VermontProposal would add enrolled farmland to a state conservation category
The failed proposal would place enrolled Vermont farmland and forestland in a category used for state conservation goals, while keeping the permanent-protection requirement.
What it does
The proposal would place enrolled Vermont farmland and forestland in a land category used for conservation goals. Land would still need permanent protection to count as conserved.
Argument forThis could let some enrolled farms and forests qualify for a conservation category while remaining in agricultural or forest use, if they meet the permanent-protection rule.
Argument againstThis could make it harder for readers to distinguish working farmland and forestland from areas managed mainly to protect nature, even though the conservation goals still require permanent protection.
More detail
The proposal would include enrolled agricultural land and forestland in the definition of a natural resource management area. This definition applies to the state’s 30 percent and 50 percent conservation goals. To count as conserved for either goal, land must still be permanently protected and meet a listed area definition. For the 50 percent goal, other long-term protections may also count if they meet the stated standards. The proposal says it would take effect July 1, 2025, but it failed on a roll-call vote.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 12Which was disagreed to on a Roll Call Failed -- Needed 69 of 138 to Pass -- Yeas = 58, Nays = 80Latest
- Vote recorded Which was disagreed to on a Roll Call Failed -- Needed 69 of 138 to Pass -- Yeas = 58, Nays = 80. Result: fail.Lower
- May 12Rep. Higley of Lowell demanded yeas and nays
- May 12Rep. Higley of Lowell moved to relieve the Committee on Environment
- Feb 5Which was disagreed to on a Roll Call Failed -- Needed 67 of 134 to Pass -- Yeas = 48, Nays = 86
- Vote recorded Which was disagreed to on a Roll Call Failed -- Needed 67 of 134 to Pass -- Yeas = 48, Nays = 86. Result: fail.Lower
- Feb 5Rep. Parsons of Newbury demanded yeas and nays
- Feb 5Rep. Galfetti of Barre Town moved to relieve the Committee on Environment
- May 12Which was disagreed to on a Roll Call Failed -- Needed 69 of 138 to Pass -- Yeas = 58, Nays = 80Latest
- 2025
- Jan 23Read first time and referred to the Committee on EnvironmentIntroduced
Environment & Energy