The SNAP-Ed program — which focuses on nutrition education and overall wellness for people on food stamps — will end Sept. 30, cutting off hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual grants that supported programming across all Vermont counties, including recipe demonstrations, meal kits and active-living guides.

The program’s elimination was part of President Donald Trump’s sweeping budget adjustments that passed on July 4 in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As the state’s food assistance network finds its way through a new landscape of shortfalls, officials worry more residents will fall through the cracks.

SNAP-Ed is an extension of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has experienced a number of cuts across the board. Instead of providing funds for individuals to purchase food, SNAP-Ed’s much smaller grants focus on community education and initiatives to improve eligible households’ engagement with 3SquaresVT — Vermont’s name for the larger body of resources under SNAP. 

“Just providing food for people is not the whole answer to food security,” said Suzanne Kelly, who was the SNAP-Ed coordinator at the Vermont Department of Health for a decade until last month. Her former position, and another related role, will soon be discontinued.

“SNAP-Ed is sort of that extra bit of information to really make sure that people can access the food, can use the food, and can enjoy it over time,” Kelly said.

The program is deeply focused on health outcomes, she said, including prevention of chronic conditions and disease, and promoting wellness through nutrition and exercise.

Kelly is concerned about the immediate impact on Vermonters. 

“These are decisions that trickle down to the most vulnerable people in our communities,” she said.

Kelly referenced a SNAP-Ed needs assessment earlier this year that identified certain populations in the state with a disproportionately high need for food assistance, including rural Vermonters and people with disabilities. Outreach programs that meet people where they are geographically will be an especially big loss, Kelly said.

The end of SNAP-Ed has already had tangible effects in recent weeks, causing the imminent shutdown of a food pantry in Holland and contributing to the Vermont Foodbank’s recent staff cuts. Of the seven employees the food bank let go, three were specifically operating SNAP-Ed programs, according to Chris Meehan, the company’s chief impact officer.

Vermont residents received over $147 million in SNAP aid last year. The projected allocation for Vermont’s SNAP-Ed budget in 2026, which the Department of Health received May 30, was less than half a million. Five weeks later, Kelly learned that the program was canceled.

‘We’ll have to be really creative’

Meehan said the SNAP-Ed cuts will effectively end the Vermont Foodbank’s VTFresh program, which has reached every county in the state with initiatives to increase access and understanding around nutrition. The program provided a space for people to exchange knowledge about cooking, recipes and budgeting, and was often particularly useful for families, she said.

While the food bank employees who ran the initiative are no longer with the organization, the program’s existing resources will remain on the Vermont Foodbank website. VTFresh’s continuing presence, Meehan said, will be “more passive than active.”

Meehan is grateful for the infrastructure that VTFresh has left behind — it has been “transformational” for the food assistance network in the state, she said. 

Denise Walton, a Concord resident who is a lead volunteer at Sid’s Pantry in town, said VTFresh recipe materials had been invaluable in allowing her community to make better use of fresh foods. It’s common, she said, for people to ask questions about how to prepare food as they’re taking it.

“I think people want to cook,” said Walton, who herself is on food stamps. “They may not have learned, or been taught, or had the time.”

Walton said she would keep trying to provide resources to help people fully use the food they’re receiving — but that it will be more challenging going forward. 

“We’ll have to be really creative,” Walton said.

Vermont Foodbank’s situation is par for the course statewide at smaller food assistance providers.

The Vermont Garden Network will lose its dedicated nutrition educator, according to executive director T Hanson, one of only five staff at the organization. Come Alive Outside, a nonprofit which used SNAP-Ed funds to reach thousands of school-age kids in Rutland County with tips on how to stay active, has told its staff it may not have sufficient funds to pay everyone in six months, according to Executive Director Arwen Turner. 

Meanwhile, in Burlington, the People’s Farmstand will continue as a purely volunteer effort, according to founding Director Nour El-Naboulsi. There hadn’t been salaried roles, he clarified, but they had previously been able to offer staff — primarily farmers — a stipend for their time. The organization offers free fresh produce (both self-grown and donated) at weekly open events but has also been conducting educational outreach through its Veggie of the Month program. 

El-Naboulsi said the initiative features a combination of staple Vermont crops and “culturally relevant produce — things from Nepal, Somalia, Iraq (and) other places in the Middle East and East Africa.” The organization serves a relatively large proportion of immigrant and refugee populations, he said, and the program is designed to combine familiar food with information about how to prepare local produce.

With the loss of SNAP-Ed funding to the People’s Farmstand and sister organization Village Hydroponics, El-Naboulsi said he has had to reprioritize.

“We kind of lose the capacity to do supplementary education, recipe preparation, outreach,” he said.

‘A great return on investment’

Keith Robinson, a pediatric pulmonologist at UVM Children’s Hospital, emphasized a connection between SNAP-Ed and health outcomes for families. He’s the hospital’s vice chair for Quality Improvement and Population Health and built the provider’s screening platform for food insecurity.

“We are trying to go deeper and further upstream to make sure that we’re solving the root causes of food insecurity in Vermont,” Robinson said.

For him, nutrition education has been a big part of that work — that’s why the end of SNAP-Ed is such a blow, despite the small scale of previous funding.

“It’s gonna make communities potentially less healthy, and it’s also gonna create gaps in the systems that we need to have around families,” he said. “While the dollar value may not be great, the impact of those dollars is extraordinary.”

Robinson referenced a state report on SNAP-Ed last year, calling survey data that indicated diet and exercise changes for participants “a big deal.” Roughly a third of people who received direct nutrition education reported they ate more fruits and vegetables each day, and 20% said they exercised more, according to the report.

“That’s a great return on investment,” Robinson said.

Modifications and cuts to the SNAP program at large have been made in the name of eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” — a narrative that Kelly disputed. 

“The strategies that are used (in SNAP-Ed) have shown outcomes — real outcomes,” she said.

A page addressing cost concerns on the USDA website references studies showing that for every dollar spent on SNAP-Ed and similar programs, 10 times that can be saved in future health care costs. The total nationwide cost of the program would have been $550 million in the 2026 fiscal year.

“It’s probably not the best idea to be cutting programs that are going to eventually help reduce costs way further down the line,” Kelly said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture did not respond to requests for comment.

A document briefly detailing SNAP overhaul from the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture called SNAP-Ed a program that has wrought “no meaningful change” for its target population. The committee cited a 2019 report from the Government Accountability Office that appears to primarily conclude that the effectiveness of the program is difficult to properly evaluate due to uneven standards of reporting from state agencies and a lack of coordination at the federal level. 

“When federal benefits get cut like this, we need to think about how to bolster connections in our community, and think differently about how to fill those gaps,” Robinson said. 

Jeanne Montross, executive director of Helping Overcome Poverty’s Effects, or HOPE, in Middlebury, said her organization has been seeing the effects of staff and program cuts elsewhere in the state’s assistance networks. Montross’ nonprofit is primarily funded by private contributions.

“It always ends up flowing down to HOPE,” she said of increased need in her local community.

Anore Horton, executive director at Hunger Free Vermont, said the state’s food assistance network “cannot in any way mitigate the loss of all of these different sources of funding.”

Any solution to a problem of this scale must be “collective,” Horton said, but must also involve significant new assistance from the state government. But in a situation this urgent, Horton said it wouldn’t necessarily make sense for the state to replace nutrition education funding.

Walton said Sid’s Pantry has also been increasingly relying on community support and donations.

“We’re very fortunate to have a little buffering like that,” she said, “especially for an aging community that needs healthy food and needs access to things out in the rural areas.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Loss of SNAP-Ed program leaves gaps in Vermont’s food assistance network.

Amid a wave of directives from the administration of President Donald Trump authorizing increased logging on the nation’s forests, Vermonters are assessing what impacts these actions could have on the state’s environment and economy. 

On March 1, the Trump administration issued an executive order to expand timber harvesting, stating that federal policies have limited the domestic timber supply and have resulted in the U.S. relying on international imports of lumber.

As part of the executive order, Trump administration officials were tasked with examining existing environmental laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, to identify ways to streamline environmental review processes to implement expanded timber production. 

Following the executive order, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins declared an “emergency situation determination” in an April 4 memorandum that opened up logging on 112 million acres of national forests with the stated goal of reducing wildfire risks and bolstering rural economies.

The secretary wrote that the directives aimed to “spur immediate action” to streamline permitting and contracting, bypass National Environmental Policy Act review processes, and work with state and local players to boost the national timber supply. 

In concert with the memorandum, the forest service issued guidance, asking regional foresters to keep pace with the new national goal to increase timber production by 25%. On April 22, regional foresters received additional direction to expedite work related to the emergency designation.

In response to VTDigger’s request for an interview, an unnamed United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service spokesperson wrote that the service did not have anyone available to comment on the impact of the directives on the Green Mountain National Forest. In the email, the spokesperson wrote that the service will work in alignment with the federal guidance to decrease “burdensome regulations” and “streamline forest management efforts.”

In a map included in the secretary’s announcement, the federal land available for logging under the emergency declaration includes a sizable portion of the Green Mountain National Forest, which are woodlands that stretch through the southeastern and central region of the state.

According to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council, slightly more than 200,000 acres in Vermont are affected by the memorandum, which comprises 24% of Vermont’s federally owned land. 

‘Emergencies that don’t exist’

Dana Doran, executive director of Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast, said he is encouraged by the federal government’s public pronouncement supporting domestic timber production and active management of forests to reduce wildfire risks.

“It’s generally the public lands that are burning because of lack of management, where private lands that are actually managed have a less propensity to be susceptible to fire and blight,” Doran said. 

But, Zack Porter, executive director of the Vermont-based forest conservation group Standing Trees, said the wildfire issue is less relevant to Vermont, and the emergency designation does not address climate and environmental concerns in the region.

“There is no such emergency in our national forest here in Vermont or anywhere in New England,” Porter said. “The Forest Service is proposing chainsaw medicine for a nonexistent ailment, and it is going to be a disaster for forests across this country if they increase the cut by 25% like they’re proposing.”

Christophe Courchesne, an assistant professor at Vermont Law School, said the Trump administration’s attempts to simplify environmental review could face challenges in court because the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act requirements cannot be bypassed through an executive order.

Courchesne said the executive order and memorandum do not articulate a “clear factual basis” for an emergency declaration and appear to be beyond the scope of the narrow authority of the U.S. Forest Service to take emergency-related actions.

“Essentially what we see here is — as in numerous other contexts — the Trump administration is declaring emergencies that don’t exist, and that makes the actions undertaken under those emergency declarations legally vulnerable to challenge,” Courchesne said. 

Environmental processes

The federal actions arrive at a time of a longstanding debate among Vermonters over what are best practices for the health of the state’s forests — rewilding or active management. In a search for compromise, Vermonters have grappled with whether the demands of the local logging industry can be balanced with forest conservation, and how both strategies impact the state’s modicum of old growth trees. 

Due to logging practices in decades past, less than 0.1% of the region of New England and New York are estimated old growth forests, which improve ecosystem health and are more resilient to climate change, Porter said. 

The “rewilding” advocates consider leaving nature alone in permanent preserves to be the best practice to regenerate old growth forests. But, foresters and loggers in the state see active management, including logging at a sustainable level, as necessary not only for the timber production but also to ensure young healthy trees are not competing with other trees for resources and have the space to grow. 

The question of how to balance these seemingly opposing concerns came to a head in recent years, when state lawmakers debated a bill that became law as Act 59. 

The law set the goals of conserving 30% of the state’s land by 2030 and 50% by 2050 — aligning with the Biden’s administration’s set goals — and designates areas for rewilding, biodiversity conservation and areas of long-term, sustainable logging. Gov. Phil Scott permitted the bill to become law without his signature in 2023 after vetoing a similar bill in 2022. 

Foresters, logging interests and conservation advocates in Vermont have also debated forestry management strategy around the Telephone Gap Project, a recent draft plan for regulating land use and logging activities on 72,000 acres, nearly half of which are inside the Green Mountain National Forest.

Porter said that recent national guidance is unlikely to have a direct impact on the fate of the Telephone Gap Project because it is far along in the management planning and environmental review process. 

But, Porter said future forest management projects could be influenced by the scaling back of a federal review process through the National Environmental Policy Act and lead to overcutting of Vermont’s national forest. 

William Keeton, a forest ecosystem scientist and professor at the University of Vermont, said he is troubled by the executive order and secretarial memorandum calling for forest management plans to be exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act.

“NEPA is an incredibly important law and we have that law for a reason,” Keeton said. “It ensures that we go about planning the way we do forestry on national forests in an intelligent way and allows us to make scientifically informed decisions.”

Sam Lincoln, former deputy commissioner of Vermont’s Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation and owner of Lincoln Farm Timber Harvesting, said he is in favor of simplifying processes for forest management to harvest timber at a sustainable level. 

“I do think that the management has been slowed, and it just eats up the taxpayer money in these redundant reviews and appeals of a process that’s already done very, very deliberately and thoughtfully, and I think ways to make that a more streamlined process are fine,” Lincoln said.

Backlog of logs

While Doran, with the Professional Logging Contractors of the Northeast, said he is grateful for the attention brought by the Trump administration’s support for domestic timber production, he said the federal focus on shoring up the logging industry must be consistent over time as it would likely take years to restore strong markets nationally and regionally. 

As there is a backlog of timber in the state and region, Doran said a short-term boost in production could drive down wages for workers, so there must be a long-term approach to restore the logging markets to help Vermont’s rural economy.

“The issue right now with increasing production to that level based upon the logging capacity that exists right now would be very challenging,” Doran said. “When you try to flood an already saturated manufacturing market with wood they can’t use, it’s going to suppress the price that’s paid to loggers to do the work, and that’s not a model that we support right now.”

There is not a scarcity of wood products in Vermont, Porter agreed, pointing to a study supported by the United States Department of Agriculture finding that Vermont’s loggers produce far more wood products than the state actually consumes: the harvesting of wood is 147% of the level that’s purchased.

Keeton, the forest ecosystem scientist, voiced concern with the Trump administration increasing the target for the nation’s timber production output by 25%. That target does not account for the local capacity of land and the importance of national forests’ varied uses, such as habitat for wildlife, clean water, flood control and outdoor recreation, he said.

Ethan Pepin, a resident of Rutland City and avid outdoor recreator, said he spends his time scaling boulders, Nordic skiing the backcountry and exploring the many wooded trails, sometimes for days on end on backpacking trips, in the Green Mountain National Forest network. 

“The natural landscapes and the recreation opportunities they provide are a really big thing that draws people,” Pepin said. “A lot of the people I talk to are moving to Rutland because we have this access to this amazing natural world, and it really provides a lot of value that isn’t always fully captured in this raw, crude, economic sense.” 

Pepin said he supports active forest management, such as the proposed Telephone Gap Project, which he said balances the need to selectively harvest trees to promote species diversity while valuing conservation and recreation of the national forest. However, Pepin said he is concerned about the federal guidance forgoing a balanced approach to logging plans in the future. 

Pepin added that healthy forests provide the benefit of carbon sequestration, which helps slow the effects of climate change, including natural disasters like wildfires. 

Rep. Amy Sheldon, D-Middlebury, the chair of the House Committee on Environment, echoed that healthy, particularly old-growth, forests help mitigate natural disasters like flooding, which has been a significant challenge in the state with the recurrent flooding in July 2023 and 2024. 

“It’s the opposite of what we need to be doing here to address the risk of fire or other climate change related risks,” Sheldon said. 

Work on the ground

While the impacts of federal directives on Green Mountain National Forest remain uncertain, environmentalists are continuing their work to protect land from logging in Vermont.

Sheldon introduced the House bill H. 126 in February to further the state’s aim of conserving 30% of Vermont’s land by 2030 by establishing permanent wilderness reserves.

“Currently, we don’t have a permanent wilderness designation for state land, so this is just addressing that gap,” Sheldon said. “It’s not to say that we don’t have lands in Vermont that are managed for old forest growth, but they are still vulnerable to somebody rewriting the plan and deciding that they want to cut the trees, and I think we need some permanent wildland conservation.”

Jon Leibowitz, president of Northeast Wilderness Trust, said the trust is in the process of acquiring the College Hill Wilderness Preserve. The project would set aside 600 acres in the area of Jamaica, a rural, wooded town in Windham County, for rewilding in order to promote old growth forests. 

As 85% of the state’s lands are under private ownership, Leibowitz said the trust’s approach is to acquire private land for wilderness preserves to ensure Vermont’s forests are protected regardless of the political climate around conservation on the state or federal level.

“In times like we’re in right now, I think many people find value and hope in private land conservation because it involves local organizations and local people making these decisions, and that’s one of the wonderful things about the land trust movement and working in the private domain,” Leibowitz said.

Mike DeBonis, the executive director of the Green Mountain Club, said the club is tracking the national messages but moving forward with trail maintenance projects for the Long Trail, which weaves through the Green Mountain National Forest, as hiking season is fast approaching. 

DeBonis said that the Green Mountain Club, along with other nonprofit partners, works with the U.S. Forest Service in a “unique partnership-based model” to help manage the public land and ensure people can enjoy the natural resources the Green Mountain National Forest has to offer. 

“It remains to be seen what exactly is going to be proposed for the Green Mountain National Forest, but I’m hopeful that that spirit of cooperation and collaboration would still exist,” DeBonis said.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misrendered the name of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermonters react to the Trump administration’s guidance for increased logging on national forests.

The city of Winooski had already removed about 30 trees from its Main Street corridor when it learned that the $1 million grant that would cover the trees’ replacement — with 130 new street trees — had been outright canceled by the federal government. 

The grant, from the U.S. Forest Service, was just one $1 million piece in the city’s broader $22 million Main Street Revitalization project, and it was meant to create a buffer between pedestrians and the road, generate more shade and offer stormwater filtration.

A built-in contingency fund for the revitalization project will now cover the costs of the tree work, but at a cost to the city and, ultimately, to city taxpayers, said Jon Rauscher, the city’s public works director. 

“What that means is that we’re gonna have to finance an additional million dollars that we weren’t expecting to finance,” he said, at an additional cost of about $40,000 each year. Rauscher said he is still looking to claim the full grant and is exploring other ways to recoup the funds through Congress or the Vermont Attorney General’s Office — but he’s not optimistic. 

Rauscher and the city of Winooski are not alone. In Vermont, the city of Newport and the state’s forestry programs have also been sent spiralling in the wake of President Donald Trump’s January executive order that paused the distribution of funds allocated by the Inflation Reduction Act, and with it all of the law’s grant programs to support forestry. 

Specifically, Winooski and communities across the country heard the same news: a massive $75 million grant, that these awards were part of, had been canceled. The Arbor Day Foundation received the initial funding and then coordinated the funds’ dispersal to sub-awardees like Winooski and Newport.

For the Vermont Division of Forests, part of the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, more than $10 million in grants has been put on hold.

“It’s such whiplash,” said Elise Schadler, manager of the state’s Urban and Community Forestry Program, who has been helping guide cities through the national grant process. “The metaphor I’ve been returning to is that it feels like for two decades I’ve been standing on a really solid stone floor, as the foundation of this program. It’s been pulverized and now I’m trying to stand on sand dunes.” 

Roots and shade

Winooski was one of three cities in the state that received grants for urban forestry development through the U.S. Forest Service, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Newport had only just begun the very first steps of planning its own street tree planting. The city’s downtown development group was awarded a $363,000 grant through the same Arbor Day Foundation program that was to fund the Winooski project. The Newport grant was expected to cover the costs of a consultant who could lead a treescape design for the downtown and nearby Gardener Park, and to begin to cover the initial costs of implementing that design. 

Though the award came in late 2023, Newport decided to put the urban tree project on hold until the plans were in place for the downtown redesign, so the landscape design would fit into that bigger planning process. 

“The only reason we hadn’t spent any of (the grant in 2024) is because we were trying to be responsible about how to spend it,” said Newport Mayor Rick Ufford-Chase, who also led the Newport City Downtown Development. 

By the end of 2024, city staff were ready to start sending out requests for proposals and begin work with landscape design consultants in the new year. But, by February, the city learned that those funds had been put on pause, then completely terminated.

“The blow is tremendous, and the impact will be felt for years,” Ufford-Chase said. “It’s huge, and the reason it’s so huge is because if we don’t plan for urban treescape, we are missing a major piece of climate mitigation for this community.”

The city will miss out on the cooling and shading effects that trees provide from extreme heat in the summer and the flood resilience their roots can offer, he said, at least for now. He intends for the city to find other pathways to reach its tree planting goals.

“We’ve got to get this group together, figure out what our options are, lick our wounds, and then take the next step, even if it’s scaled way back. There are things we have to keep working on here,” Ufford-Chase said. “We will somehow. We will figure this out.”.

In Rutland, though, the story is different — despite the fact that the city also received a $1 million urban forestry grant through the Inflation Reduction Act, it went directly to the city, instead of being routed through the Arbor Day Foundation. There, the funding is moving forward as normal. 

“It’s remarkable that we haven’t heard anything,” said Ted Gillen, an engineer for the city. The U.S. Department of Agriculture had not notified the city of any pause in funding, and only after VTDigger’s inquiry, did the city reach out to the department to confirm the funds were still available. 

“We’re sitting here wondering, ‘Are we going to lose ours too?’” Gillen said, adding that his “heart rate went up” when he heard Newport had lost its grant. “The potential of losing this grant would be heartbreaking for me.” 

For now, Rutland is moving ahead, albeit cautiously, to roll out the project expanding tree cover in the downtown and Mussey and Green Brook areas.

Three-legged stool

Individual cities are not the only ones facing a blow to budgets — the state Division of Forests also received a huge pot of funds through the Inflation Reduction Act. A total of $10,174,510 of federal grant money to the division have been placed on hold. 

Some of the money — about $1.7 million — has already been cleared for spending, according to department records. That includes support for wildfire prevention and urban forestry grants. On Friday, Schadler, who runs the state’s urban and community forestry program, learned that $750,000 awarded to the state’s Urban & Community Forestry Program to offer its own sub-awards for smaller projects similar to Winooski’s or Newport’s, had been reinstated. It means that a handful of community projects for tree planting or invasive species control can move forward. 

The rest still languish in a federal review process, which, per the executive order, is scheduled to end April 20.

One such paused program is a $5 million grant the state received to support foresters working with private landowners and loggers. The funding would pay for foresters to develop management plans that incorporate sustainable forest practices while also making funding available to loggers to cover the cost of implementing these practices. 

“Additional practices like managing land for wildlife habitat or timber stand improvement through thinning or protecting riparian zones to allow for more flood resiliency may not have a commercial benefit to (a landowner,)” said Oliver Pierson, the department’s director of forestry.

In Vermont, about 80% of forests are privately owned, which means “this is a really important program to help develop and get these practices implemented across the landscape,” Pierson said.

Though the funding came through the Inflation Reduction Act, which passed in 2022, the Division of Forests just received approval from the state of Vermont to launch the program at the end of 2024. “We were just getting going,” Pierson said.

The state relies on annual allocations from the U.S. Forest Service, which the state then matches in different ways. But those funds are supplemented by one-time programs. 

“It’s definitely a three legged stool with federal funds, state funds and special funds, and if one of those legs goes away. What happens? The stool tips over,” Pierson said.

This instability comes at a time when the future of forests is already uncertain: “It’s happening at a time when, arguably, the needs are increasing in all of those areas (where the grants are directed,)” Pierson said. 

Drought, like the one all of New England saw last fall, is increasing wildlife risk in the region, as are the number of pests, pathogens and invasive species in Vermont. The emerald ash borer, beech bark disease and the newer threat of beach leaf disease are all “dramatically” shifting forest composition and management needs, Pierson said.

Vermont’s forests have needed care for a long time, Pierson said. The state’s robust farm industry meant that almost all of the landscape was deforested in the 19th century. Today’s forests are relatively young, in terms of trees’ timelines — less than 1% of forests are over 150 years old. As agriculture contracted and trees returned to the landscape through the 20th century, they came back as relatively uniform stands, with limited species or age diversity. 

“Those forest types are much more vulnerable to different types of stressors that are out there,” Pierson said. 

Most foresters, nonprofits and logging groups in the state practice what is called “active forest management,” which works to re-introduce more variation in age, species type, and structure (things like stumps and dead trees left on the ground). With a broader range of tree types, the forest is less vulnerable to threats that target specific ages or species.

“There are these real challenges out there, and we are hopeful that the pause is just delaying us from addressing them. But I think we’ll look at it as a real lost opportunity should the federal review lead to those grant funds being revoked,” Pierson said. 

The whiplash in federal priorities, moving from one administration’s heightened attention on forest health to another’s disregard for it, is very much at odds with the pace and pattern of forest growth, he said. 

“Meanwhile the dynamics in the forest themselves aren’t changing. We still have invasive species and threats from climate change, and landowners who want to do the right thing, but they don’t have all the resources to do so,” Pierson said. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: State and municipal forestry projects in limbo after Trump administration freezes funding.

On Thursday evening, Caitlin Morgan, a food systems scientist, picked up a call from her boss at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service at the University of Vermont. He told her that everyone who was still within their probationary period should brace for an imminent termination letter.

Less than 24 hours later, Morgan’s arrived — effective immediately. 

“It’s been super chaotic and traumatizing for those of us who’ve been working in the government, but it hasn’t hit the general populace the same way yet,” Morgan said. “There’s going to be ripple effects from what’s happening to us, and there’s probably going to be iterations on that for other people.”

Morgan was part of a 17-member team of researchers and scientists dedicated to studying food systems and agricultural sustainability in the state. Their work included research on flood resilience and the transition of agricultural land following the decline of dairy farms.

According to multiple employees, at least nine employees have been fired so far, including six scientists, stripping the team of years of institutional knowledge focused on building a more sustainable agricultural future. Despite being terminated for “poor performance,” all employees had spent years training for the role and received “fully satisfactory” ratings in their quarterly reviews, Morgan said.

Neither the University of Vermont nor the U.S. Department of Agriculture responded to multiple requests from VTDigger for comment.

The recent move to fire probationary employees across the federal government is the latest of several actions President Donald Trump has taken since starting his second term that have roiled parts of Vermont’s workforce.

On Feb. 5, all probationary employees received an email from the USDA reminding them of their probationary status and urging them to accept a buyout offer, noting they could be let go at any time, Morgan said.

“The buyout offer was that if we chose to resign, we would be paid through September and that we could get another job,” said a former employee who asked for anonymity fearing potential retribution. 

The former employee said the buyout offer encouraged employees to move from the “low-productivity public sector” to the “high-productivity private sector”.

But leaving a “dream job” wasn’t so simple.

“I really believed in the research. We were doing such good work, and it’s devastating. It just doesn’t exist anymore,” the employee said.

Those who remain have been warned to expect more layoffs next week. According to Morgan, leadership has yet to provide termination paperwork, leaving those affected unable to file for unemployment.

Before receiving her termination notice, Morgan feared new federal policies eliminating remote work would threaten her job. As a federal scientist, her “telework eligible” status allowed her to work remotely most days, whether conducting research from home or in the field. She relied on this flexibility after having a baby six months ago.

Returning to the office full-time simply wasn’t an option for her. 

“My baby doesn’t bottle feed, and I wasn’t going to be able to be in-person full time,” she explained. “I could have worked 40 hours a week, but I wasn’t going to be able to do that at the office.”

Morgan said changes implemented by the Trump Administration have lacked effective resistance, at least so far.

“It’s really hard for my colleagues, and it’s hard for everyone in different ways and to different degrees,” Morgan said. “But it’s actually not the thing that scares me the most. The thing that scares me the most is living in a non functioning society.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Shockwaves at Vermont’s USDA research unit as half the team is laid off.

Just hours after Brooke Rollins was sworn in as secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Washington, D.C., Thursday, in Vermont, Richard Amore received a 7:30 p.m. email from his human resources office saying he was terminated effective immediately. Amore had served as the head of economic development for USDA’s Rural Development team for just four months.

“We’re a staff of about 30. We’ve lost 5 — all probationary employees,” Amore said, speaking about the Rural Development office, adding that some had been very recently hired. “It breaks my heart what happened yesterday. I’m committed to the rural communities and you’re taking away the resources, the funding,” he added. 

Amore’s team is not alone. Several thousand so-called probationary employees at USDA regional offices across the country also were suddenly laid off, including within the Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Forest Service. 

The recent move to fire probationary employees across the federal government is just the latest of several actions that President Donald Trump has taken since starting his second term that have roiled parts of Vermont’s workforce. Last week’s temporary freeze on federal funding has been resolved for some of those affected, while others continue to await payment. And the end to all activity by the U.S. Agency for International Development, also called USAID, has left local contractors and volunteers reeling. 

Probationary employees at federal agencies are generally those who have been employed for less than a year and do not have the same protections as longer-serving staff. There are about 220,000 probationary workers in the federal government, according to March 2024 U.S. Office of Personnel Management data, the latest available numbers. It is unclear how many are employed in Vermont. 

At one affected federal agency in northern New England, a current federal employee who saw colleagues leave was struggling with the impact Friday. VTDigger is not naming the employee due to fear that their employment would be impacted after speaking out.

“It’s just really, really tough. Really tough,” they said. People have been let go “for no other reason” than they were “hired recently,” they said. The agency has lost “really good talent.”

“I don’t see how they expect the programs to be serviced in the capacity that’s required,” they said.

But layoffs are not limited to USDA offices, other organizations are also facing cuts.

TetraTech has furloughed 61 employees of its 200-250 Tetra Tech/ARD team, a consulting and engineering firm focused on water, environmental sustainability, infrastructure, renewable energy and international development. This news was shared through internal communication from the president of the company to all employees, who all work either in the Burlington area, Washington, D.C., or remotely.

Jen Peterson, a food security specialist at the Burlington area office, was furloughed last week along with her husband, who also is employed by TetraTech. She is sure they’ll be laid off later. 

“They said they can only furlough people in our company for up to five weeks. We’re furloughed, I guess, six weeks. It’s through the end of March,” Peterson said. “I think eventually, by the end of March, we’ll be terminated, the 61, and then the rest of the people will also be furloughed. That would be my assumption.”

Peterson was working on food security programs and providing technical assistance and management support to projects that are helping rural communities in different parts of the world improve their agricultural production. 

One of the last countries she worked with was the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the top 10 countries most impacted by the USAID cuts, according to the Center for Global Development. 

To better understand who and what was being affected by the federal funding freeze, Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt, organized a roundtable discussion with Vermont businesses on Jan. 31. Many voiced their frustrations.

One of those who spoke up was Andy Barter, the chief operating officer of Little Rivers Health Care, a nonprofit and federally qualified health center with locations in Bradford, Newbury, East Corinth and Wells River.

At the roundtable, he recounted logging into the Health and Human Services payment management system to access a portion of his health center’s federal grant. However, a system disruption blocked access to the funds. By midday, the portal was completely offline, and even when it returned, payment processing remained stalled, Barter said. 

“That was the start of a really rough time to figure out what we were going to do,” Barter said in an interview Wednesday. As of this week, the center has regained access to the system. It is also awaiting a $1.5 million tax return — equivalent to a month’s operating costs.

But there are others who have seen no progress on getting the funds they are entitled to.

Jennifer Colby, the executive director of the Northeast Pasture Consortium based in Vermont, a nonprofit that connects farmers, researchers and policy makers to improve decision-making on farms, relies on USDA funding. 

The organization operates on a reimbursement-claim basis, meaning they must complete the work, spend the money, and then request repayment. She filed a $20,000 reimbursement claim through USDA’s web portal on Dec. 24, expecting a response by Jan. 24 — the maximum turnaround reimbursement time. When Colby tried to access the portal on Jan. 24, it was unavailable, and follow-ups with USDA officials — including the grant manager —  revealed they were still waiting for instructions on how to manage her request.

“I have not gotten any notice from him that it has been approved, and there’s no money,” Colby  said in an interview Wednesday. “The cash flow that I have will take me to the first week of March.”

The agriculture sector is not only being affected in Vermont, but internationally too. Vermonter and retired professor of agriculture, Jim Corven, is a volunteer for Farmer-to-Farmer, a USAID-funded program that connects skilled volunteers with farmers in developing countries to share expertise, improve agricultural practices and support sustainable farming.

Corven fears what might happen to the farmers he’s been assisting and others who were being helped by his fellow volunteer at Farmer-to-Farmer, Bill Zimmerman. 

“The stop-work executive order meant that I, while in Guinea, was told to immediately cease technical assistance upon notification, then to leave the country as soon as feasible,” Zimmerman said.

Zimmerman said the funding freeze and the USAID stop work order impact extends beyond farmers losing long-term support, noting that some countries have already seen deaths from lack of medical equipment.

On Tuesday, Welch sent a letter to Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, urging him to immediately reverse the funding freeze and restore access to payment portals. In the letter, Welch also highlighted several Vermont businesses affected by the freeze, which were discussed at his roundtable event.

“Vought is a hopeless ideologue so I’m not confident anything will change his mind. He’s on the mission of destruction, regrettably, but I think that we Vermonters and others have to speak out and to alert folks of how bad it is,” Welch said in an interview on Wednesday. 

He also emphasized the critical role of public outcry in reversing political decisions.

“This is where citizens play a big role, and Trump has reversed decisions where there’s been a public outcry and that’s really what needs to be mobilized,” Welch said.

Emma Cotton contributed reporting.

Clarification: This story has been updated to more accurately describe the international impact of USAID cuts.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Layoffs, furloughs and callbacks. Almost daily drops of new White House policies disrupt Vermont’s workforce..

Highly pathogenic avian flu was detected in a backyard flock of birds in Franklin County last week, state officials said Thursday.

On Dec. 19, officials from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets made a house call to a concerned animal owner whose two-dozen non-poultry birds had begun to die from an unknown illness. Two days later, while samples from the flock were being processed in a federal lab in Iowa, the agency culled the rest of the flock with the owner’s permission.

The owner and other individuals who had direct or indirect contact with the infected birds were being monitored by the Vermont Department of Health, according to the agency of ag. Officials did not identify the town in which the birds lived. 

Though New England has so far not seen any documented cases of H5N1 bird flu, as the virus is also called, over 60 people have been infected across the country since the outbreak began in March 2024, according to the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention. And while the virus officially remains a “low risk to human health,” according to the agency of ag, a growing chorus of health professionals continues to raise the alarm that a few quick mutations could change the picture drastically. So far, documented symptoms include conjunctivitis, fevers, body aches and nausea.

Last Wednesday, the CDC confirmed the “first severe case” of H5N1 in a human after a patient was hospitalized in Louisiana. And over the past 30 years, roughly half of some 900 people around the world diagnosed with bird flu have died. The Franklin County case marks the fourth documented instance of H5N1 in a domestic flock in Vermont since 2022. 

Avian flu has spread through just under 900 dairy herds across 16 states, according to the CDC, but agency of ag officials said Thursday that the case detected in Franklin County was not the same strain as what has hit dairy herds elsewhere. 

State and federal officials urged animal owners to stay vigilant. Suggestions include reporting sick and dead birds and cattle, and reviewing biosecurity measures to protect herds and flocks.

Correction: An earlier version of this story included a photo of a poultry bird. The Franklin County birds found to have highly pathogenic avian influenza were non-poultry. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Avian flu found in backyard flock of birds in Franklin County.

Last week, at the University of Vermont dairy farm in South Burlington, Jess Waterman climbed up to an opening in a large storage tank, inserted a long metal dipper, and pulled out a test tubes’ worth of raw milk. 

Gathered around Waterman — a dairy farm inspector with Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets — stood a handful of dairy farm inspectors, taking notes. They watched as Waterman transferred the milk into a vial to be sent to Cornell University, where scientists will test it for highly pathogenic avian influenza, also called HPAI, a form of avian influenza that is deadly to poultry. 

The dairy inspectors were learning the sampling process, which they plan to soon conduct on about 425 dairy farms across Vermont each month. It’s part of an effort to keep Vermont’s farms free of the virus, and allow farmers to take quick action if it’s identified in their milk supply. 

Vermont’s testing regimen follows an early December announcement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture that it would begin testing the country’s milk supply for the avian flu, which has circulated globally since 2022. Last spring, highly pathogenic avian flu began to spread among dairy cows. 

“This is the first time that we’re aware of in the history of the world that HPAI jumped to dairy cattle,” said E.B. Flory, dairy section chief at the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets.

Since the spring, the avian flu has spread to hundreds of dairy herds in at least 16 states. At least 60 people — mostly farmworkers — have caught the virus, according to the NYTimes. 

No Vermont dairy herds have tested positive for the virus. The closest states with dairy herds that have tested positive for the virus are North Carolina and Ohio, and those cases were not recent, Flory said. 

For officials with Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, the federal plan to take test samples from silos at regional processing facilities that contain milk from multiple states didn’t seem to make sense for Vermont. If testing yielded a positive result, they wouldn’t know which state the infected milk came from, or which farm.

“For us in Vermont, we export over 80% of our milk, and we were concerned that our milk will end up in other states, mixed with other states’ milk. And, what do we do when our milk is mixed with 12 or 15 other states, and there’s a positive?” Flory said. 

Without on-farm testing, officials would have had to scramble to trace the positive test result back to its origins in Vermont so they could deploy procedures to quarantine the herd. The process of locating the farm could be disruptive to the dairy community and potentially mean infected cows aren’t being appropriately handled as quickly as they could be, Flory said. 

Instead, Vermont is taking “a step above” the USDA’s minimum requirements by sampling at the farm level, she said. It’s one of only three states to conduct on-farm testing, and is home to many more farms than the other two states moving forward with the more time-intensive process. 

Vermont’s program is set to be funded entirely by the USDA, giving the state resources to carry out the wide-scale testing, according to Agency of Agriculture spokesperson Scott Waterman.

While the pasteurizing process typically kills pathogens, officials want to reduce the risk of spread as much as possible. 

“What we do not want to happen in Vermont, and what the federal government doesn’t want to happen, is that this virus continues to spread, and that it mutates and becomes something that humans can contract and then spread to each other,” Flory said. 

If milk were to test positive for avian influenza through the state’s sampling process, the agency would work with farmers to restrict moving animals, vehicles and people in ways that might cause the virus to spread “while still maintaining normal business functions for the farm and normal animal health functions,” said Emily Buskey, the state veterinarian. 

“Milk would still ship to market,” she said. “It would still be pasteurized and be perfectly safe for consumption.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermont gears up to test hundreds of dairy farms for avian flu each month.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is investing in two Vermont cooperatives, awarding an $11.2 million loan to Washington Electric Cooperative and a $2 million grant to Windy Hollow Mobile Home Cooperative Inc.

Washington Electric, a nonprofit electric cooperative headquartered in East Montpelier, serves almost 12,000 households in 41 rural towns in central Vermont. The company will use the loan to build and improve 26 miles of electrical line and they estimate to connect an additional 341 households. 

“We have among the lowest densities per mile of line anywhere in the northeast, certainly the most rural, about nine members per mile of power,” said Louis Porter, general manager of Washington Electric Cooperative.

According to Porter, Washington Electric was established around 80 years ago after commercial private utilities chose not to serve the area, citing the challenging landscape and difficulty making a profit.

“Rural Utility Service loans have been incredibly successful in getting electrical service to parts of the country that would not have been served without the creation of the cooperatives,” said Porter.

The loan is part of $5.7 billion in funding through USDA’s Electric Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program to help utility providers and electric cooperatives improve their electric infrastructure, according to a press release on Tuesday from USDA.

Two years ago on Dec. 23, Winter Storm Elliot left more than 75,000 homes and businesses without power across the state, with hundreds of Washington Electric customers waiting for five days for their power to be restored.

“I think we’ve had three or four FEMA-level events in the last three years,” Porter said, adding that several other major storms didn’t qualify for FEMA reimbursement. With two to three major storms annually, sometimes more, Porter said it’s difficult to maintain reliable service in a rural area.

Porter also highlighted the challenge of maintaining infrastructure in sparsely populated rural areas, where electrical costs must be covered by a relatively small number of users.

“Our territory is over 95% residential,” he said, noting the lack of large commercial and industrial users that typically help lower rates and support utility systems. 

With only nine households per mile of power lines, the utility relies on 13 crew members to maintain 1,300 miles of lines. “Each member of our line crew is responsible for 100 miles of power lines,” he added. “You can imagine that’s a challenge.”

Washington Electric’s loan includes $1.2 million for smart grid technologies. According to Porter, the money will allow the utility to install new residential electric meters that will give the utility better information about real-time power usage. The current meters provide only a limited amount of data, he said. 

“The new meters will allow us to get faster and better information about what is going on at the meter, and will help us improve our responses to outages,” Porter said. For example, he said, the cooperative could potentially offer dynamic pricing options like time-of-use rates based on real-time energy costs, especially during times of off-peak usage when electricity is cheaper for the utility to purchase.

Meanwhile, Windy Hollow Mobile Home Cooperative Inc., a resident-owned community in Castleton, received a $2 million grant for water system upgrades. The cooperative, which serves 44 residential connections, will use the funding to modernize its water storage, treatment, pressurization and distribution systems. 

Clarification: An earlier version of this story was unclear about the date of Winter Storm Elliot.

Read the story on VTDigger here: USDA invests $13.4 million to strengthen rural infrastructure in Vermont.

This story by Liberty Darr was first published in The Other Paper on Dec. 5

Getting down to the nitty-gritty is about getting down to the root of it all and for the Nitty Gritty Grain Co. team, that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for the last 16 years: growing grain.

Grains are arguably the basis for it all — from flour to cornmeal — and without them, it’s likely the things we love to eat most would not — or could not — exist at all.

Golden strands tossing freely against a Green Mountain backdrop fill the expansive farm property on Lake Road in Charlotte. For the Kenyon family, the dancing wheat signifies home. But for Vermont, it signifies something much greater: the resurgence of a local grain industry.

The Kenyons have been farming for centuries in the Champlain Valley. The family started farming in the Shelburne area in the 1770s, and some harrowing lore has it an ancestor was even killed over some type of grain crop debacle.

Growing grain is literally in their blood.

Tom Kenyon, the brain — and grit — behind Nitty Gritty Grain Co. is the seventh generation of these farmers. His certified organic farm, Aurora Farm, had been growing grains and selling the yield to the commodity market since the 1980s. But as time passed, a question lingered: Why is it customary to ask where our meat and vegetables are grown, but not ask the same of grain? In fact, at the time, it was nearly impossible to buy Vermont-grown flour in the grocery store.

That question posed by a neighbor planted the seed for what would later be known as Nitty Gritty Grain Co., which launched in 2008 with the help of a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant.

“Essentially, it was a way to bring the local identity back to the grain,” David Kenyon, eighth generation on the farm and son of Tom, said. “Because previously, we were just selling it to the commodity market where it gets lost in a massive stream of identity-less grain.”

The company has since grown to include its products on local grocery store shelves — including Healthy Living in South Burlington, City Market in Burlington and Shelburne Grocery — and in bakeries and restaurants across the state.

While Nitty Gritty Grain Co. is one of several grain producers scattered across the state, according to a 2015 University of Vermont article, in the 1880s Vermont was dubbed the “breadbasket of New England” because of its high wheat production. However, by the turn of the century, and as colonial America expanded west, the crop largely disappeared from the Northeast and with it the knowledge and infrastructure needed to produce these crops.

“Historically, this was kind of like the breadbasket,” David Kenyon said. “But in more contemporary times, there’s not a lot of people that grow grain in Vermont. There are a lot more large dairy farms that are growing soybeans and corn for feed now.”

Part of the problem, he said, is that the climate and soil found in the state are simply not conducive to growing grains, especially with catastrophic floods that climate experts predict will only intensify in coming years. And for growing grain, wet conditions can be far worse than dry.

Kenyon explained that the soil found in the areas surrounding the farm is wide-ranging, from beautiful soil to the “heaviest clay you’ve ever seen.”

“The last two years have just been awful,” he said. “That’s probably our biggest challenge, the amount of rain we’ve had in the last few years.”

While Charlotte was hammered with more than five inches of rain during July, the farm itself didn’t experience much irreversible harm, but one variety of wheat they were growing at the time failed to pass the quality test for human consumption because it got too wet.

In addition to growing hay, corn and different legumes, the farm typically grows three types of winter wheat, which is planted in the middle of September and harvested in early July.

“It comes up in the fall, usually from two to eight inches, which would be the tallest,” Kenyon said. “It goes dormant for the winter, and then it wakes up in the spring and shoots up in height throughout April, May and June. It’ll start to turn more of that golden brown, yellow color. And then usually the first or second week of July, we combine it.”

The entire effort is a family affair. Tom Kenyon, nearing 70, still spends long days on the farm but now with the help of his son. Catherine Kenyon, Tom’s sister and self-proclaimed “Cornmeal Queen,” also helps with things like ordering and packing.

While Nitty Gritty Grain Co. hit the ground running in the renaissance of grain production in the state, it wasn’t without a lot of help from family, friends and a state that still intrinsically values locally produced foods.

“I think we are super lucky to be in Vermont because the consumer here actually appreciates and is willing to pay a premium for a local grain,” Kenyon said. “So, in that regard, I think that Nitty Gritty probably wouldn’t really work as a model in a lot of other places in the country.”

For Kenyon, this was the entire reason he came back to the farm five years ago after working in architecture after school.

“That’s the biggest thing for me is being able to grow local, healthy, organically sourced grain in Vermont,” he said.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Nitty Gritty finds its niche in locally grown food market.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has approved Gov. Phil Scott’s request for a Secretarial Disaster Designation for six Vermont counties that were impacted by flooding this July, the governor’s office announced Thursday.

The designation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture allows farmers in Caledonia, Essex, Orange, Chittenden, Lamoille and Washington counties to apply for emergency loans from the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, according to a Thursday press release from the governor’s office. 

Due to their proximity to those counties granted the primary disaster designation, farmers in five other Vermont counties — Addison, Franklin, Grand Isle, Windsor and Orleans — are also eligible for the loans, according to the release, as are farmers in New York’s Clinton and Essex counties and New Hampshire’s Coos and Grafton counties. 

Farmers impacted by the flooding in those areas will have eight months to apply for the loans. 

The declaration also enables non-industrial forest property owners in eligible counties to apply for financial support through the Farm Service Agency’s Forest Restoration program, which provides financial assistance for property owners for the restoration of forest lands damaged by natural disaster. 

“Alongside many of their neighbors, our farmers have been greatly impacted by the floods this summer, threatening their livelihoods and our food system,” Scott said in the release. “I’m grateful to Secretary Vilsack for this disaster declaration, on the heels of the 2023 declaration, which will help farmers recover and provide some additional support through the many challenges they’ve faced.”

Eligible Vermont farmers who are interested in USDA’s emergency loans are encouraged to contact their local USDA service center or to visit www.farmers.gov/recover. 

Those interested in the Farm Service Agency’s Forest Restoration program are encouraged to visit www.fpr.vermont.gov/forest-flood-resources. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: USDA secretary approves disaster declaration for 6 Vermont counties.

There have been no positive test results for avian flu in Vermont cows, State Veterinarian Kristin Haas assured members of the House Agriculture committee Thursday morning.

The good news seemed slightly tempered by the admission, immediately following, that the state had not actually tested for it in any animals yet. 

H5N1, or highly pathogenic avian influenza, is a virus deadly to domestic poultry that can wipe out entire flocks in just days. In late March, the federal government began investigating its spread in dairy cows. So far, nine states have confirmed outbreaks in cattle herds, the closest ones to Vermont being Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina. 

That no Vermont cows had been tested for the avian flu really was a good thing, Haas said, because it meant that there had been no reports of sick animals. She commended the state’s veterinarians, farmers, livestock dealers, and auction markets for their engagement. 

“We have an industry that is working very, very hard to be compliant and to do the right thing,” she said. 

H5N1’s major impact to Vermont’s dairy industry has so far come in the form of a USDA federal order effective this past Monday — with no expiration date — that imposes restrictions on moving lactating dairy cattle across state lines. Many farmers in the state send their cows to slaughterhouses in Pennsylvania.

The order does allow individual states with no known cases of avian flu to decide on appropriate, efficient movement of cattle between one other. Haas said that the New England region met this morning to do just that, and alleviate “the biggest pinch points for us here in Vermont.” 

For a brief moment the conversation veered into more feline territory when Rep. John O’Brien, D-Tunbridge, appeared to ask whether bobcats would also be subject to the federal order. 

After a flutter of general confusion, he clarified that he had said “bobby calves,” a term for the male calves born to the milking herd, who are generally shipped off to the abattoir. Haas said that since bobby calves are not lactating animals they get a pass from the feds. 

There is one confirmed case of cattle infecting a human with H5N1 — a Texas dairy worker who milked sick cows — but Haas said there was little reason for Vermonters to worry about contagion. 

“There is nothing about this virus that has changed either the risk profile for any of our food products or has changed the potential human health impact…which has been considered to be low,” she said.

— Juan Vega De Soto

In the know

Sales of “Vermont Strong” license plates and socks brought in nearly $1 million as of late April, according to a new report released this week.

In total, Vermonters bought 30,069 license plates and 2,986 pairs of socks. The program also received nearly $128,000 in cash donations. 

The limited edition license plates and Darn Tough footwear were released August 2023 to raise money for recovery from last summer’s devastating floods. Both a pair of socks and a license plate were available for purchase for $35 each. (Socks could only be purchased as part of a bundle with a license plate.) 

The proceeds were split between the Vermont Community Foundation and the state’s emergency grant program for businesses impacted by flooding. Each received nearly $465,000. In all, the plates and socks cost roughly $180,000 to make. 

The socks and license plates were at the center of a brief spat between the Gov. Phil Scott administration and legislative leaders, who accused the governor of overstepping his statutory authority by releasing them without legislative approval. (Scott’s administration said it did not agree with that legal analysis.)

— Peter D’Auria

On the move

The House on Wednesday approved changes that the Senate made to H.649, a bill that would adjust how the Vermont Truth and Reconciliation Commission is able to operate.

Senators deleted what was probably the most controversial section of the bill that passed out of the House earlier this year: a carve-out to Vermont’s Open Meeting Law that would have allowed the commission to close its meetings to public participation in the event of a safety threat. 

The Senate nixed that measure assuming that another bill up for consideration this year — S.55 — would fill the gap, Damien Leonard, an attorney in the Office of Legislative Counsel, told House lawmakers yesterday. That’s because S.55 would allow many public bodies, like the truth and reconciliation panel, to hold online-only meetings in the event of a “local incident.” 

That includes, as per the latest draft of S.55, threats to meeting participants’ safety. Members of the commission told lawmakers on the House Government Operations Committee earlier this year that they’ve received multiple death threats since starting their work in fall 2023.

The Senate also added additional requirements to H.649 for the final report that commissioners have to issue on their findings by April 2027. That includes “a bibliography of all sources, interviews, and materials utilized in preparing the report,” the text of the legislation reads.

Leonard said this measure stemmed, in part, from concerns raised in committee testimony over the likely intersection of the commission’s work with an ongoing dispute over the identities of many members of the four groups that have been recognized as Abenaki by the state.

“One of the things that came up was, it’s hard to judge the work if you don’t know the sources,” Leonard told the government operations panel.

The bill is now set to head to Gov. Scott’s desk for his consideration.

— Shaun Robinson

On Thursday, the House granted preliminary approval to its version of S.309, this year’s miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. The bill would, among other things, update vehicle inspection guidance on brake rust as well as bar drivers from attaching blue lights (think cop car) to their vehicles in most cases. It would also update the state’s guidance on car seat usage. 

If the bill gets final approval this week, it would then head back to the Senate to consider the House’s changes, which include measures aimed at improving pedestrian safety.

— Shaun Robinson

Visit our 2024 Bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following. 

On the campaign trail

Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman wants to hold onto his gig.

The Hinesburg Progressive/Democrat announced his bid for reelection to the state’s second-highest executive office in a press release Thursday morning, writing that he is “not done fighting for Vermonters.”

Read more here. 

— Sarah Mearhoff

What we’re reading

Eyeing consumer prices, fuel dealers push for timeline on clean heat standard, VTDigger

Vermont changes the way it reports Covid-19 data in response to CDC rules, VTDigger

‘We’re leaving’: Winooski’s bargain real estate attracted a diverse group of residents for years. Now they’re being squeezed out, Seven Days

Correction: An earlier version of this story omitted the byline for Juan Vega De Soto.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Final Reading: Amid avian flu outbreak in herds elsewhere, Vermont tries to protect its dairy farms .

As head of the Center for an Agricultural Economy in the Northeast Kingdom, Sarah Waring was surprised by the number of rules the federal government had for a grant to build a simple wooden pavilion in a park in Hardwick. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture told staff, “‘oh, but you actually need to separate the design from the build. And you actually need to have three procurements that are fair,’” and other rules to protect taxpayers dollars, Waring said. 

Waring is now the state director of the USDA’s Rural Development office, which announced a new pilot program on Wednesday designed to help Vermont communities clear hurdles to get federal funds.  

The $1 million program is geared toward helping municipalities access disaster relief aid that would otherwise be left on the table due to the lack of expertise, staff time or local government systems, Waring said. 

About half of Vermont municipalities have no career professionals in their administration and instead rely on volunteers and part-timers, said Ted Brady, executive director of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns.

Brady said his organization fielded hundreds of phone calls from municipal workers in the wake of the July 2023 flooding. Many were concerned about how to make sure they qualified for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Public Assistance funding. 

“These are questions like, ‘what contracting rules do I need to follow when I hire the person to grade the road or get that dump truck?’” Brady said. 

More than $37 million has been distributed so far in Public Assistance grants for the July 2023 floods, according to FEMA’s website. It’s unclear how many municipalities or projects are still waiting for approval.  

The new grant, administered through the League of Cities and Towns, would allow VLCT to hire a full-time specialist to train local officials in finance and governance. Brady’s also hoping to find more experienced clerks or account managers who can “go on the road” to share their wisdom. 

Waring thanked Vermont officials for their advocacy for the project, particularly the office of Gov. Phil Scott and Chief Recovery Officer Doug Farnham. Brady added that Sen. Peter Welch and Rep. Becca Balint helped push the program to the top. 

Waring noted with pride that the Hardwick pavilion survived the flooding intact. “I’m glad we followed all the engineering and architectural reviews that we had to go through,” she said. “It’s really sturdy, it’s built like a Viking beer hall.”

— Erin Petenko

On the move

After a key vote Thursday, Vermont’s state budget is on its way to the final stages of negotiation.

The Senate voted 26-2 for an $8.6 billion budget, which would take effect at the start of the fiscal year beginning in July. Having passed its own version of the budget last month, the House can now sign off on the Senate’s rewrite or — far more likely — call for a conference committee to hash out the differences.

For the most part, there is little daylight between the Senate and House versions of the budget. Their topline numbers differ by a mere $2.2 million, though the Senate Appropriations Committee did find some wiggle room in its rewrite.

Read more here. 

— Sarah Mearhoff

The capacity of Vermont’s motel shelter program for unhoused people could shrink by a third for much of the coming fiscal year, which begins on July 1.

The Senate’s version of its state budget would place a cap on the number of motel and hotel rooms the state would pay for moving forward. A 1,000-room cap would go into effect Sept. 15, and stay in place during the warmer months; during the winter, when the program opens up to anyone experiencing homelessness, the cap would rise to 1,300 rooms. 

No such cap exists for the program now, which currently shelters about 1,500 households, though that figure fluctuates somewhat throughout the year. By definition, everyone currently sheltered through the program meets vulnerability criteria set by the Legislature. The group includes families with children, people with disabilities, and elderly people.

Read more here.

— Carly Berlin

The Senate on Thursday voted to approve H.706, a bill that would ban corn, soy and other seeds treated with the pesticide neonicotinoids, which have been shown to negatively impact pollinators. 

The Senate pushed back the effective date of the ban to Jan. 1, 2031, while the House bill had banned the seeds starting in 2029. The bill also bans other uses of neonicotinoids, starting in 2025. Farmers could obtain exemptions for both bans from the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. 

— Emma Cotton

Two bills that would make it simpler for non-citizens to access state programs have advanced in both chambers. A House bill, H.606, that would allow professionals to submit alternate documentation to a Social Security number when applying for state licensing, has received preliminary approval in the Senate after passing the House. A Senate bill, S.191, which would allow refugees, asylum seekers and other Vermonters who aren’t U.S. citizens to access certain education and job training grants offered by the Vermont Student Assistance Corp, has passed by the House.

Meanwhile, Gov. Scott announced Wednesday that he signed four bill into law.

• H.363, which prohibits discrimination based on certain hair types and styles
• H.603, which allows farmers to sell chicken parts directly to consumers and restaurants.
• H.621, which requires broader health insurance coverage for diagnostic breast imaging
• H.741, which requires broader health insurance coverage for colorectal cancer screening

— VTD Editors

Visit our 2024 Bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following. 

On the campaign trail

Mike Pieciak will run for a second term as state treasurer, his campaign announced on Thursday. 

The 40-year old Winooski Democrat — who is widely seen as a contender for higher office — has raked in more campaign contributions than any other statewide incumbent, according to his last campaign filing in mid-March. 

“I’m focused on the major challenges facing Vermont: housing, climate resilience, and economic opportunity. I’m seeking another term to continue my work on these issues,” Pieciak wrote in an email response to questions. 

Read more here.

— Juan Vega de Soto

Rep. Pat Brennan, R-Colchester, is running for former Democratic Sen. Dick Mazza’s seat representing Grand Isle County — and a sliver of Chittenden — in the upper chamber. The 11-term representative announced his plans in an email to several news outlets Thursday.

Brennan is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee; he previously chaired the House Transportation Committee, serving at the same time Mazza was the chair of Senate Transportation. (Mazza resigned from the seat earlier this month due to health challenges.) 

“With Sen. Mazza’s departure, Grand Isle County will need strong, common-sense leadership, and the respect of one’s peers in Montpelier as well as at home in the district,” Brennan told The Islander newspaper this week.

— Shaun Robinson

What we’re reading

Lawsuit accuses Norwich University, former president of creating hostile environment, sex-based discrimination, VTDigger

Bald eagles are back, but great blue herons paid the price, Community News Service

The incentive problem keeping landlords from tackling climate change action, Vermont Public

Read the story on VTDigger here: Final Reading: New USDA program aims to help towns access federal disaster relief.

As an environmental lawyer, I’m often the killjoy at the party telling people to stop using product X because it causes water pollution or stop feeding Y to their kids because it’s full of heavy metals. I’ve also been mockingly labeled the “PFAS police” in my family as I work to eliminate products in our household containing this toxic forever chemical.

My latest campaign is for the bees. Scientists are finding neonicotinoids — synthetic, neurotoxic pesticides that kill pollinators like bees at alarmingly low doses — everywhere: in most pregnant women, in white-tailed deer, in farmland with no history of neonicotinoid use, in water and in pollen collected by honeybees.

Neonicotinoids contribute to widespread pollinator declines that threaten our entire food system. More than 30% of Vermont’s native bee species are “critically imperiled or imperiled,” and beekeepers often report losing more than half their colonies over winter.

Farmers rely on pollinators to deliver food to Vermonters and beyond. Crops like tomatoes, pumpkins, apples and blueberries are just a few local staples that depend on pollination services that the USDA values in the billions of dollars. Without pollinators, our food system would falter. And many of our farmers and beekeepers would be unable to earn a living.

These toxic pesticides mostly come from colorful coatings applied to seeds sold to farmers. Neonicotinoid-treated corn and soybean seeds dominate Vermont’s working landscape. Yet, study after study shows that farmers who buy these seeds see little or no benefit.

Worse, neonicotinoids cost farmers more than money. More than 90% of the neonicotinoids applied to seeds enter surrounding waters, soils, plants, and air. Once there, the pesticides kill beneficial insects, like pollinators. Predator insects that feast on pests also suffer. The result is counterintuitive: seed treatments designed to curb pests can make pest problems worse.

In response to these findings, agribusiness is peddling misinformation, just like Big Tobacco before it. So much so that the European Academies Science Advisory Council describes “industry campaigns to maintain markets for pesticides through extensive lobbying, marketing and manipulation” as a major barrier to stemming unnecessary pesticide use.

Agribusiness knows that these seeds damage the environment and do little for farmers who already struggle to make ends meet. But agribusiness also knows that bad products are profitable if they continue to sell.

Some jurisdictions have seen through this charade. The European Commission banned the outdoor use of major neonicotinoids after finding that their use “could no longer be considered safe due to the identified risk to bees.” Quebec requires farmers who want to use neonicotinoid-treated seeds to get a prescription from an agronomist before they do. (Most farmers haven’t needed to). Ontario requires farmers to complete integrated pest management training, which emphasizes using pesticides as a last resort. And New York state just passed legislation that curbs most neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

As expected, seed company warnings of failed harvests and disrupted seed markets have proved false. For example, Quebec’s farmers have not experienced any crop losses related to the province’s restrictions. Moreover, the same companies that claimed they’d have trouble transitioning their seed catalogs away from neonicotinoids quickly pivoted and now offer farmers alternatives.

Last legislative session, the General Assembly directed the Agency of Agriculture to work with the state’s Agriculture Innovations Board to develop best management practices for farmers using neonicotinoid-treated seeds. But the Board recommended research and education instead, and the Agency misleadingly claimed that Vermont’s beekeeping industry is thriving, until beekeepers corrected them.

Now, Vermont’s legislators can solve this problem by supporting the Pollinator Protection Bill (H. 706). It prohibits the use of most neonicotinoid-treated seeds and begins a smooth transition to alternatives. An emergency exemption allows Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources and Agency of Agriculture to lift the prohibition if the seed industry fails to provide farmers with a sufficient supply of alternatives or if enforcing the ban would cause farmers financial hardship. Not only that, but the bill gives farmers, service providers, and seed companies several years to prepare for the prohibition to take effect.

Neonicotinoid-treated seeds provide little benefit and threaten our pollinators. Now is the time for legislators to protect Vermont’s farms and food system by supporting H.706.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Elena Mihaly: It’s time for Vermont to protect its pollinators, farmers and food system.

Yesterday morning, a mysterious text flashed across my work cell from House Speaker Chief of Staff Conor Kennedy. He was requesting my assistance for a “special mission.” We could only speak of it IRL. I was, naturally, intrigued.

Come 1 p.m., we linked up in the cafeteria, but there were too many prying eyes and eavesdropping ears. He whisked me away to an abandoned committee room and shut the door behind us. What the actual hell was going on?

He turned to me all excitement and conspiracy: Molly Moore, Kennedy’s coworker in the Speaker’s Office, would be proposed to by her boyfriend of eight years, Senate Finance Committee Assistant Zane Buckminster, that very evening on the Statehouse steps. Kennedy and House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, wanted my help in pulling off the surprise. I believe I let out a squeal. (I love love, okay? And a plot! Sue me!)

Here was the plan: Moore needed to be lured out onto the steps at 5 p.m. sharp. An astute, hard-to-fool woman, she needed a good reason to be out there just then. The scheme was that I’d pretend I was interviewing Krowinski for this very newsletter. Something something “We’re trying something new, adding video content.” Moore’s presence would be required at the media avail on the steps.

“Operation is still in motion,” Kennedy texted me at 4:41 p.m. I assumed my position. Buckminster didn’t actually know who I was. Minutes before, he sweetly asked if I’d mind moving, as he was going to propose right on these very steps imminently. “No no! I’m the reporter! I’m in on it! I’m the decoy!” I replied. I’m not quite sure I soothed his nerves.

Just after 5, Krowinski emerged from the Statehouse with Moore. I waved, trying to play it cool. “Does here work?” Krowinski asked me, pointing to a spot on the steps convincingly. “Perfect,” I said, pulling out my phone to take a video.

That’s when Buckminster emerged from behind the Christmas tree, still aglow on the Statehouse lawn. “I have no idea what’s going on right now,” Moore said. Krowinski and I scurried out of the way. Buckminster popped the question, and Moore said yes.

So how many Statehouse rats does it take to pull off a surprise proposal? As it turns out: one House Speaker, one plotting staffer, one decoy reporter and a happy couple. Cheers!

— Sarah Mearhoff

In the know

From the school districts most advantaged by the latest changes to education finance to those on the opposite end of the spectrum, everyone, it seems, is having a uniquely difficult budget season.

In what Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro, chair of the House Ways & Means Committee called “deep listening,” lawmakers took rapid-fire five minute testimony from about two dozen school and state education officials Thursday. 

Ryan Heraty, superintendent of Lamoille South Supervisory Union, did not hide his disdain for the latest changes resulting from Act 127, which sought to change the education spending formula to direct more resources to schools with higher-need students, calling the law “one of the most detrimental and dangerous pieces of legislation in recent history.”

Read more here.

— Ethan Weinstein

Lawmakers on the House ag committee had a question for officials on Thursday: Why hadn’t they opted in to a national program that would give income-eligible families with children more financial assistance for food this summer? The program would add to existing SNAP benefits.

“It was my recommendation that Vermont was not ready or able to participate in summer 2024 based on complexities of the law,” which was finalized in late 2023, said Rosie Krueger, state director of child nutrition programs at the Agency of Education. The state is planning to participate next year, she said. 

The United States Department of Agriculture initially only gave three days to make a decision about participating, Krueger said. The state does not currently have a system that can quickly verify which families meet the program’s eligibility criteria, which are different from those of a similar pandemic-era program. Krueger said that’s why the state could not commit to the program by the Jan. 1 deadline. 

“We don’t want to be in the position of telling families to expect this benefit this summer, and then not be able to give it to them,” she said. “That would be far worse than telling them upfront that we’re not able to give it to them.”

Recently, the USDA relaxed the deadline for states to opt in, and Krueger has traveled to Washington, D.C., to advocate for changes in the program and to determine whether Vermont could participate after all, she said. The program would offer around $120 more per child to each income-eligible family to be used during the summer months.

— Emma Cotton

On the move

Just as Final Reading went into production, House lawmakers gave preliminary approval to H.839, which makes mid-year changes to the state’s fiscal year 2024 budget, with a roll call vote of 112-24. The bill includes additional funding to extend the pandemic emergency shelter program and to provide assistance for municipalities affected by last year’s flooding. 

Read more here.

— VTD Editors

Visit our 2024 Bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following. 

What we’re reading

EMS personnel plead with Vermont lawmakers to address system ‘in crisis, Vermont Public

Talk of the towns: neighbors seek plumbers, lost pets and community on Front Porch Forum, Seven Days

Read the story on VTDigger here: Final Reading: Operation engagement.

Despite Vermont’s reputation as a climate haven, the climate crisis is here. Increasingly erratic and extreme weather, including large storms, droughts, and flooding events like those we’ve seen over the last month, are affecting the viability of farms and our food security. 

According to the 2021 Vermont Climate Assessment, Vermont’s precipitation has increased a whopping 21% since 1900. This recent flooding and relentlessly wet season is not an unprecedented or unique event. At the same time, we need to prepare for an influx of people moving for a more habitable climate, since other areas of the country are experiencing even greater impacts. 

According to a recent ProPublica study, six out of 10 of the best zip codes to live in during this time of climate change are in Vermont. How we respond to July’s flood, its fallout, and rebuild efforts, while simultaneously preparing for a growing population, will serve as the foundation for our resilience plan for the future.

It’s time to pull on every lever we can to reduce the harm from climate change’s worst effects, while also working beyond mitigation for a truly transformative, holistic vision of a thriving future. In order to (re)build well, we need a collective sense of what might be possible to  keep our growing communities supported and our land healthy. 

In my vision of a thriving future, despite strange weather conditions, all Vermonters are fed and nourished. Take a minute to imagine with me: We support organic farmers who invest time and resources in growing healthy, living soil that in turn helps to slow, spread and absorb water like a sponge. 

Healthy soil means that, even after a storm, runoff is less abundant and less dirty. Our water remains clean and drinkable. Farmers have enough economic leeway to make the best possible choices of how to tend the land, in ways that provide benefits to us all by sequestering carbon, ensuring clean water, and enhancing biodiversity, all while providing healthy foods for our communities and removing harmful chemicals from the water system. 

When storms do occur, we practice collaboration and resource-sharing so well that farms remain viable through turbulence. Farmers and farmworkers make enough money to send their children to high-quality child care and don’t worry about unexpected medical needs throwing them into deep debt. Young people see farming as a viable career choice, and want to stay in-state to do it. All Vermont kids eat organic and local food in their schools and are nourished and thriving, regardless of economic status. 

Lake Champlain and other waterways in Vermont have fewer and fewer algal blooms, and we no longer are limited on when we can swim safely. 

Eco- and agri-tourism thrives. Our sense of connection, both to each other and our place, is stronger than ever. The identity of Vermont as a beacon of natural beauty continues to shine. 

The seeds of this vision are already planted, and in how we rebuild from flooding, we will choose what to tend. Ensuring that small, diversified and organic farms remain viable and are centered in the climate conversation is an imperative step toward realizing this thriving future. 

Unfortunately, current policy and funding structures are leaving the exact farmers we need far from supported in the rebuild. Farmers are treated differently from all other businesses and excluded from FEMA relief, and USDA programs are primarily designed for mega-scale farms (and more: have yet to kick in). 

Vermont’s own climate goals are woefully quiet on how farming can be a viable solution to climate change. We can, and must, do better.

In a time when all ecosystems are under unprecedented threats, small-scale organic farming allows us to feed ourselves in a way that nurtures and regenerates the land. A strong, locally rooted farm economy helps us build human resilience in unpredictable times, centering relationships and community rather than corporate profits that suck resources out of our state. 

Buying from local foodsheds doesn’t just mean that we burn less diesel getting food to our plates. It means that we are part of the same community as those who grow our food, and we are tending the networks of mutual care and support that we can turn to in times of disaster. 

On a federal level, policies must shift from supporting corporate agri-businesses that consolidate money and power at the expense of people and our planet to policies that incentivize good land stewardship, climate mitigation strategies, and community resilience.

Despite the challenges of this last month, I see many signs of hope and promise, north stars to chart toward. We have had literally thousands of individuals give generously to NOFA-VT’s Farmer Emergency Fund following July’s historic flooding — money that we turn 100% of right back around to support the farmers our future needs. 

We’ve had overwhelming volunteer offers to help with cleanup efforts. Elderly community members have been regularly baking cookies for the farmworkers cleaning up in my neck of the woods. We are building our muscles of connection and mutuality in thousands of small interactions of care across the state. Let’s keep it up. 

These short-term mitigation strategies are absolutely crucial to ensuring that farms can weather literal storms. But after donating, volunteering, and continuing to shop local (if our situation allows), what can we do together to move toward a livable future? 

Transformation won’t happen all at once, but rather through a mix of policy-level, community-scale, and individual steps that combined will shift the gears of business as usual. 

There are so many joyful (and needed!) roles to play in creating a livable future: 

• Get to know your neighbors (including those who grow your food) to build the relationships that will ultimately keep us safer in times of crisis. (You can join us at a NOFA pizza social on farms all over the state!) 
• Plant trees and native perennials along your roads or sidewalk strips outside your kids’ schools. 
• Grill food at your block party that was grown in your backyard or from a local organic farm. 
• Ask the institutions you frequent to choose local and organic farms, and thank them with your business when they do. 
• Ask your legislators to invest in programs that support local farmers and incentivize organic ecological practices by pushing for more federal and state flood relief to small and medium diversified farms, sensible Farm Bill priorities. We are all collaborators for a livable future. 

A resilient future relies on small-scale, diversified and organic farmers and farmworkers who can be seen as a keystone indicator. If they are flourishing, we all are flourishing. Let’s center these land-tenders in the flooding rebuild to ensure a thriving, nourished and climate-resilient future. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Grace Oedel: We need to support farmers now for a climate-resilient future.

State officials on Friday previewed a pair of new programs intended to support Vermont businesses and municipalities following devastating flooding last week. 

At a press conference in Berlin, Secretary of Commerce Lindsay Kurrle said the state Agency of Commerce and Community Development would provide $20 million directly to impacted businesses and nonprofits “who suffered physical damage due to the severe flooding.”

“Our business community is struggling to come back online following this flood,” Kurrle said at the press conference, noting that there are few resources available to businesses other than federal disaster loans offered by the Small Business Administration. “We have heard the business community loud and clear. In order to reopen, they need more help than a loan can provide.”

Kurrle emphasized that the program was still being developed, with details and eligibility requirements set to be announced next week. 

“Business owners can expect grants to support demonstrated losses to their physical space and replacements of inventory, machinery, equipment and supplies,” Kurrle said, encouraging business owners to document their losses in the meantime by taking photos of damage and compiling cost estimates for repairs or actual paid expenses. 

The announcement came shortly after business leaders in Montpelier held a press conference expressing concern about the state’s support for businesses in the wake of the storm. 

At the Berlin press conference, Gov. Phil Scott gestured toward the enormity of the damages that Vermont businesses suffered. 

 “We know this won’t be enough,” he said. “We’ll need Congress to come through to give a bigger lifeline to our impacted employers.”

Expedited funding for municipalities

State officials also announced that they would provide $11 million of “quick relief” for municipalities that have suffered the most from flooding.

State Treasurer Mike Pieciak said at the Berlin press conference that his office would advance payments to 40 of the hardest-hit towns. 

The advanced funding is intended to offer “immediate” support as municipalities continue to organize relief efforts, Pieciak said, helping municipalities to reduce borrowing costs and stay afloat as they wait for FEMA reimbursement.

“Municipalities need to get this cleaned up as soon as possible, so we can … transition to recovery,” Scott said. 

Pieciak also said an $85 million program to support housing and climate action, authorized by the Legislature and signed by the governor, would be put on hold in order to prioritize flood relief.

“Obviously, housing and climate action are critical needs, but the immediate response to the flood is more important at this moment, so we have put a pause on that program while we wait to see what the gaps are that emerge from the business community, from municipalities (and) from other organizations across Vermont,” Pieciak said. 

The treasurer said his office is ready to help the governor’s administration to “deploy these additional resources if and when they become available.”

Disaster relief approved for freeze, pending for flood

Officials also announced at the press conference that federal disaster relief aid has been approved for Vermont farmers to address damage from a freeze in May that decimated spring crops and cost some farm workers their jobs. 

The emergency declaration by the U.S. Department of Agriculture will extend to all 14 counties, which have been designated primary natural disaster areas, according to state Agriculture Secretary Anson Tebbetts.

He noted that the state was still awaiting word from the USDA about a separate request for assistance related to last week’s floods.

As of 11 a.m. Friday, Tebbetts said, 9,424 acres had been lost to the flood, with about 200 farmers and producers impacted.

Read the story on VTDigger here: State to offer new assistance to businesses, municipalities.

Updated at 5:49 p.m.

Days after floods ravaged Vermont, and with more severe weather in the forecast, Gov. Phil Scott is seeking an additional major disaster declaration from the White House, which — if approved — could open up the state to receive even more federal disaster relief funds.

Scott announced his intentions to seek the additional federal aid at a Thursday morning press briefing, one day after officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, traveled to Vermont to assess the flood’s catastrophic damage, trudging through Barre City’s mud-covered streets.

By Thursday afternoon, his request was on its way to President Joe Biden’s desk.

“The disaster declaration is one of the reasons it was important to have (FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell) and members of her team here yesterday to see the enormous needs we have as we move forward,” Scott told reporters.

The major disaster declaration sought by the governor is separate from a disaster declaration already approved by Biden on Tuesday. The approved declaration has helped to deploy FEMA response resources to the state, with the feds picking up 75% of the tab.

An additional declaration would offer federal resources, and potentially millions of dollars, as Vermont moves from its emergency response toward recovery.

In response to a question Thursday morning, Scott declined to estimate how many federal dollars could come Vermont’s way if Biden approves his request.

“It would be a guess and I don’t think I should be guessing,” Scott said. “There’s so much damage that we haven’t seen yet locally, and so much residential damage and business damage and so forth.”

Vermont’s farms have also been rocked by this week’s floods, though federal aid to farmers would be approved through a separate disaster declaration issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Vermont officials last month requested one such declaration from USDA, after a late spring frost decimated millions of dollars in fruit crops.

If approved, a major disaster declaration could be two-pronged. For one, it could bring federal dollars for public assistance, meaning repairs to vital infrastructure. 

Additionally, it could deploy funds to Vermonters who suffered financial losses due to the floods — in many cases, Vermonters whose homes were severely damaged. Under the Stafford Act, each household may be eligible for up to roughly $41,000 to help cover un- or under-insured damages.

In his eight-page letter to Biden on Thursday, Scott requested both public and individual assistance.

“For many Vermont communities, this statewide storm is the worst disaster in living memory, including Tropical Storm Irene,” Scott wrote. “The magnitude and severity of the damage will clearly exceed the capabilities of the State and affected local governments without federal assistance.”

Depending on what Biden approves, individuals could become eligible for so-called “other needs” assistance, also maxing out at $41,000. That allocation could help cover the cost of medical bills, a destroyed car, and other  losses suffered outside of the home. Vermonters may also be eligible for FEMA dollars to help pay for hotel or motel shelter, if their homes are uninhabitable.

That means between money available for home damages and other needs assistance, each household could receive — if Scott’s request is approved — up to about $82,000. Vermonters would need to apply individually to receive any direct assistance. 

For both public and individual assistance, Vermont’s losses must meet a threshold to qualify for aid, state officials told VTDigger Thursday.

In the meantime, officials urged Vermonters facing property loss to fastidiously document their losses, saving receipts and taking photos of the damage. Vermonters do not need to wait to begin cleaning up their homes, but should take photos first.

Flood damage such as this week’s can wreak havoc on buildings, the damage rendering them inhabitable. Violent waters can leave buildings structurally unsound, make them susceptible to dangerous mold and mildew, or damage their electrical systems. Deputy Commissioner of Public Safety Daniel Batsie told reporters that the state’s Division of Fire Safety is preparing to deploy structural engineers who can begin inspecting buildings for such damages.

For any federal aid issued to Vermont, the state likely must put forward match dollars to help cover the costs. How much is required of the state depends on the amount of damage incurred.

In its latest budget cycle, state legislators set aside $15 million for the state’s so-called FEMA reserve, but a significant portion of that money is already spoken for to cover past claims, Secretary of Administration Kristin Clouser said Thursday.

“We do have rainy day funds and other funds we can move around, but this wasn’t something we planned for,” Scott told reporters.

Numerous municipalities are still under water boil notices as of Thursday afternoon. FEMA delivered a total of 110 pallets of drinking water to Vermont Thursday afternoon, and the Vermont National Guard is distributing them to Ludlow, Marshfield, Woodstock and Morrisville, Scott’s spokesperson Jason Maulucci told VTDigger. 

Additionally, Colonel Tracey Poirier, the Vermont National Guard’s director of the joint staff, said the Guard has “water containment vessels” currently being inspected for use, but the Guard has no water production capabilities of its own. For that, she said Vermont could seek resources from the U.S. Army, if necessary.

U.S. Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., who was among the officials who toured the flood damage Wednesday, made a plea to his colleagues in a speech on the Senate floor after returning to Washington, D.C. that night. “Vermont needs help now,” Welch said.  

“(S)o many Vermonters have suffered very significant loss. They’ve got to have some help,” he said. “We’ve got a job here, and we’ve got to do that which only the federal government can do, and that’s provide those financial resources to help folks when there’s been a weather emergency where they live. And if there’s any base-level function of government, it’s to stand up and help folks.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Phil Scott seeks major disaster declaration from White House to aid in Vermont’s recovery efforts.

Citing “extensive and pervasive” damage to crops, Gov. Phil Scott is requesting that the U.S. Department of Agriculture issue a disaster declaration because temperatures plunged into the low 20s across Vermont for hours in mid-May, freezing vulnerable young buds on thousands of fruits.

In a letter sent to U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack on June 19, Scott described the “debilitating damage” to crops of apples, grapes, blueberries, peaches and other stone fruit across the state. He asked that a federal disaster be declared in all of Vermont’s 14 counties, which would open up financial assistance and low-interest USDA loans to eligible farmers.

Some Vermont farmers have reported up to 95% crop losses from the freeze, and numerous horticultural experts and farmers have said it’s the worst damage they’ve ever seen. State leaders estimate total losses could surpass $10 million.

The financial devastation is particularly acute for the many farmers who do not have crop insurance. And those who do are often underinsured for losses of this magnitude.

Scott’s letter is Vermont’s second nudge to the federal government asking for help. Anson Tebbetts, the state’s secretary of agriculture food and markets, penned a letter to Vilsack earlier in June, and collected signatures from his fellow agriculture secretaries in Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.

“Collectively, we sit at a critical crossroad with our growers. Right now, growers are assessing

their ability to stay in this industry,” the secretaries wrote. “Without aid, we will see devastating blows to local economies because of downsizing and closing businesses.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Phil Scott requests USDA disaster declaration for May freeze that caused heavy crop damage.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has decided to close a loophole in the National Organic Program, a long-awaited step that advocates say will strengthen faith in the organic dairy label and level the playing field for farmers across the country. 

“We should be celebrating this,” said Nicole Dehne, certification director of Vermont Organic Farmers. “We have been advocating for this change for many, many years. This is basically the interpretation that we have been asking our farmers in Vermont to follow.”

Most organic dairy farmers in Vermont are likely already following the standard, but other farms across the country are not. That dynamic has put Vermont farmers, and others in the region, at a disadvantage. While the rule may not apply directly to local farmers, they may stand to benefit from its implementation.

The loophole, intended to allow conventional farmers to make a one-time transition to organic, has permitted farmers to consistently raise livestock conventionally and transition them to organic later, which is cheaper.

The USDA’s origin of livestock rule, announced Tuesday, closes that loophole. While it still allows farmers to make one-time transitions to organic, it prohibits them from “sourcing any transitioned animals,” according to a news release from the USDA. 

“Once a dairy is certified organic, animals must be managed as organic from the last third of gestation,” department officials wrote. “Variances may be requested by small businesses for specific scenarios.”

Dehne said one ripple effect of the rule could affect Vermont farmers negatively: Cows that were once raised conventionally — even if it was a long time ago — can no longer be sold on the organic market. That wasn’t the case in the past, she said, but the measure was needed to close the loophole.

The rule has been processing for years, but the matter became more urgent when Horizon Organic, owned by Danone, an international food company, pulled out of the Northeast, leaving 89 of the region’s organic dairy farmers without buyers for their milk. The move underlined the recent strain on small, remote farmers in the industry. 

Vermont officials, members of regional task forces related to Horizon’s departure, members of the state’s congressional delegation and the secretary of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets have been urging U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to finalize it. 

Vermont’s small organic dairy farmers have been struggling to keep pace with market trends that have increasingly encouraged them to “get big or get out.” Organic dairy prices have fallen dramatically within the last decade. 

Recently, Organic Valley announced it would accept many of the farmers Danone planned to leave behind. Many in the industry celebrated the news, but warned change was still needed at the national level. 

Tuesday’s announcement marks a piece of that change. Locally, it prompted some cheer from farmers, organic advocates and officials. 

“I think we should celebrate whenever there is a rule change that’s going to improve or maintain integrity in the organic system,” Dehne said. “I would say this is one of those cases.”

In a written statement, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., thanked the USDA for making the change. 

“We must remain vigilant in protecting organic standards,” he said. “This will help ensure that large producers are not abusing a loophole to give themselves an unfair advantage.”

Anson Tebbetts, Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture secretary, said the federal decision brings “clarity, but also brings fairness to the standard.”

Dave Chapman, co-director of the Real Organic Project — an organization that has granted around 850 qualifying farms in the United States and Canada a supplementary certification for following strict organic standards — was cautiously optimistic. Chapman also operates Long Wind Farm in East Thetford, where he grows organic tomatoes. 

“It looks good,” he said. “They passed what appears to be a good regulation.”

Chapman and others warned, however, that a rule is only as good as its enforcement. Large farms across the country have been able to gain organic certifications while skirting another organic standard, called the pasture rule, which requires that livestock spend a certain amount of time in the pasture. 

“Once it’s all finalized, and the dust settles on this, of course, enforcement will have to be part of the equation,” Tebbetts said. 

Leahy included language in a recent omnibus spending package that encourages the USDA to build out the National Organic Program with the resources needed to enforce the standards.

“The organic consumer market has, unfortunately but predictably, attracted those who prefer to erode the standards rather than meet them — those who would bend the rules to fit their industrial-scale approach to agriculture in pursuit of short-term profits.” Leahy said in remarks Tuesday at the Organic Trade Association’s Organic Week Conference, held in Washington, D.C. 

“For years, we have fought against organic import fraud, and loopholes in the origin of livestock, and animal welfare standards, and for adequate enforcement of the pasture rule. We cannot let up,” Leahy said. 

Chapman, with the Real Organic Project, said he hopes the USDA enforces the new rule. 

“If they do, things will get a little bit better for real organic farms,” he said. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: USDA finalizes ‘origin of livestock’ rule to close an organic loophole and level playing field for farmers.

Last week, Selina Rooney learned that her family farm won’t be forced out of business. 

Rooney is one of 27 farmers in Vermont and 89 across the Northeast who received a stunning letter last summer from Horizon Organic, now owned by Danone, an international food company, where her family had been shipping its milk for decades. 

The letter said the company would stop purchasing milk from those producers, leaving the farmers without a buyer. Contracts were set to end in August 2022 before Danone extended them to February 2023. 

“It was actually a shock,” Rooney said. “It’s something that’s unheard of in the dairy industry. I’ve never heard of a creamery just cutting off all of its farms.”

Meanwhile, Maple Hill, another organic dairy company, recently dropped 46 farmers in New York.

With a glut of organic milk on the national market, the Rooneys, along with dozens of other farms, didn’t think any of the other regional milk buyers would take them on. But last week, Organic Valley, a farmer-owned co-op, announced it would offer “memberships” to many of the Northeastern farmers left behind by Danone and Maple Hill.

The news offered area organic farmers a solution where none seemed possible. In the past few months, state and regional task forces have assembled, sending pleas to the U.S. Department of Agriculture for assistance. Despite those efforts, options for farmers remained limited.

“I was on the Horizon Task Force, so I would get to go to meetings and get to have some input,” Rooney said. “But I really felt hopeless. It felt like there was no answer.”

Rooney’s family has been farming in Lamoille County for eight generations. She farms with her parents in a section of Morrisville called “Mud City,” where they transitioned their 50-head herd to organic dairy 22 years ago. They started shipping to the Organic Cow, a local distributor that was eventually purchased by Horizon Organic, then by Danone.

“My parents have worked so hard to make this farm what it is today, and to think that all that hard work and effort might all go for nothing was just really sad,” Rooney said. 

‘Like being thrown a lifeboat’

Danone’s exit from the region marked a major stumble for Northeastern organic dairy, an increasingly vulnerable industry that’s been quivering on shaky ground for the last decade. 

Loopholes and meager enforcement have allowed larger farms across the country to enter the organic market, which has become flooded with organic milk. Farmers have been paid a shrinking amount for their product — often less than what it costs to produce the product.

Milk trucks sometimes struggle to reach producers in Vermont, where farms are often located on remote hillsides accessible only from seasonally-challenged back roads. Recent problems such as scarce labor and soaring gas prices have added extra challenges. 

Organic Valley’s decision has allowed the industry to regain its footing. Across the region, dozens of farmers are no longer facing an immediate crisis. 

“I was just so happy when Organic Valley stepped in and said, ‘Yep, we’ll take you,’” Rooney said. “It was kind of like being thrown a lifeboat. When my dad was sending the paperwork, I was right there watching him, and I was getting choked up over it because I didn’t think this day would come.”

Other companies, such as Stonyfield Organic, have taken on additional former Horizon farmers in the last few months. Jim Ackermann, a farmer in Cabot, recently signed a contract with the company, and said he’s “more secure than ever now.” 

“We’ve been trying to get all these guys for the last five years,” he said. “I’ve been calling every three months, and he finally called me back with good news. We’re super excited.”

But while farmers, legislators and company leaders have applauded Organic Valley’s decision to accept more farmers, they’ve also warned against complacency. With the industry’s woes far from solved, many say change at the national level is the only way to secure organic farmers in the Northeast. 

The solution at hand

Last week, Travis Forgues, who oversees membership at Organic Valley, traveled from the company’s headquarters in Wisconsin to deliver offers, in the forms of “letters of intent,” to Northeast farmers who previously sold milk to Danone. 

While Danone and Maple Hill left a total of 135 farmers without contracts, Organic Valley will offer membership to 90 farmers. 

Within those 135, Forgues said, some farmers retired, some decided to move away from agriculture and some have been picked up by other companies, such as Stonyfield. Some don’t yet meet the company’s qualifications, such as high standards for animal care, but Forgues said the company and Vermont’s Agency of Agriculture are hoping to help those farmers eventually qualify. 

The letters are a starting point, Forgues said. While the company is prepared to commit to those farmers, they don’t need to decide yet whether they’ll sign on with Organic Valley. 

“We just want to be out here saying ‘we’re committed to you now, if this is where you’re at,’” Forgues said. “‘If you’re just scared to death that you don’t have a market and you’re ready, let’s commit to each other.’”

The last week has been filled with hugs from farmers, he said. Some farmers, he said, have told him they’ll be able to sleep again. 

“I want people to take a sigh of relief, and I want these farmers to feel like their journey of having to find a home is over,” he said. “But I don’t want people to get complacent and say, ‘OK, Organic Valley took care of this, we don’t have to worry about anything anymore.’”

“I think it’s vitally important that people recognize the importance of infrastructure, community and making sure we can continue to grow markets so we can save more family farms for the future,” Forgues said. 

Less and less wiggle room

When Paul Stecker and his family decided to give up organic dairy farming last year, they had no idea Danone would soon send them a termination letter. The letter arrived in August, two weeks after their last milk cow left. 

Looking back, the writing was on the wall, he said. 

“Back in the very early ’90s, we went bankrupt dairy farming conventionally,” he said. “Organic dairy started feeling a lot like that did.”

In the mid-2000s, Stecker said his farm was receiving around $42 per hundredweight, the unit for measuring milk — around 100 pounds. Profit margins grew smaller over the years, Stecker said. His son and wife took other jobs. By the time they sold their cows, they were down to around $32 per hundredweight, and expenses had risen.

Stecker points to supply and demand as the source of the problem, along with loopholes and lack of enforcement of national organic standards. 

“When you have these enormous farms just cranking out the milk, and they’re really not following the same standards that we are,” Stecker said, “you just can’t go up against those farms financially.”

Stecker wasn’t alone — in Vermont, many organic farmers are not earning back what they’re spending to produce milk. 

Jen Miller, farmer services director at Northeast Organic Farmers Association of Vermont, analyzed costs that factor into organic dairy production and found that the average cost of producing the equivalent of a hundredweight is $37.26. The range starts at $32.43 and rises to $42.47, she said. 

Pay prices vary enormously depending on the farmer, the milk and the company, she said. 

Organic Valley’s pay price is set by the company’s board of directors, which is made up of farmers elected by the company’s membership. Currently, the company’s base price is around $30 per hundredweight. That number can increase depending on the quality of the farmers’ milk. 

This year, the cost of essential products like grain and gas are high, but those rising prices don’t always cause a hike in dairy prices. 

While some Vermont farms are still earning more than their production cost, Miller said, “it’s getting harder and harder for everyone to do that, and there’s less and less wiggle room.”

A work in progress

At the national level, a number of players are working to even the playing field between small farmers in the Northeast and large farmers in other areas of the country. To do that, many have asked the USDA to get rid of a loophole in the National Organic Program. 

The loophole, created to allow conventional farmers to make a one-time transition to organic farming, permits animals not raised organically to be transitioned to organic later on in their lives. When farmers use the rule to continually raise young livestock nonorganically, which costs less, it puts the rest of the organic farmers at a disadvantage.

The origin of livestock rule, currently before the federal Office of Management and Budget and in its final stages, would close that loophole, leveling the playing field between organic farmers. 

Another rule, related to the amount of time animals spend in the pasture, hasn’t been strictly enforced in some cases. 

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who helped author the National Organic Program, recently helped allocate $22 million for the program’s administration. In the accompanying legislation, he directed the program “to deliver the strongest possible enforcement oversight.” 

“These standards have been delayed far too long, while we have seen the markets of small organic dairies in this region displaced by larger and larger farms that exploit every loophole,” he said in a statement to VTDigger. 

Leahy said he has repeatedly raised the issue with USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, including on his visit to Vermont in August.  

The USDA has sent other help to the region, including $20 million in extra funding for the Northeast Dairy Business Innovation Center, announced last week. The windfall came out of the Northeast Dairy Task Force, assembled to address the Horizon crisis.

Other initiatives seek to bolster farming at a local level. Stonyfield Organic has started the Northeast Organic Family Farm Partnership, a program that “encourages all stakeholders in the food system — consumers, farmers, large and small dairy processors, retailers, restaurants, school lunch programs, college cafeterias, government officials — to become partners in efforts to support and safeguard the region’s organic family farmers,” an announcement about the program said. 

Brands, for example, can become partners by ensuring that 50% of their dairy products come from the areas hardest-hit by potential farm closures. Retailers that purchase partner brands can display a logo that helps identify them to customers. 

‘A marketplace that’s stacked against us’

Abbie Corse, an organic dairy farmer based in Whitingham, sits on the Northeast Organic Family Farm Partnership board. In this instance, Organic Valley has gone “all in for the greater good,” she said. 

According to Forgues, the company’s decision won’t have an immediate impact on the existing Organic Valley farmers — there are already 99 in Vermont. If a farmer wants to grow their business and produce more milk next year, he said, the company will have to consider that request when the time comes.

Corse said she’s willing to take a potential hit “if it means that those farms that we can take on can stay in business.” 

“More is more,” she said. “We need more farmers.”

Her family specifically chose to sell to Organic Valley because it’s a farmer-owned cooperative, she said. 

“I don’t want to be a big farmer,” she said. “Part of the way that we’ve remained viable is by focusing on quality over quantity. That’s been a very focused strategic component of our business model here, and Organic Valley supports that.”

Organic Valley pays farmers a higher premium for higher quality milk, which is based on things like the milk’s protein fat and somatic cell count. Still, many producers for the company aren’t earning as much as they’re paying to produce milk, she said. 

“There are those out there who claim that’s on Organic Valley,” she said. “I think that’s insane. It’s on consolidation. It’s on antitrust regulations. It’s on the reduction of integrity to the national USDA organic standards, and the fact that Vermont refuses to compromise on that, but other places will. And so we’re competing in a marketplace that’s stacked against us.”

Organic farming checks boxes critical to protecting the environment and planning for food security in a world affected by climate change, she said, and in a state that has the highest number of organic farms per capita, it’s an essential industry to protect.

Organic Valley is a good landing spot for farmers coming out of a bad situation with Danone, she said. The fact that it’s both farmer-owned and the largest organic dairy cooperative in the nation, she said, “really, really matters.”

“The farmers’ voice and the farmers’ vision is really embedded in how Organic Valley functions,” she said. “In this moment, particularly, that’s kind of everything.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the board Abbie Corse is on, did not specify which farms were organic and wrongly explained what a hundredweight is.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Organic Valley offers ‘lifeboat’ for many organic farmers, but national trends still threaten Northeast.

Some 482 Vermont dairy farms will receive an extra $23 million in subsidies through a federal program next  year.

“The feed cost calculation has long been too low, failing to accurately account for the costs incurred by dairy farmers in Vermont and the Northeast in particular,” said U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Appropriations Committee, in a press release. “This change will benefit farmers now and in the future at a time when input costs continue to increase at the farm level.

“I applaud Secretary (of Agriculture Tom) Vilsack for working quickly to improve the safety net and provide much-needed relief to producers in Vermont and across the country.”

The Dairy Margin Coverage program is a safety net for small dairy farms, farms that produce less than 5 million pounds of milk per year — generally, farms that have about 200 cows or less. About 73 percent of Vermont dairy farms enroll in the program, and Vermont farms receive an average of $47,500 from the program.

Among them is Liberty Hill Farm in Rochester, where Beth Kennett, her husband and her son milk 112 Holsteins. Kennett said the pandemic has caused milk prices to fall. 

“There was a huge drop in milk price last year with all of the schools, restaurants and institutions closed and export closed,” Kennett said. “So the Dairy Margin Coverage program was extremely important.” 

Kennett and her family grow their own hay, but machinery, fuel and labor factor into how much it costs to make that hay.

“We have not been able to cover our costs of production for several years,” Kennett said. “The changes to this program will certainly help us work towards covering the rising input costs.”

Because of a change in how cattle feed costs are calculated, Vermont farmers will also be eligible for an additional $3.1 million in retroactive payments for 2020 and 2021. 

Leahy, who is also the most senior member of the Agriculture Committee, has been pushing for the changes.

In addition to changing the way it calculates farmers’ costs for cattle feed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is allowing farmers to get reimbursed for increased milk production since 2014. 

Leahy helped establish the Dairy Margin Coverage program in the 2018 Farm Bill. It works like crop insurance, providing free catastrophic coverage to farmers as well as additional coverage farmers pay for, based on their farm’s production history. It allows farmers to insure against rises in feed costs, falls in milk prices, or both.

How it works at the Corse farm

Leon Corse, who raises cows with his daughter on the Corse Farm Dairy in Whitingham, said they paid around $1,200 in premiums for this year’s coverage, the highest they could buy. The insurance paid off more than $20,000 because the difference between the nationally calculated cost of conventional feed and the national price of conventional milk was smaller than what they had insured for. 

The Corses insured against the difference between the national price of conventional milk and the national price of conventional feed dropping below $9.50 for every 100 pounds of milk. Because the difference in price dropped below $9.50 most months, they were able to collect insurance. 

Because the Corse farm is organic, they are getting a little more for milk than it costs them, but the cost of organic grain and fuel are increasing.

“A farmer is the only business person in society that buys all of his inputs at retail and sells what he has to sell at wholesale,” Corse said. 

The Corses have worked their farm since 1868. They ship milk to Organic Valley. They milk about 50 cows and raise all of their 40 or so young cows. They have been rotationally grazing since the 1960s, which means that they move their cows to new grass every 12 hours. Their grass is organic perennial native mix from permanent sod.

“We haven’t had a plow in the ground for 40 years,” said Corse’s daughter, Abbie Corse. “We’re trying to manage for, pardon the pun, whatever organically grows. We’re at 2,000 feet, so nothing grows here well except for cows and grass.”

The USDA has calculated a cost of feed based on a mix of corn, soybean meal and alfalfa hay. Until 2019, the Agriculture Department used the price of conventional alfalfa hay to calculate feed costs. In 2019, it switched to using a mix of the price of conventional alfalfa and premium alfalfa to calculate feed costs. This did not accurately reflect the real cost of feed so, from now on, the cost will be calculated using only the price of premium alfalfa.

“A big shout out to Senator Leahy for getting those changes implemented,” Kennett said. “Those are significant changes.”

Farmers can figure out how much insurance coverage would cost for their dairy operation by using this tool from dairymarkets.org.

Clarification: All dairy farms can buy dairy margin coverage, but the insurance premiums go up after the first 5 million pounds of milk produced each year. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Small dairy farmers eligible for an increase in subsidies.

Nearly all of Vermont is now eligible for funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to help cover the cost of building high-speed broadband infrastructure in rural areas, thanks to a rule change led by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.

USDA is accepting applications for its $1.15 billion ReConnect Program, which is designed to help offset the high cost of building broadband infrastructure to rural communities where it would be otherwise unprofitable and untenable.

Loans and grants go to local, state, tribal and territory governments, as well as corporations, companies and cooperatives, in areas of the country where at least 90% of households lack broadband service at 100 megabits per second download and 20 upload. Funding priority goes to low-density rural areas with even slower and sparser service.

Previously, a large swath of Vermont served by the Vermont Telephone Co. Inc., or VTel, was ineligible for the program. Leahy, in his capacity as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, helped change the eligibility requirements.

Now, nearly all areas of the state with slow service qualify, except for those where VTel is providing fiber service.

Leahy in a statement Tuesday said he is delighted the USDA changed its rules. Before now, he said “Vermont has been handcuffed from receiving any funds” from the program.

“As a rural state, Vermont’s economic development hinges upon access to high-quality internet and telephone services, particularly as more Vermonters are working from home and more remote workers are moving to Vermont,” he said. “As school, work and access to health care shifted even further online, access to quality, high-speed broadband service will allow more Vermonters to learn, stay in touch with loved ones, and access essential government services from the comfort of their homes.”

The ReConnect Program money is in addition to nearly $2 billion dedicated to broadband infrastructure in Congress’s and President Joe Biden’s infrastructure package signed into law this month. Vermont will get $100 million of that money to expand broadband coverage.

Applicants to the ReConnect Program must commit to building facilities capable of providing high-speed internet. USDA also considers community economic needs, service affordability, local or tribal government affiliation, and more factors when making funding decisions.
Applications for the Reconnect money can be filed here.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Nearly all of Vermont now eligible for USDA funding to expand internet.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced a new program last week for organic farmers that will help cover the annual costs of certification. 

The program designates $20 million from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act, also known as the CARES Act, to new and existing organic operations throughout the country. 

It aims to help the producers overcome financial setbacks brought on by the pandemic, such as loss of markets, increased costs and labor shortages. 

Conventional farmers who transitioned to organic have had to implement more expensive organic practices, and in some cases, they haven’t had access to the higher organic prices.  All of those costs come in addition to the expense of renewing or obtaining organic certifications. 

The Organic and Transitional Education and Certification Program covers expenses incurred during the 2020, 2021 and 2022 fiscal years. 

“Producers and handlers of organic commodities incur significant costs to obtain or renew organic certification each year,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a press release. “The economic challenges that arose due to the pandemic made obtaining and renewing organic certification financially challenging for many operations.”

Vermont has 783 organic producers and 159,505 acres of organic farmland, according to 2020 statistics from the Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont. Gross sales from the state’s organic producers totaled $122.5 million last year. 

Doug Flack, who operates the organic Flack Family Farm in Fairfield, sells fermented farm-grown vegetables in the form of products like organic kimchi and sauerkraut to local health food stores. The farm’s website notes that the operation is raising its prices “to reflect the cost of living and our cost of production.” While the state already subsidizes the farm’s certification costs, more help wouldn’t hurt, he said. 

“Our costs are around $1,000 a year just to be certified,” Flack said. “Every bit is helpful.”

Under the program, farmers can apply for assistance to cover a variety of costs associated with certification. It funds up to $250 for each certification category, such as crops, livestock and handling, along with state and federal fees.

Farmers who recently transitioned to organic can receive up to 75% of costs associated with their transition. That covers fees from certifying agents, for example, or the expense of developing an organic system plan. Farmers who attend educational events focused on organic production can also apply to have the registration costs covered.

Applications for coverage of 2020 and 2021 expenses from Nov. 8, 2021, through Jan. 7, 2022, are available through local Farm Service Agency offices.

Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this story gave an incorrect date for the announcement of the program.

Read the story on VTDigger here: USDA announces support to cover certification costs for organic producers.

Vermont became one of 28 states to enter into an agreement with the National Forest Service this month in which the two entities pledged to share forest stewardship. 

Shared stewardship “provides a framework that unites state and federal land managers in addressing landscape-scale resource needs while respecting individual direction and commitments,” the agreement, signed earlier this month, says. 

In 2018, the United States Department of Agriculture began pursuing partnerships with state forest managers. They’re intended to establish and maintain a channel of communication for managing issues like invasive species, disease and wildfire, and will become more important as the climate changes, according to the document. 

“The idea behind it is, we want to reaffirm that we are taking a holistic approach to forest management. Insect, disease, wildfires don’t end at jurisdictional boundaries,” said Lindsey Lewis, a spokesperson for the National Forest Service. “We’re making decisions together and looking at the forest as a whole. 

Danielle Fitzko, ​director of Vermont’s Forestry Division within the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation, said Vermont officials have a standing relationship with Green Mountain National Forest, but the agreement has prompted the groups to discuss priorities for the state. 

The agreement identifies three focus areas within the state that both entities have agreed to prioritize. The first is enhancing the state’s working landscape, where the two entities have agreed to try to unify “groups and efforts across the state” to engage in a dialogue focused on “active, ecological management,” which includes using wood for business and economic development. 

Second, the state and the Forest Service agree to expand the state’s capacity for restoration through work with local and private groups, along with towns, advocacy groups and academic institutions.

“Specific emphases will include protecting forest health and productivity; enhancing forest composition, structure, and growth; and understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change on forest health and productivity and the helpful role of forests in mitigating climate change effects and conferring landscape resilience,” the agreement says.

Finally, the entities agree to create opportunities for outdoor recreation, “favoring investments that leverage our limited resources and extend our capacity through integration and partnerships,” the agreement says. 

The document stipulates that the parties will communicate regularly, will meet at least once per year in person to evaluate progress with respect to the agreement, and to advance their existing collaboration “to the benefit of forests and the people of Vermont.”

Julie Moore, the secretary of Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, and Randy Moore, chief of the National Forest Service, signed the agreement. 

The agreement “is a reflection of the spirit of cooperation between the Agency and the USDA Forest Service that extends back decades,” Secretary Moore said in a release. “Further, it solidifies our partnership for future leaders in both agencies and ensures synergy for true conservation of forests and other natural resources which rely on our forests, including clean air and water, wildlife, plants and fish.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermont latest state to sign shared forest stewardship agreement with USDA.

For years, the K-6 students at Westminster Center School had two lunch options: a sun-butter and jelly sandwich, or an entrée crafted from local food and created by Harley Sterling.

Sterling ran Westminster Center’s kitchen, pitching his healthy alternatives to kids wary of new foods. Some days, the students balked at his dishes, and Sterling’s patience faltered. 

“There were definitely some times when you’d get, like, 10 or 12 kids in a row only taking sun-butter and jelly,” he remembered. “One day, I had a temper tantrum, and was like, ‘OK, you know what? We’re not going to serve sun-butter and jelly anymore. You can have a sun-butter-only sandwich.’”

The students have come to appreciate Sterling’s farm-to-table fare — and now more students are able to partake in it. He has since become the school nutrition director for the Windham Northeast Supervisory Union, spreading his local food initiatives districtwide. And thanks to a Vermont state law enacted this year, he’ll be cooking with more local foods than ever before.

Signed by Gov. Phil Scott in July, Act 67 created a pilot program that would temporarily establish a tiered incentive for public schools to purchase food from Vermont’s farmers: buy 15% local products, receive 15 cents back for every lunch served. The law also creates 20% and 25% tiers. 

Sterling welcomed the incentive. “I’m super excited,” he said. “And I think that around the state there’s a lot of buzz.”

Last year, Windham Northeast spent roughly 20% of its $650,000 food budget on local products. Sterling hopes to reach that same level this school year. 

Nutrition service directors, food distributors and politicians call the new law a win-win. They say cafeteria trays will feature healthier food, and Vermont’s farmers will develop increased, reliable sources of income. 

The Legislature has allocated $500,000 to reimburse schools this academic year as part of a pilot program. And for this year only, schools can receive 15 cents per lunch without reaching the 15% threshold. Instead, to qualify, districts must submit a local food purchasing plan, designate a staff member responsible for implementing it, develop a process for tracking local food purchases and comply with the state’s reporting requirements. 

Sen. Chris Pearson, P/D-Chittenden, vice chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, said legislators modeled the new law on similar incentives in New York and Oregon. 

“I believe many food directors would love to purchase more local food, but it can be more expensive than the food that comes in from big producers, commodity markets, etc.,” he said. “So we’re trying to acknowledge that cost and help schools meet it.”

Although the incentive is currently funded for one year, Pearson hopes for and anticipates its renewal. “I’d like to see it in a more permanent way so that schools can more readily depend on it,” he said. 

During the 2020-21 year, schools received between $3.61 and $4 in combined reimbursement per free or reduced priced lunch, according to the state Agency of Education. But only $1 to $1.50 of that money goes toward buying food, said Helen Rortvedt, farm-to-school director at Vermont FEED, a Shelburne-based organization that has promoted such initiatives for over 20 years. 

“You add 15 to 25 cents, and that makes a dent,” she said.

Food prices continue to rise, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture reimbursements have not kept pace. 

“Schools have figured out what they can buy with their very limited budgets,” Rortvedt said. “The major barrier that continues to persist is cost.”

Betsy Rosenbluth, program director at Vermont FEED, stressed the importance of the connections between farmers and students that the new law will create. A 2014 report by the Vermont Agency of Education found that Vermont public schools spent $16 million on food each year. The more local food purchased, the more connections fostered between students and Vermont’s food systems.

Asked whether the local-food incentive would be fully subscribed in its first year, Rosenbluth replied, “I think it’s possible.” 

But no one knows for sure what will happen. Before now, the extent of local-purchase tracking varied widely from district to district, as has each district’s definition of “local.” Now, schools must use the definition of local established by Act 129, which sought to standardize the term statewide. Whole foods must come from Vermont, or from within 30 miles of a school.

For border districts such as Windham Northeast, which includes schools in Westminster, Bellows Falls, Grafton and Saxtons River, Act 129’s definition of “local” changes the way nutrition directors must think about sourcing ingredients. 

Sterling, the district’s nutrition director, has been forced to find new producers to hit the law’s thresholds. 

“Ground beef is a very expensive, very big part of our program,” he said. “We make tacos, sloppy joes, shepherd’s pie. It’s a huge thing.” In previous years, Sterling has obtained beef from a Massachusetts farm 40 miles away. Now, he’ll switch to a Vermont farm. 

The state’s food hubs appear to be prepared to help schools find products that fit the new law’s local definition. Food hubs aggregate foods from small- and medium-size farms, distributing to a wider market than most farmers can handle on their own. Food Connects, a food hub in Brattleboro, distributes food to 30 schools across Vermont and New Hampshire. All of the products it sells are source-identified, making it easy for schools to record and report their local purchases when it comes time to apply for reimbursement.

Tom Brewton, a local foods sales associate at Food Connects, has been working with school nutrition directors this summer to prepare for Act 67’s first year. “A lot of food service directors are just getting their feet wet with the verbiage of the act, and we’re trying to get ahead of that and assist our districts as much as we can with applying for the program,” he said.

In addition to supply chain support from hubs like Food Connects, the Agency of Education plans to hire an administrator to work directly with school nutrition directors. 

Since taking over Windham Northeast’s food service operations in 2018, Sterling has become a statewide leader in bringing local food into the cafeteria. He plans to continue setting an example, reaching the new law’s highest tiers.

“I really want to show that it’s possible to hit that 20% or 25%,” Sterling said. “If we can do it, I think there’s a lot of people who can do it.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Schools, politicians call new local food incentive a win-win.

President Joe Biden approved the largest-ever permanent increase in food stamp benefits on Monday. Proponents say the move will make a difference for Vermonters, who continue to experience higher levels of food insecurity than in pre-pandemic times. 

Starting in October, the 38,422 Vermont households and 66,104 Vermonters currently participating in 3SquaresVT — the state’s version of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — will see their benefits rise by about 25%. The average participating household now receives $412 per month, which does not meet the cost of food, according to Leslie Wisdom, director of the food and nutrition program at the Vermont Department for Children and Families. 

The increase will provide a much-needed boost to Vermonters, many of whom continue to experience food insecurity made worse by the pandemic.

Nearly one in three Vermonters has experienced food insecurity — defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as “lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy lifestyle” — at some point since the start of the pandemic, and almost two-thirds of those Vermonters were still struggling to feed themselves and their families a year into the pandemic, according to a University of Vermont report issued this month.

Among the primary factors driving the elevated and sustained levels of food insecurity is job disruptions caused by the pandemic, including job loss, reduction in work hours or income and furlough, said Ashley McCarthy, lead author of the report and postdoctoral researcher at UVM. 

The report outlines results of the latest in three surveys of 441 Vermonters — a sample roughly representative of the rest of the state demographically — conducted throughout the pandemic as part of a study into the effects of Covid-19 on food insecurity.

“What we’re seeing is that the pandemic is likely to have a longer-term impact,” Meredith Niles, assistant professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences at UVM and lead researcher on the study, said in a statement. “Many people faced long-term job disruptions, and even though some may be back at work, it doesn’t mean they aren’t still facing financial hardships.”

More than half of survey participants reported a job disruption during the pandemic, and 18.4% were still experiencing that disruption in March. 

People who experienced those job disruptions were three times as likely as those who did not to experience food insecurity, and people without college degrees were 4.1 times more likely than those with a college education. Women and households with children were both 2.4 times more likely, and people under 55 were two times more likely to experience food insecurity, according to the report. 

Across the state, female and BIPOC Vermonters as well as families with young children were most likely to experience food insecurity as a result of the pandemic, Wisdom said.

Slightly more than half of survey respondents became newly food-insecure during the pandemic.  Those still experiencing food insecurity are more likely to have been food-insecure before the pandemic, according to the report.

Even as food insecurity persists, reliance on food assistance programs decreased among the survey population. 

Participation in food assistance programs increased across the board at the start of the pandemic but have since declined. Fewer participants now receive aid from school meal programs, food pantries, and the Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children than before the pandemic, according to the report. 

Wisdom said SNAP participation levels increased 8% at the start of the pandemic and have remained relatively steady, but many Vermonters who need food assistance are not receiving that benefit. Only 46% of eligible Vermonters — in general, any household at 185% of the federal poverty line — and only 41.5% of eligible Vermonters older than 60 participate. 

She says many people who could benefit from the program avoid applying because of the stigma that surrounds food assistance, a problem that Feeding Chittenden, a charitable food organization in Burlington, also faces.

The organization provides a variety of services, including an emergency food bank, to about 12,000 Vermonters each year, significantly fewer than the estimated 20,000 food-insecure Vermonters in Chittenden County, according to Anna McMahon, Feeding Chittenden donor and community engagement manager.

Feeding Chittenden reported a 33% increase in Vermonters seeking its services at the beginning of the pandemic, but economic aid programs — such as emergency hotel housing, increased unemployment and stimulus checks — have meant fewer people have needed the organization’s aid in recent months. 

The report found that participants worried less about food becoming more expensive and not being able to afford food or to connect with food assistance programs than they did at the beginning of the pandemic.

But as some of those programs end and Covid-19 cases rise across the state, McMahon anticipates need will sharply increase through the winter. 

McCarthy said there is no way to know when food insecurity will return to pre-pandemic levels, especially since many Vermonters continue to experience job disruptions. Even after work becomes more stable, those who experienced disruptions will take more time to recover economically and may still face food insecurity. 

“It’s hard to say how long we might expect this trend to continue because we’re still seeing the impacts of the pandemic, and we’re not fully out of it,” McCarthy said.

When people experience economic hardship, “food is the first thing that gets cut,” McMahon said. 

As long as economic insecurity persists, so will food insecurity. And even if the pandemic were to end today, it might take years for people to recover economically and gain secure access to food, McCarthy said.

Read the story on VTDigger here: SNAP benefits to increase for Vermonters still facing high levels of food insecurity.

Vermont produced 21% less maple syrup in 2021 than the year before, according to data released Thursday by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Warm weather was a key reason for the drop in production, said Wendy Tucker, a sugarmaker in Westford. Tucker said she could produce only about half as much syrup this year as she did last year and heard some sugarmakers were able to make only a third of their typical output.

“We didn’t have enough cold nights and warmer days,” she said. “When it hits 70, it just warms the sap too much. We want cold sap. Cold sap makes good syrup.” 

The state’s sugaring season was shorter than average this year, lasting just 28 days at the end of January and in February, versus 38 days in 2020. Nationwide, the average sugaring season was a week shorter than it was in 2020, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“We were expecting a decline in production based on the weather conditions that we faced, particularly in March where we had some unheard of 60-, 70-degree weather,” said Anson Tebbetts, secretary of the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. “That really put a stop to things.”

In total, Vermont produced 1.54 million gallons of maple syrup this year, which was still more than any other state in the country. New York was second, with 647,000 gallons. Maine was third, with 495,000. 

Vermont’s syrup producers put out 5.9 million maple taps this year, which is 4% more than last year, according to the USDA. But yield per tap is estimated to have decreased this year, from 0.342 gallons to 0.261 gallons.

“The sugar content was low this season, so it took more gallons of sap to make a gallon of syrup,” Tucker said.

She added that, while some sugarmakers have additional jobs outside of the industry — such as selling apples or Christmas trees — she does not, which increases the impact of a lower crop yield.

“I don’t want to take on something else and neglect my maple business,” Tucker said. “I just won’t do anything this year to grow because I won’t have the extra to sell.” 

Vermont’s maple syrup production was valued at $52.7 million last year, according to the new USDA data, down 9% from the previous season. 

The average price per gallon of syrup increased by 2%, up to $45.50.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Vermont’s maple syrup production fell by 21% this year.

Years ago, I had heated discussions with some hydroponic growers in Vermont who grew so-called “perfect” looking lettuce and tomatoes in sand, gravel, or liquid, with added nutrients, but without soil. This is how hydroponics is defined. 

Unfortunately, a recent federal ruling allows soil-less produce operations to remain certified organic under the law. As a result, hydroponic and container-based operations can continue carrying the USDA organic seal of approval. So when you shop at your local grocer for certified organic blueberries, strawberries and raspberries, many of them will be grown in hydroponic greenhouses. 

Ironically, by law, organic crop producers must steward the soil, yet hydroponic enterprises neither use nor build soil. They are given a free pass in the organic marketplace, unjustly competing with authentic organic farmers who thoughtfully tend the subterranean life in their fields.

The Cornucopia Institute of Wisconsin and other organic groups have been embroiled in a heated debate with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Organic Program over this issue. Many hydroponic and container-grown products — primarily berries, cucumbers and tomatoes — continue to carry the USDA organic seal. 

The Cornucopia Institute does not believe that a hydroponic operation is capable of reproducing the nutrient value of food grown in healthful soil. Hydroponics uses of miles of plastic tubing and trays under greenhouse roofs. Nutrients and water are mixed and delivered directly to plants’ roots. Biology takes a back seat to efficiency.

In authentic organic systems, the soil plays a crucial role in the carbon and water cycles. Cover crops, compost, minerals and grazing animals can improve organic matter and biodiversity in the soil. Soil-less systems cannot measure up to the ecological complexity of authentic organic agriculture. 

Additionally, emerging science suggests that we do not fully comprehend the complex processes and relationships in the soil that produce the nutrient value of our food, nor are we assured that current nutrition research can account for all of the enzymes, metabolites, and other constituents our bodies require for health.

An alternative

The Real Organic Project was formed in January 2018 in Vermont to educate, promote and advocate for traditional biological farming. It was intended to fill the void left by failures of the USDA National Organic Program. 

As that national program has been increasingly reduced to a marketing brand, it is clear that a catalyst was needed to reinvigorate the organic farming movement. So a new movement was formed, starting with the creation of a new “Add-On” label to represent real organic farmers.

The Real Organic Project grew out of several meetings of Vermont farmers who believed that the USDA label was no longer something they could represent.

Starting a new label was not a small task. That small group of Vermonters has grown quickly into a national group of farmers and academics from around the country. Their planned projects are intended to raise public awareness of and participation in the movement to sustain an agriculture based on improving soil health. 

They support the traditional model of small family organic farms, but also welcome larger farms that seriously follow the principle of “feed the soil, not the plant.” They advocate for farming based on pastured livestock and soil-based cropping.

Dave Chapman, a longtime organic farmer who runs Long Wind Farm in Vermont and is one of the founders of the Real Organic Project, said, “I got involved when I started seeing a lot of hydroponic tomatoes certified as organic showing up in the market about five years ago. … We made a really good-faith effort to reform the organic program, but we realized [certification of hydroponics] was not the only egregious failure — the NOP [National Organic Program] was very weak on animal welfare, too.” 

According to Chapman, the Real Organic label would have more transparency and integrity in terms of honoring the traditional values of organic farming. Philosophically, organic agriculture has always been premised on the health of the soil.

Read Cornucopia’s report “Troubling Waters” to learn how soilless production came to be certified organic.

Visit here to support the Real Organic Project.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Ron Krupp: Vermont organic farmers work to fill void left by USDA.

All school-age kids in Vermont will eat for free another year, thanks to pandemic-era waivers the U.S. Department of Agriculture has opted to extend through June 2022. 

That’s good news for the state’s roughly 80,000 public school students — and for its lawmakers, who now have extra time to figure out if they’re willing to pay for universal meals once the federal waivers expire.

The USDA announced the move earlier this week, but confusion remained in Vermont about what it would mean for schools. Rosie Krueger, director of child nutrition programs at the state Agency of Education, said Friday that while the state was fairly confident the federal government intended to allow schools to offer free meals for all, it was still seeking clarification about whether school districts would then be fully reimbursed by the USDA.

“Before we go out there and tell everybody — all the families and all the schools — that yes, no problem, meals are free for everyone, we want to be 100% confident of that,” she said.

Matt Herrick, a spokesperson for the USDA, wrote in an email that he would be contacting the state to “clear up any confusion.”

“Yes, Vermont schools will be able to continue to serve meals at no cost to all children next school year,” he said. According to Herrick, districts will be reimbursed using rates set for the federal summer food service program, which are higher than what schools usually receive for their regular school-year meal programs.

The state’s K-12 schools have been providing universal meals since 2020, when the federal government promised to pick up the tab. At the time, the feds enacted a series of waivers allowing districts to provide meals to all children — no questions asked — using a variety of new methods, including bus delivery and pick-up sites. Before this latest announcement, those waivers were set to expire in September.

Anti-hunger advocates in Vermont hoped to capitalize on the moment to push through legislation that would make such reforms permanent. But a bill in the state Senate aiming to do just that is still in limbo as lawmakers wrestle with the price tag. 

The bill, S.100, has been trimmed back to only include free breakfast, at a cost of about $8 million a year. It would also assign a task force to come up with a way to pay for free breakfast and lunch for all by the 2026-27 school year. (An incentive program to encourage schools to buy their food locally, once attached to S.100, has been slipped into the state’s omnibus budget bill.)

One champion of the universal meals measure, Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison, told her colleagues in the Senate Finance Committee on Friday that lawmakers might consider pushing the bill’s effective date back by a year — given the federal government’s announcement — to give schools even more time to prepare.

“I’m hoping we can move forward with something,” she said.

And maybe, replied Sen. Ann Cummings, D-Washington, the committee’s chair, “the feds will make it permanent.”

Read the story on VTDigger here: Thanks to the feds, all Vermont students will eat for free again next school year.

Last fall, I was hearing from a lot of educators in my school district. My colleagues across the state were hearing from their educators, too. They were afraid. Not about their students or themselves contracting Covid-19, although that was of course a concern as well. 

An emergency federal waiver granting free school meals for all kids during the pandemic was about to expire, and it wasn’t clear whether it would be extended. 

The USDA did ultimately take action to allow universal school meals to continue through this school year. And our teachers reported seeing a weight lift from their students’ shoulders. Many of them wouldn’t have to face rifling through the kitchen cabinet at home to try to pull together something to bring in for lunch. 

One teacher told me a few of her kids laughed out loud, saying the meal extension was great news, since they hadn’t brought anything in for lunch and were just going to go without.

Back in March when the pandemic hit, school nutrition teams across Vermont didn’t hesitate. We knew that closed schools meant children would be more likely to go hungry. We delivered meals in buses. We arranged curbside pickups. I am very proud to say that Vermont was the only state that increased the total number of lunches served in April 2020 from April 2019. It was a monumental effort, and our school food service professionals and all the other school staff who have stepped up to support school meal delivery have had little to no time off ever since then. But, we’re happy to do it because these are our neighbors, our kids. 

More people in Vermont are facing hunger than at any time in at least the last 20 years. Before the pandemic, one in 10 people were struggling to put food on the table. Now, one in three people in our state have faced hunger during the pandemic. 

One of the hardest lessons of the Great Recession was that, years after the fundamentals of our economy started to improve, American households were continuing to rely on food assistance programs because their own household finances took much longer to catch up. It took us 12 years in Vermont to return to prerecession rates of hunger, just a couple of years before the pandemic hit.

We’ve learned many new hard lessons in this crisis. One silver lining has been that universal school meals have made our classrooms better. The stigma around “needing” school breakfast or lunch is gone. Our kids are more attentive and better behaved. There are no more morning trips to the nurse, no more falling asleep at the desk, no more inability to focus on the task at hand because a student hasn’t had enough to eat. The kids whose families under normal circumstances are just shy of qualifying for free meals don’t have to face going hungry. Research has proven that students who eat meals at school have better attendance records, see improved learning in math and English, graduate at higher rates, and even go on to earn more as adults.

Learning is the student’s responsibility. Making sure they have what they need to learn is ours. We have the opportunity to step up for our kids by making universal school meals permanent. 

The Senate is considering a bill that would make universal school meals a reality — with local purchasing incentives and support for Farm to School programs that help ensure Vermont kids are getting high-quality, locally sourced ingredients from our agriculture industry. Similar legislation has already been introduced in the House as well. We know that many legislators understand that this is more important now than ever; children need equitable meal programs in their schools.

Here’s my ask for you. Reach out to your legislators and let them know you want to see universal school meals made permanent in Vermont. Let them know that we can’t go back to the old model that left too many kids hungry during the school day. As we move forward from this pandemic, we can build better systems that truly serve all our students. 

Let’s lead the nation by being the first state to say that every student, every day, at every public school in Vermont, deserves access to school meals regardless of their family’s ability to pay. We can’t afford not to.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Karyl Kent: Now is Vermont’s chance to step up for our students.