As the Vermont Senate considers changes to H.481, a bill designed to extend compliance deadlines under the state’s “3-Acre Rule” for stormwater management, farmers, small-town leaders, and property owners are raising broader concerns about the origin of the state’s phosphorus pollution problem—and who should be paying to fix it.
The bill, which passed the House earlier this session, would give landowners and municipalities more time to comply with regulations requiring stormwater mitigation systems on properties with three or more acres of impervious surface. It also authorizes municipal impact fees for stormwater systems, maintains the Clean Water Surcharge on property transfers by removing its 2027 sunset date, and creates new grant programs for compliance and planning.
But as the Senate prepares to take up the bill, questions are emerging not only about its scope and cost, but also about the state’s willingness to challenge the federal policies that some argue helped create Vermont’s phosphorus problem in the first place.
Focus Shifts to Root Causes
Several agricultural groups and environmental policy observers point to decades of federal farm and land management policy as major contributors to nutrient runoff in Vermont’s waterways. Programs administered by the USDA encouraged widespread use of chemical fertilizers and the installation of tile drainage systems, which studies now show can accelerate phosphorus flow into rivers and lakes.
Much of the phosphorus runoff now regulated by the state was originally incentivized and subsidized through federal programs, including USDA-backed fertilizer use and tile drainage installation. These practices, encouraged over decades, contributed to the very pollution the state is now expected to mitigate—often without adequate federal support.
The Clean Water Act, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), requires states to meet strict pollution thresholds. In 2016, the EPA imposed new phosphorus TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for Lake Champlain, pushing Vermont to implement stricter rules on both agricultural and urban runoff.
The state responded by enacting Act 64, Vermont’s Clean Water Act, in 2015, which led to the 3-Acre Rule and a range of other regulatory tools. But while mandates have increased, funding from Washington has not kept pace, leaving Vermont taxpayers and landowners responsible for meeting compliance costs that, in some cases, run into tens of thousands of dollars per property.
Uneven Capacity Across Towns
At a recent committee meeting, a Burlington city employee acknowledged that the city has the engineering staff and resources to meet 3-Acre Rule requirements. But most other municipalities do not.
“That really underscores the inequity in how this bill plays out on the ground,” said one local official from Rutland County. “Burlington can hire stormwater planners. Smaller towns can’t. That puts rural areas at a disadvantage, again.”
H.481 includes $5 million in remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support stormwater compliance, but some critics argue those dollars would be better spent addressing phosphorus at its source—on Vermont’s farms. They point to practices like settling ponds, tile drain upgrades, and manure management systems as high-impact interventions that remain underfunded.
Concerns Over Leadership and Conflicts
Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) is responsible for implementing many of these water quality programs. But some lawmakers and policy advocates are beginning to question whether ANR Secretary Julie Moore has done enough to push back on federal mandates—or to advocate for more federal funding.
Moore, who previously served as water resources director under the Douglas and Shumlin administrations, has not publicly challenged the EPA’s phosphorus limits or sought federal cost-sharing through legal or legislative channels.
Her position is further complicated by her role as board chair of the Vermont Council on Rural Development (VCRD), a nonprofit that frequently collaborates with state agencies and advocacy organizations on environmental and infrastructure planning. Some observers have raised concerns that this dual role could present a conflict of interest, particularly when VCRD’s policy goals align with those of groups like the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), which has repeatedly sued the state over water quality enforcement.
A spokesperson for ANR did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
CLF Lawsuit Highlights Broader Frustration
In September 2024, the Conservation Law Foundation again filed a notice of intent to sue Vermont over alleged failures in phosphorus enforcement and permitting. This comes after the EPA itself warned the state that its dual-agency oversight system—split between ANR and the Agency of Agriculture—has led to enforcement gaps, especially in the oversight of large dairies.
But CLF’s lawsuits have drawn mixed reactions in Vermont. While some see them as a necessary push for environmental accountability, others view them as legal overreach that targets a state with limited resources.
“If CLF wanted to really solve the phosphorus crisis,” said a dairy farmer, “they’d be suing the federal agencies that wrote the playbook for the very practices they’re now calling pollution.”
Lawmakers Face Pressure to Amend
As the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee reviews H.481, several stakeholders are calling for major amendments. Proposals include:
- Keeping only the timeline extensions,
- Removing provisions that allow new municipal fee structures,
- Striking the clause that makes the Clean Water Surcharge permanent, and
- Directing all remaining ARPA funds toward agricultural phosphorus mitigation.
Critics of the bill argue that the state is attempting to shift responsibility for stormwater compliance onto municipalities—many of which lack the staffing, funding, or technical capacity to manage complex permitting and infrastructure requirements—rather than taking on that responsibility at the state level.
Calls for amendment have also been fueled by reports that the rule has not been applied consistently across the state. Some properties with obvious impervious surface areas have not been flagged for compliance, while neighboring sites with similar characteristics have. This uneven application has led to frustration among landowners and municipal officials, who say the process lacks transparency and fairness.
Advocates are also calling on Vermont’s Attorney General Charity Clark to consider federal cost-recovery options through legal action, and for members of the state’s congressional delegation—Senators Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, and Rep. Becca Balint—to push for phosphorus remediation funding at the federal level.
Looking Ahead
With the EPA mandates in place and legal pressure mounting, Vermont faces a difficult balancing act between environmental compliance, fiscal responsibility, and local capacity. But as Senate lawmakers shape the final version of H.481, many are watching to see whether the state will continue to pass the cost onto landowners—or finally begin to push back on Washington.
“This is a chance for the Senate to draw a line,” said one policy analyst familiar with the bill. “They can either follow the mandates, or they can ask who created this problem in the first place—and demand they help fix it.”
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #vermontpolitics #cleanwater #farmersfirst
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply