feeling it as well So this has put just more increasing pressure and angst between often neighbors and farmers And and even and I think this is a group that people don't think about very often but even individuals that are trying to grow food for their own family And I hear this a lot and I actually hear it from folks that work with me that have homesteads That are constantly feeling that pressure And again conflict between them and their neighbors. They're trying to Raise some beef cattle trying to raise some chickens have some eggs have a bigger garden So it's not just It's not just commercial farms. It's not just commercial dairy We hear this all across the board from homesteaders To small vegetable producers I had a case this summer where I had a neighbor blockading a driveway That was not theirs because the vegetable farm was spreading poultry manure and the neighbors were Locating the driveway for the driver to come in and spread that manure because of the smell and you know, it just It was really harsh and this is on a tiny you know 20 acre organic vegetable farm that sells to the person driveway To have the fertility spread So there's really You know just this growing growing disparity between You know people understanding what It takes to grow food whether it's you know a gallon of milk or a carrot um To put food on a table most people think about how they have to shop every week Go to the grocery store. Hope it has what they want Bring it home. Hopefully they have the money to buy it bring it home And then how are they gonna cook it, you know, but there's very little thought or understanding or education Of how much it took to get that little bean Free store or even to a farm stand, you know, and so It's getting more difficult the situations are also getting more volatile often Like I said, this this was not I just I couldn't believe these people Who had lived they they had lived in this house? um I would say temporarily, I guess, you know over the years for a couple of years but moved in permanently um after like in the middle of coven And just out with their car blocking the driveway screaming at the driver yelling at them um, you know, this is This isn't haunt to be able to be producing food And you know, there's more than laws that really have to go into place But again, you know Some of the decisions made on farms have to happen in real time and Often, you know, weather or you know a storm i'm thinking about this morning getting a call from a farmer whose parlor burnt down Um, and they're looking for a home for you know, their cows to get them melt And the neighbors are all over the place and the smell and the smoke and you know, there's just um the growing angst from community members and also from the farmers and and like I said There's more than laws that we need here. We need some Real education around agriculture and and I'm I hear Mr. Moroney talking. It's not that I don't hear that but but this is across all Types of farms and individual homesteads That are trying to feed their neighbors themselves You know, it's not just large farms. We're talking about here And it's getting more difficult to operate and I'm sure you'll hear that from many other people I I'm seeing the names on here and um You know things are different and and we need to be able to grow the food To feed the people. Um, and that's gonna if you don't think it's important now The climate change Um Is here and is getting worse You know, we have to secure our ability to feed ourselves here in the state Um, it's already evolving People are already doing things really differently to feed their neighbors and put you know food on the shelves We saw that during the pandemic, you know, this desire to buy from your neighbor because you couldn't get it in the store That's going to become more and more and more constant and important And we have to be able to give people the ability to produce food for us to feed us um So thank you. Thank you Um, obviously we're going to try to get to everybody but we're not going to make it We've got about an hour left and I don't know how this got so big but clearly We've got a lot of people know how senator Because it's so important and people Excuse me, um Boy, all right I know how my apology senator. I meant because it's so important Well, I understand that I was commenting on the number of witnesses we tried to schedule in a small time Not on whether it was important or not and I don't appreciate the comment Apology accepted a david werner owner of werner tree farm Is our next witness Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Oh great. Okay Um I live in middlebury with my wife We have a christmas tree farm We sugar we have animals horses and sheep and we hay I have farmed the piece of property that I live on for 52 years now in that 52 years the Area around our farm has gotten built up and particularly in the last two or three years It's gotten built up tremendously And what i'm finding is the practices that we do to maintain our farm Apparently are interfering with people that aren't used to farming the References to the cost of a lawyer. I think are very valid What I see in this bill Which would um, let's say update the current bill a little bit Is it it sets a layer? That anybody that wants to sue a farmer would have to accept or they would have to be aware that It's a bear. It's a bar that you have to get to So maybe it would eliminate some of the lawsuits if this was passed So briefly what I run into is spreading manure I get in trouble Meaning I'm spreading it on my own land on my own driveway And I get yelled at for doing it If we are mowing our christmas trees or hay too early in the morning it bothers people And I try to be considerate When we do this I guess one of the things our christmas tree business, which is primarily chosen cut and we do about 1500 trees a year now Has grown and it's continuing to grow We have two sites that we work out of and we have a parking lot on a remote site That parking lot is near houses that keep getting upscaled And it's creating problems when we have people going in and out of our driveway Because it's a common driveway with another house So I don't want to waste a lot of your time. Um, I just wanted to say that it's There's different types of farming in vermont I don't think farming is a miniscule part Just because dairy farming isn't as prevalent as it used to be Um, if anyone has any questions feel free to ask Thank you Yeah, thank you, david You're welcome. Have a good day Uh, paul marza marza farms And then walter gladstone Yeah, that's good. We should keep on on deck save as much time as we can Yeah We'll try to get to everybody I did The numbers are just astounding and I don't know how that happened This was not designed to be a public hearing Oh I thought Well, yeah, well certainly did Where is uh, mr. Mazza Senator sears while you're waiting, this is jackie fulsome from the farm bureau And I would like to yield my time to the farmers I think their voices are more important to be heard And I will gladly submit the farm bureau testimony and uh in writing to both the the committee so that you can have some more Time to listen to the farmers if that thank you Well, that will help them. I see paul marza on thank you jackie paul go ahead Over the since coveted hit We've had a lot of people call on us Whether we're spraying or spreading manure in titanin county more than ever The state has been behind me matt Um wood has come down check my logs Everything checks out It's so far all gone away, but there's going to be a time when it isn't going to go away It seems out in colchester a lot of people are moving in Spreading manure. I'm trying to do it more organically And we get complaints But I'm getting more complaints now than I ever have And we had two last year We seem like to get more every year, but the state has been behind me so So far I don't know what to say after that, but uh, I've listened to everything you guys said and So far it's worked out. There'll be someday it may not work out It depends who has more money, I guess Next is walter gladstone board member vermont dairy producers Thank you paul You're welcome Am I on You're on Thank you, uh statement Exactly what you want to say. Thank you chairman lord money paul. You're paul. You're still you're not you okay now you're muted. Thanks Thank you for this opportunity chairman sears and Chairman star and and members of the committee. Um, I'm wall cladstone. Uh I'm representing on behalf be this testimony on behalf of the connecticut river watershed farmers alliance the vermont dairy producers alliance and beyond On behalf of new mop farm My wife and I started new mop farm 33 years ago We have three sons two of our sons are in business with us today Will's 33 and my son matt's 29 and they're both an intricate part of helping us manage Our dairy operation and and produce business All sons are married with children and we look forward to the potential of the next generation farmers behind us We have 30 employees That help us put out a quality product Uh, sometimes making cabbage cheese quality beef And quality pumpkins that are sold throughout new england. We farm in the connecticut river valley We grow and harvest around 1200 acres of corn A thousand acres of grass is harvested And we have 200 acres of pumpkins We are currently milking around 1800 cows Just for the record as well, I think it's important I grew up on a farm of 34 cows and my wife grew up here in vermont with a herd of 120 cows And uh, I think it's really important that we we look at these dairy operations More so as a sum of the pieces not just one big farm or a small farm But in our case, we probably have 20 different farms that we're working together with that It's just not our farm. It's how we are economically all working together and everyone's making a living Before covid we put on an open farm day the first of june For probably five years. We're going to have an open farm day this uh, june as well We feel it's really important for the people in our community to continue to learn about current farm practices We open up the farm for four hours put on tours and such We know as it's been stated here this morning There's less far people in farming and the people directly tied to these farms are further removed We also put out a farm letter twice a year To four surrounding towns To share practices that we we and other farmers are Using in new technologies Examples to that would be dragline manure no till corn planting no till pumpkin planting and cover crops As we all know the dairy farming is an integral part of our economy the culture and landscape of vermont Dairy products account for 65 percent of the agricultural sales here in vermont Generate over 500 million an annual revenue to the state The dairy industry in vermont contributes 2.2 billion in economic activities in the state each year We know the state is noted for the bright foliage the rolling pastures in the landscape of the state Over 50 percent of the farmland in vermont is used for dairy farming and other activities Even with this importance to the economy and the dairy farming Has had over the years as it's been stated in year 2000 There were two there were 1600 farms and today there are fewer than 600 That's a 60 loss The loss of these farms possesses a real threat to vermont's historic core It's rural economy. It's character and working landscape the presence and main maintenance Of dairy farms also ensures the state will have resources to maintain food security You know and it's been mentioned this morning. You know how little Food comes from the state, but it does come from the state and it's important that we regionally have access to regional food Some of the reasons why I support the passage of this bill as I read you know I think senator star I read at one point in time This bill has been in a bill similar to this been in place over 40 years. We're updating it. We're modifying it with the rec as the regulation We we we have to operate under the required agriculture practices This bill helps all agriculture And all farms in vermont It protects that advancements that are made for soil health water quality measures That are under the state and federal guidelines, which happen faster in public opinion It allows those who want you could join down, please. Yep. Yeah I've got a lot of witnesses behind it I guess my point is at the end His farming has always been challenging deal with so many different issues and today is no different Um, I think it's important for the keeping farm community active in the state for this Bill to be passed. Thank you Thank you You're serious Good, I just interrupt briefly and say to mr. Gladstone I also appreciate your willingness to keep your land open Especially in my case for allowing me to swing my metal detector in the octopio your backyard Thank you, sir Thank you Thank you all Um, I think bill ammons is next You hear me? Yes, I think so You bill. Yeah, I'm bill. We can hear you. We can't see you. There you are Yeah, yeah, right right button push Thank you senator cheers and members of the senator judiciary My name is bill ammons and I've run my family's farm down in near woodstock in the town of pomfret It's a thousand acre farm mostly woodland and it's got a history Of giving basically we have the Appalachian trail running through in a very long Mile or more section of vast corridor snowmobile trails We also have over the years value added our beef product We we transitioned years ago from dairy into the beef world And I have an angus herd and it now um, it now provides beef for local Consumers as well as a restaurant that we've built here at our farm called plowden farm restaurant the This is put me under a microscope of sorts Although i've been known in this community for a long time having grown up here this farm purchased in 1908 by my grandfather the The opportunity to serve my community has been A wonderful one in that i've been a chair for many many years of the two rivers out of quiqi regional planning commission as well as my local planning commission as well as numerous beef producers and other agricultural pursuits the most recent being the connecticut river watershed farmers alliance So i'm going to read to you right now a quick little thing that i've written It's mostly an emotional sort of play Although i have listened carefully to you your witnesses and i do appreciate all points of view Especially heather darby whom i respect more than anybody in the agricultural world And but i do enjoy listening to both points of view So what i have to say is um, it is increasingly difficult to be a passionate advocate for american agriculture Often advocates are attacked by opponents for defending farming and food production Words must be carefully chosen So as not to raise the feathers of those looking for any reason to object to methods of agricultural practices and animal husbandry Farmers are often unable to find even the time to advocate for or defend their chosen profession Not to mention attending important forums such as this one Time and money are the limitations of most agricultural pursuits that and the weather Farmers have limited hours to do their important work. They also have limited financial resources Many are swimming in debt and uncertain about the future the future of their families their land and their profession No one would want to live this reality The right to farm laws in this country are bringing an important piece of mind to the industry Knowing that driving a load of silage or round bales back to the farm at nine o'clock in the evening After a long day in the field is a right that farmers need to protect Our farmers are making great strides in the efforts to improve the quality of our state's rivers and lakes More work is needed and vermont's farmers are making headway in these efforts There is a keen desire to make the necessary changes in agricultural practices as displayed by the many farmer watershed Partnerships today many people choose to point their finger at others to satisfy their needs to find solutions to the world's problems This is easy to do with social media platforms giving instantaneous recognition to opinions many times faults are misleading The ease of legal revenge is at the fingertips of anyone looking to call an attorney Farmers and just about all citizens are constantly looking over their shoulders wondering whether what are wondering Wondering what what perceived misstep will lead to a lawsuit Every decision is measured carefully against what someone else may condemn It is a toxic world The amended right to farm law will take the pressure off farmers as it has in the past But now with more tea farmers who by most accounts are improving their our landscape here in vermont will continue to make improvements There will always be problems and setbacks. It's the nature of agriculture But with the invaluable guidance of the nrcs the extension service in the hc of agriculture They will be limited and mitigated vermont has always been an agricultural state a At one point a bread basket for new england been beyond It's been a shiny example to the country of purity and healthy living We need to protect this valuable asset as it has provided us with the way of life That is unique and unequaled drawing people from around the world to bear witness to our hill farms Vast meadows and fields filled with livestock Needless and frivolous lawsuits brought about by disgruntled citizens used to living in a non agricultural environment Will not only rob our farmers of their valuable time But also they're harder in money This amended right to farm law will lead to the protection farm families need to continue making vermont the special state in which we live Thank you very much. Thank you bill. Appreciate the testimony. Have you been sued bill? um No for for anything, you know by neighbors or anything No, no, I've always thought I've walked a tight rope by um in putting in our restaurant I um I gave a lot of consideration to that it was a long process, but the size of it What the impact would be for a neighbor? I'm very very cautious about how my farm looks and how my neighbors perceive it It's it's a it's a very rare and unusual property and I take it very seriously and water quality issues forever Have I always been aware of that and I've taken advantage a bit here and there of Funding and what have you for a barnyard and roof water Management and that sort of thing. So we are a chemical free farm I just got tired of paying the bill years and years ago of chemical fertilizers So we've been sort of organic, but we're not really officially organic so Thank you bill. I appreciate the response Um, thank you any uh, brian camp is next and then scott magnum Well, thank you senator steers and senator star and your respective committees for allowing us and giving us time I'm going to be pretty quick. Um a lot of What I wanted to say has already been said I manage mountain meadows organic beef farm down here in ruttland and adison county We have we are an mfo and we have upwards of 800 animals on our farm That we raise every year And manage just under 3 000 acres of land I'm also the president of the shampoim valley farmers coalition Which is is an active group of farmers among adison chitin and in ruttland counties representing all kinds of diverse farms dairy farms beef veggie growers Beef farmers any you name it. We have them in our group. Um, so we're we're We're supporting large small and medium farms uh of all sizes and Uh, I just would like to emphasize on this that um hearing all the testimony early on from from the lawyers and from the other groups um, certainly Can appreciate the need for people to have the citizens to have a voice But I think these nuisance lawsuits Even though we've only had two in 20 years There's now the opportunity for that to magnify considerably as it's been said with all the real estate boom People coming in from the cities and whatever moving in vermont I think we're at much more jeopardy of that continuing and to as I said be multiplied in the future It's also been said by others that the importance of the local food and the sustainability of our food systems here in vermont We all experienced the supply chains From the pandemic. We're still we're still experiencing them and who knows how long this is going to go on vermont farms are vital vermont farmers Shouldn't need to be worried as bill says looking over our shoulders on what neighbor may Come up with another a nuisance complaint Fortunately, we don't experience much here experience it much here where we are But I can certainly see in other parts of the state Where it's much you're farming much more more close to the communities Where there can be a potential for a lot more public scrutiny going forward And I just think that this proposed bill Just gives us a little bit better sense of security. None of us are looking to break the laws. We're we're complying with the raps We're going above and beyond In many cases as everybody here knows Farming is responsible for 90 plus percent Of the phosphorus reductions in lake shamplain We're doing something right and we shouldn't have to be fearful Uh that our day-to-day operations Are beat are going to be susceptible to these nuisance lawsuits So with that said, I want to leave time for the other farmers. Thank you very much Uh scott magnan and one Pardon me Oh, I I just thank and brian Oh, okay You're welcome Scott and then maria dad is on deck. Thank you Thank you, brian Go ahead scott Uh, thanks for having me have a written testimony. I'll try and get through it as quick as I can Uh, good morning. Thanks for the opportunity to learn and evaluate with you today I grew on a 60 cow dairy farm in st. Albans in 1997 I bought a tractor and a manure spreader started contracting field services Which is still a portion of my business today In addition to crop services, we utilize our shop in st. Albans to help farmers implement precision ag technology and conservation equipment into their operation We also in a hundred acres and run at approximately another hundred a chair the fwa Farmers watershed alliance a group of mostly farmers in franklin and grandisle county that we're with and support farmers with water quality challenges times have certainly changed since 1997 and even more since growing up on the farm We're raising concerns for most days where in the early years concerns and motivations were mostly focused on having enough economic success to remain in agriculture The risks and rewards in agriculture have greatly shifted to higher risks than reward And without proper planning and insurances, it's easy to get in a bind from a multitude of directions It is recognized that some of the examples i'm about to give are just part of being a good neighbor and that in doing this we have avoided actions against us Without counsel But it should be recognized that we are also trying to run a business that supports my family Our customers families and the families of those businesses that surround agriculture I'm still very much absorbing the current proposed law as well as the the current law um And still try to make up my own mind about this discussion and it seems like the issue may go beyond legislation Now the first example i'll give us our sunflower fields. We grow sunflowers in st. Alden's. Um, it's one of the things we do on the farm Well, some of the concerns don't fall under the bill Uh and some some come as a learning curve They underline some of the challenges Faced in today's climate. I think that's it's the shifting climate of the way people view ag and how they interact With the farms That that may be important to the discussion. So four years ago. We gained a lot of attention with our request And we had requests to view the flowers and take pictures So we opened up the land to the public to share the field Uh, it was a great way to get people engaged in agriculture, but we quickly had complaints from neighbors about the dust on the road We had a someone question our deed. So we had we went to our attorney's office to make sure we were within our rights and we were um We had a lot of people after the event show up uninvited following the event. So we had I Had to work out whether they're trespassing. I'm asking to leave. There are some awkward Conversations and behaviors around trying to set those boundaries. So we moved the event To a more public road with a gate so we could Work on setting that boundary between What we thought was acceptable and not acceptable Um We've had we have we do it by donation and we have some people that still don't go through the donation tent They duck the gates just kind of awkward human behavior that we have to manage and deal with and work through um Which can be frustrating um We've had a lot of questions on how we how we grow the sunflowers what we use as far as treated seeds Chemicals we've had some people with the perception that oh, it's this wonderful sunflower field compared to the The polluting corn that everyone grows but the reality is there's there's not much difference between sunflowers and corn and how those are managed and Both can be harmful if if managed incorrectly so we have to educate and And go through that but the perception is definitely there that um there's people have perceptions so that can create um Conflicts with people and opportunity you have to go through the process of going through this which is extremely We take a lot of time and we're just trying to run a business so with all these um Moving pieces we've we've actually cut our production down from 40 acres to 15 even though that market's strong It's just the challenges can be to to time consuming to have to manage a larger on a larger scale Um So we still provide about services for about 15 farms through a custom operation That includes manure spreading mowing and round baling concerns are evaluated daily some range from timing busy Traffic times to move equipment how past rain events will impact mud going into the road the width of equipment Now we have to plan our moving routes Times for field practices must be considered when there's a desire to have tractors operating your houses So we have to shut down fast daily hours often Moving manure at any time can lead to phone calls even when just transferring it. Um, it just raises a red flag for some people It's a perception Family events and neighbors often postpone scheduling cropping needs if there's a neighbor that has a A birthday for their son. We may not be able to get get in and get that work done until until that's over The RAPs are always at the forefront of planning with all these all these examples are an effort to be safe safe courteous and in compliance with state law But when compounded and then compounded with the With the economic needs of the farm it comes at a great expense and an increasing amount of of risk So more machinery Is often needed to work around tight and short windows about opportunity Which in itself can be unpopular even though it is often an outcome of circumstance So you're you're making all these changes to make everybody happy and At your own at your own expense um Working to please everyone has somehow kept me in business and often lands me in meetings like these But it often comes with personal sacrifice and negative consequence Have a stubborn desire to remain true in my roots and keep agriculture While the memories I enjoyed as a kid working with my dad are fading with today's challenges and the original obstacles are remaining motivated to still Be profitable in today's environment Having a form of government protection to ease some of these risks and pressures could be helpful and provide some relief to perform tasks Needed to stay within farm budgets To get work done and hopefully decrease the general feeling of the spare evident on many farms Most obvious this could curb expenses when unfounded actions are taken against the farm There's certainly a lot of law in place to protect public interest But little in place to protect the people who produce the food that feeds them. Thank you We both had ourselves muted. Thank you scott Maria dad is next and then We have meg nelson A sound check. Can you hear me? Oh, yeah, very loud and clear. Thank you Um My name is maria dad. I'm a member of bluestruce farm and audets cow power. We're located on 22a in brittport If you have a drive 22a, we're the big green farm with the wind turbine. So that's an easy way to to know who we are um I Over the last couple of decades We have hosted thousands and thousands of folks on our farms. Certainly Covitt threw all that into a loop. We no longer can host tours So about a year ago, I put pen to paper so that I could continue communicating just like all the other farmers are saying You know, we have such a big job and continuing to communicate with our neighbors It's a it's something that we appreciate and we try to do You know covitt 19 really did affect every aspect of our lives And you know, we were suffering on so many levels and the uncertainty of what was lying ahead Has taken a toll and did take a toll But you know, we're hopeful um, you know, again that the summer will bring back a sense of normalcy and Certainly a renewed energy for another fight And you know the the fight against climate change and I promise you this is only five minutes And it will be wrapped up for you at the end and it'll make sense. I hope um a bluestruce farm Well, let me just set first, you know, we have 4 000 acres. Um in about 1500 cows milking cows registered And also young stock 1500 young stock and we're adapting to the immediate impacts of covitt 19 But we're doing it while remaining steadfast and creating a future with cleaner water healthier soil and cleaner air It's time for us collectively To reverse climate change with the same urgency that we've been approaching defeating covitt 19 We're doing our part through regenerative agricultural practices To save and improve our soils and sequester carbon drawing down carbon dioxide from the air Soil it's all about soil and it's what gives us life all of the food that we eat 95 percent is from soil Healthy soils acts like a sponge and it soaks up and holds on to water and sequesters carbon Organic matter has a great influence on soil properties and structure and it's measurable And it serves as an indicator in improving soil health Every one percent of increase in organic matter can result in up to 20 000 gallons of available water stored per acre That means with the predicted increases in extreme flooding our soils will hold more water And prevent it from flooding and washing away In years with droughts like 2020 this same organic matter preserves the precious soil moisture and it made it available to our crops In contrast if our crop land were developed into urban use It would have four times as much potential phosphorus runoff and that's according to the lake champlain basin program Dairy farming is evolving with the science Driving innovation and implementation of new gentler equipment and regenerative practices The greatest investments in the last decade have been in the adaption of these evolving practices We're sowing our crops with minimal tillage while the plows have been gathering dust for more than a decade Our new planters now push seeds down into the soil without disturbing the soil structure the organic matter and the soil biology Our cow manure goes through an anorexic digester where the methane is captured and generated for renewable electricity for our community The plant fibers from the manure are separated and used as fluffy bedding for our animals The liquid that digested liquid goes into a dissolved flotation system that separates 70 to 70 percent of the phosphorus Allowing us to use that phosphorus precisely where it is needed on our feed Phosphorus precisely where it is needed on our fields The crops that were grown to feed the cows go on to make renewable electricity And then get recycled back to the soil closing the loop Vermont farmers are leading the nation and adopting conservation practices between 2012 and 2017 We increased our acres of no-till land by 173 percent the biggest increase in the united states And that's according to the 2017 us census of agriculture We ranked in the top seven states in the country for our over 100 increase in adoption of cover crops so that means that Well over a third of Vermont's cornfields have cover crops planted in the fall in contrast us average is only about five percent So farmers are quietly and often without recognition drawing carbon down from our atmosphere through our cover crops and rebuilding healthy soil yet There's more to this story than sequestering carbon and protecting our soil in the face of climate change Dairy farmers are on track to continue to provide affordable safe and nutritious food It's flavorful Packed with vital nutrients and it provides up to 19 percent of the natural protein in our diets The dairy industry has collectively pledged to become carbon neutral or better by 2050 And that work is well on its way our farm is a host site for a rigorous study that recently started in Addison County Dr. Joshua Faulkner who is a research assistant professor and farming and climate change program coordinator for UVM Extension Center with a sustainable agriculture Described in this research as one of the first in the country that will study the direct links between soil health water quality and greenhouse gas emissions On our farm, we're raising our fourth generation of humans a total of 21 family members and still growing new babies Which provides All the motivation we need to care for our land care for our animals and preserve our farm for future generations And participating in the study of this magnitude, for example That tests these new practices that we're all talking about in the technology right here Where we all live in Vermont to help us get to the future that we all want We want to be your partners for a healthier planet for all of our children We are at a critical point because we are losing more and more of Vermont dairy farms every year USDA data shows that since 87 1987, Vermont has lost 32 of its crop land Food solutions New England's vision states that we must build capacity to produce at least 50 of our food by 2060 As a region New England currently produces only half of its own dairy That's according to USDA data We cannot afford to stay on this downward trajectory I hope If we do we'll lose our potential to have local food and to manage our land to mitigate the negative impacts of climate change The solution to the challenges of climate change like flooding and extreme temperatures from carbon emissions Is right under our feet It lies in our collective decision To support our farmers in our revolution to build this healthy soil and I hope That you will all support us as we work hard to protect Our resources our land air and water While we protect nutritious food local for our region I really appreciate you asking us farmers to participate today. This is a new crowd for me And I want to thank you very much You're welcome. Thank you very much Marie our next witness. Are there any questions from thank you, Marie Meg Nelson and then followed by Dave Lane Hi, everyone. Thank you. Yes Good morning. Can you hear me? Okay? Yes, we can Okay So my name is Meg Nelson and I live in the northeast kingdom with my husband and we both are part of our family's dairies I work on a small dairy with my parents and we're diversifying with cheese And we're starting to get into some agritourism And my husband is on a large farm in derby in irisburg and they are Putting in renovations and starting To build a massive rotary, which is really exciting So we're we're here and we plan on staying in vermont even though We sometimes get the feeling that we're not as welcome but What this bill is doing is it's really trying to protect farmers from these nuisance suits and It is long overdue that vermont needs to Come up to speed and come up to date with the rest of the nation Farms in vermont are so much part of the community Uh out west when in school we'd go out west and tour farms and they were in the middle of nowhere Just these big dairies and they didn't have neighbors that they'd have to worry about these nuisance suits But they're still protected like in ohio But because we're such part of the community We really feel like we are a huge part of why those communities are beautiful our open fields the access to recreation like cost country skiing and the vast trail system hiking bird watching all of that takes place on some of our land in crossberry and We want to we want to protect that because we want our Community members to continue using it. We we enjoy sharing that with people but at what cost if if we're going to be subject to a nuisance suit That's that's a liability for us that we can't Ensure and protect ourselves. So it would uh, it would be really Really great if we could get this to move through The other just point that I want to talk about because you've all heard really wonderful testimony on what's happening with climate change And how farmers are being really proactive and a big part of the solution was the kovid wake-up call two years ago when kovid hit We really saw what where our supply chains Common how interrupted they can be and how detrimental that can be to our small communities so quickly and We noticed a lot of folks really trying to source local things like meat and milk eggs vegetables and In order to do that we have to protect our farmers so that we can protect our local supply chain We're still haven't straightened out the supply chain Vermont in particular has some big big stuff going on with milk and our Are where we ship our milk and such so It's um, it's something that we just we want to maintain Good standing in our communities and with the state so that we can Keep providing good wholesome food for our neighbors um, one other thing that kovid brought along was a rise in housing pressure and increased land cost um just in crassbury alone where my family is we had A lot of our neighbors cash in on their land and their homes and they sold for Way at least twice of what they were Appraised for and some of them even went into bidding wars because of that We are seeing new neighbors from other states which Of course, we don't mind but sometimes there's a educational curve on why A chopper is going by and might have a A right of way on their driveway or things like that Smells obviously animals going Using laneways to go to pasture and and things like that that we're foreign to some folks so We uh, we don't want to open ourselves up to nuisance suits by doing what we've always done with our new neighbors so And then again, I just really want to drive home that agro tourism is some is a way right now that we see A positive I guess excursion in order to keep our business afloat and it's hard to Want to open ourselves up completely to bringing folks onto the farm and then um, maybe having The liability of a suit or or legal fees That example that that could be really real that eight to twelve thousand dollars a week for a lawyer. That's That's just not not in the cash flow. So Thank you for your time and I want to make sure every other Uh person here can have their few minutes, but if you have any questions, I'm here and thank you again for having me Thank you, ma'am Just to mention what I last year we did pass an agro tourism bill. Um, All right I thought you testified on it, but maybe i'm a different nelson Could have been a different nelson. There's a few yeah quite a few nalpsons or Yes, thank you. Thank you mag. Yeah David lane is next and then that would be followed by lisa mcdonough Uh, thank you senator sears. Uh, excuse me lisa mcdougal. I'm sorry lucy Lisa god My glasses on david go ahead. Thank you. Uh, thank you, um senator sears senator. Sorry i'm committee members Um, you have my written testimony. I'm gonna just bullet a couple things um So i'm with dav lane with farm credit east, um, which yankee farm credit which is on The list we yankee farm credit merged with farm credit east on january 1st Farm credit east is a cooperative. It's a farmer cooperative So our customers our farmers own us as a financial institution We cover all of new anglin new york and new jersey The first bullet i'm going to talk about is really stability stability for businesses So the businesses can make the investments that uh, maria that was was talking about The water quality the climate smart agriculture investments Farm credit east has uh 500 600 million Invested through financing agriculture in vermont And the state of vermont also has several millions of dollars that they've invested in water quality and economic development for agriculture and Protecting that through stability that that this bill can Provide is important also as Has already been mentioned the the changing of agriculture. It has been dramatic In addition to farm credit east My family and I own snow farm vineyard in south hero We were a former dairy farm where I grew up Um And we we have thousands of people come to the to our farm our vineyard winery Every year and that's very very different for our community. We have a great community, but as Mrs. Nelson just mentioned we have a lot of new neighbors that have come in in the last few years And it's always changing and then finally Food security, I think is an important thing As well as our natural landscape that the the farmers Work and conserve and keep open. So I think this is very important legislation I think the time is right with everything that's been happening and all the changes so I'm gonna yield my time to make sure that um as always we can be successful in getting the uh the last two Uh to testify Thank you, David, uh lisa mcdougal followed by um George foster Lisa welcome Thank you. Um, good morning. Um, my name is lisa mcdougal and i'm an organic vegetable farmer in shaft spray vermont and current president of the vermont vegetable and variegur's association The vvbga is a nonprofit organization founded in 1976 to promote the economic environmental and social sustainability of vegetable and berry farming in vermont Our membership includes over 425 vegetable and berry farms across vermont And beyond as well as 50 businesses and organizations that provide products and services to all of our members I personally grow 15 acres of vegetables each year and sell to local farmers markets restaurants groceries And have a year-round csa 2022 will be my 16th year in operation On my farm we follow a nutrient management program adhere to compost and manure spreading bands practice conservation tillage and no-till methods And water tests annually to ensure our irrigation water is in good condition We comply with required agriculture practices and also follow a food safety put food safety plan and phisma These are just a few of the many practices we employ to ensure a healthy farm environment for our crops and neighbors All of my food is sold within 30 miles of my farm I'm here this morning to testify on behalf of the vermont vegetable and variegur's association In favor the amendments being proposed to vermont's right to farm bill s268 It is not just dairy farms that are in support of s268 The bill needs updating to ensure that farmers in vermont whose practices are following state and federal regulations Have protection and are not wrongfully brought to court This goes beyond spreading manure and running tractors in the wee hours of the morning or late at night Vegetable farmers also face potential for neighbors to file a nuisance complaint We run irrigation pumps when it is dry out to keep our crops alive Pumps are loud Do we want to be running irrigation pumps at odd hours? No We run pumps to produce food to feed our local community The vast majority of vegetables grown in vermont are feeding our neighbors Some growers may also utilize bird cannons to protect their berry crops as well as netting Vegetable and berry crops are very sensitive and require constant attention to produce a marketable crop The vermont vegetable and variegur's association feels the current right to farm bill is inadequate for protecting our farmers Now is the time to update and modify the bill So only cases that are truly considered to be a nuisance are brought to court saving farmers time and money Farms are disappearing in our state and need protection from urbanization Under climate change predictions vermont's farms will be crucial to the sustainability of our local food systems Every farm in this state is valuable to our local economy producing food and employing local people And keeping vermont's farm beautiful landscape It is our best intent to make proactive updates to this bill S268 Presumes the farmer is innocent as opposed to assuming it is guilty Farmers have many regulations to comply with and those in good standing deserve protection Supporting s268 is supporting vermont farmers dairy farmers vegetable farmers Christmas tree farmers berry farmers apple growers The vermont vegetable and berry growers association hopes you will join us in support of s268. Thank you for your time Thank you. Lisa Any questions release all right George foster is next How many more do we have to George is the final and looks like we're going to make it That's where we have to adjourn for the floor But I don't George on line here. Maybe jackie fulsome wants to get back some of her time if she's still with us George with us I don't see him Well, we hear from jackie then Jackie you get the final word for about three minutes if we can do that we Wrap this up and get to the floor Thank you senator sears and senator star and committee Yeah, so i'll do wrap up here just like we're doing a baseball game. Thank you very much for listening to everyone today One of the things that I that I really like when we have farmers speak is that you get to listen From the farmers to their stories and I know that in the senate ag committee They understand the powerfulness of this And i'm hoping that the the senate judiciary from being in front of you with the broadband bill You recognize the power of the farmer's stories also Vermont farm bureau is a policy-based program and so I have to work within my policy book But we will work to strengthen vermont's right to farm laws to protect farmers and farmland Whose use has been modified and yet still stays within vermont's definition of farming I think you've heard a lot of questions today about some of the What may be unintended consequences offered? In in the current s268, but I think more importantly I think you've heard that farming is changing and this is not just about dairy This is about all the types of agriculture in vermont that feed our folks and keep our open lands Working and take care of the land. So um farm bureau. Whoops. I lost my notes here farm bureau looks forward to continuing the conversation on s268 And to make sure that if we do make the changes that are proposed They work for the benefit of the farmers as well as the neighbors and the people that are moving in So that we all have a vibrant and um and uh resilient agricultural economy Thank you very much for your time. We really appreciate it today. Thank you jacky. It seems like i'm seeing you every day this Is that a bad thing senator? I don't know. No not at all, but you know We've had a lot of bills in common uh Senator star did you want to wrap up? Yeah, I just uh like to thank the uh many witnesses that uh we had today um, you know, I think uh, I think their stories were very uh telling and uh, hopefully Hopefully we can work out any differences we may have and and move this bill forward If we possibly can so and I want to thank the judiciary committee and senator sears for doing a co-meeting Thank you senator star. Um, we will appreciate the opportunity to meet with the agriculture committee and uh To hear from the variety of witnesses we heard from this morning. I thank all of you for your participation um We will uh take a look at this bill next week Uh, depending upon the availability of mr. O'grady to help us understand some of the issues, but Again, my my appreciation to all the witnesses and to the committee members as well and the peggy delaney for Putting up with all this and setting all this up This is a few more witnesses than we normally have right and linda leeman and linda leaner. Thank you