Republicans in the House of Representatives this week tried but failed to water down conservation efforts with a bill that would have broadened the definition of what is considered conserved land in Vermont.
The bill, H.70, would have allowed the 19,000 farm and forestry properties that enjoy tax breaks from the state to be counted as “conserved” in the statewide inventory of such lands.
The inventory tracks the state’s progress toward the goals of ensuring that 30 percent of its total land area is conserved by 2030 and 50 percent by 2050. Those goals were set by the legislature in 2023 in the Community Resilience and Biodiversity Protection Act, or Act 59.
The act “establishes a statewide vision to maintain an ecologically functional landscape that sustains biodiversity, supports working farms and forests, strengthens community resilience, and upholds Vermont’s historic pattern of compact villages surrounded by rural lands and natural areas.”
What should qualify as “conserved” land, however, remains a source of significant debate.
An analysis by conducted by the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board concluded that 27 percent of Vermont’s land, or 1.6 million acres, is already conserved. Some is publicly owned and some has been conserved via easements.
Board staff declined, however, to include the land in the current use program in the tabulation of the inventory. The Use Value Appraisal program, as it is formally known, lowers taxes on working agricultural and or forestland to protect them from development. Any property owner can withdraw their property at any time and develop it, which is why it was not included in the inventory.
H.70, sponsored by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell), sought to count all 2.5 million acres of agricultural and forest land in the current use program in the inventory.
That would dramatically increase what Vermont considers conserved land from 27 percent to 70 percent — meaning the state would already have exceeded both the 2030 and the 2050 goals.
That, in turn, would relieve pressure on Vermont to conserve rural land through additional development regulations and reflect the environmental benefits of working lands, Higley told Seven Days.
Rep. Amy Sheldon (D-Middlebury), who chairs the House Environment Committee, was no fan of the bill. She allowed only limited testimony on it and did not let it advance to a vote last session or this one.
Fed up by the impasse, Republicans on Tuesday tried a rare legislative gambit. Higley asked that Sheldon’s committee be relieved of the bill so it could be voted on directly by the full House. That set off several rounds of procedural wrangling and claims of unfairness.
Democrats decried the move as disrespectful and undemocratic.
Rep. Alice Emmons (D- Springfield), the longest serving member of the House, called Higley’s motion unprecedented and “very disheartening to me.”
“If we continue to do this, pulling bills out of committee, and this becomes the accepted practice and the norm — we will have destroyed this valuable General Assembly here in Vermont,” Emmons declared from the floor.
“This is no way to legislate policy,” Rep. Scott Campbell (D-St. Johnsbury) added.
Republicans countered that the move, known as Rule 51, exists specifically to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
“The lack of attention to this important topic by the assigned committee should not be the reason why this bill fails to move forward,” Rep. Michael Morgan (R-Milton) said.
“’Respect the committee process.’ Easy to say when you control the entire process, a process where you can kill any bill with ease,” Rep. Michael Boutin (R-Barre City) added.
In the end, Republicans and a few Democrats and independents could only muster 58 votes in support, while most Democrats and Progressives held fast with 80 votes against.
Republicans made it clear they plan to make an issue of the decision in the fall. Paul Dame, chair of the Vermont GOP, said he expects to use the issue to recruit candidates to run for office.
Gov. Phil Scott pounced, as well, weighing in with a statement on his Facebook page.
“It’s unfortunate the Majority is resistant to debating this issue, which was first introduced nearly 18 months ago,” he said. “We should be open to allowing policies to pass or fail, based on (their) merits, rather than using the power of the majority party.”
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
