A phrase came up during debate this session that has stuck with me.

It referred to “lands owned by ANR.”

Most people probably would have read right past it. I almost did too. But the more I thought about it, the more that wording bothered me.

Not because I have some quarrel with the Agency of Natural Resources. I do not. Vermont needs people who know how to manage forests, water, wildlife, parks, wetlands, and public lands. A lot of good people do that work every day.

But does ANR own the land?

Or does the land belong to the people of Vermont, with state government acting as the caretaker?

That may sound like a small distinction, but I do not think it is. Words matter in government. The way we talk about something often reveals the way we think about it.

If we get comfortable saying agencies “own” public land, we risk changing the relationship between citizens and their government. Little by little, the public starts to feel less like the owner of the system and more like the subject of it.

That is backwards.

When I ask a neighbor to watch my property while I am away, mow the lawn, repair a fence, or keep an eye on things, that neighbor does not become the owner. He is helping care for something that still belongs to me.

Government should work the same way.

The people of Vermont created the state government. Citizens elect representatives. Representatives pass laws. Agencies administer those laws and manage public resources on behalf of the public.

That is the proper order.

Yet over time, language can shift. We stop saying “public land” and start saying “agency land.” We stop talking about stewardship and start talking about control.

That matters, because stewardship and control are not the same thing.

I care deeply about Vermont’s land, water, forests, wildlife, and outdoor traditions. This is not an argument against conservation. It is not an argument against clean water, wildlife habitat, public access, or responsible management.

The question is not whether Vermont should protect land.

Of course we should.

The question is: for whom?

Are we protecting public land for the public, or from the public?

That may sound blunt, but I think many Vermonters have felt that question in one form or another. They see rules stack on top of rules. They see permits, reports, committees, compliance requirements, and enforcement systems grow more complicated. They see costs move downhill onto towns, taxpayers, landowners, farmers, small businesses, and families.

And eventually they ask a fair question:

Who is actually responsible here?

That is where stewardship can begin to turn into supervision.

Stewardship means caring for something responsibly on behalf of someone else. Supervision means directing, monitoring, correcting, and controlling people’s behavior.

Those are not the same thing.

Good government works with citizens. It does not stand over them. It does not write rules so complicated that ordinary people feel permanently out of compliance. It does not create systems that only lawyers, consultants, and full-time administrators can navigate.

And it should never forget who it serves.

That is the real issue.

Government matters. Conservation matters. Clean water matters. Wildlife protection matters. Public land matters. Laws matter.

But trust matters too.

People lose trust when government becomes hard to understand. They lose trust when enforcement feels uneven. They lose trust when decisions seem distant from everyday life. And they lose trust when state agencies begin sounding like owners instead of caretakers.

Vermont can do better than that.

We can protect forests without forgetting the people who live beside them. We can improve water quality without pretending every new rule automatically solves a problem. We can conserve land while remembering that government acts only with authority granted by the people.

The land does not belong to an agency.

The government does not own the people.

Public servants are not masters of the public.

They are stewards.

And if we want to restore trust in Vermont, that is a good place to start.

Senator Terry Williams
Rutland District