Vermont has about 625,000 people. Our sewer systems treat all their effluent. Vermont farmers house about 120,000 cows, which each generate about 33 times more manure than a human. Vermonts cows generate the equivalent of 4 million peoples manure all of it untreated.
The writer correctly predicts how unwelcome to large property owners large costs for runoff will be. He also correctly states that dairy is the largest source of Phosphorus going into the lake (40%) and that the balance comprises stormwater, stream banks, unpaved roads and MWWTPs. But then he joins Secretary Moore and Elena Mihaly who both say we must vigorously tax the citizens to address the last of these influences and ignore or simply endure dairys contribution. Why?
If Governor Scott really wants to meet Vermont's goal to reduce the use of fossil fuels and make immediate progress toward cleaning up our atmosphere and our water, he should look again at the $60/80M/year that the state has been allocating for the past forty years to the Vermont's largest polluter and its largest welfare dependent: conventional dairy. Taxpayes would not only save some very large portion of what they have been spending to prop up this industry but they would also not have to raise an additional $70M for twenty years that Secretary of Natural Resources Julie Moore is telling us is necessary to clean up the lake. Isn't this exactly what he has been telling us he wants: results for no new taxes and no new fees?
While calling the membership of the N.R.A. well meaning, Trump also said he told its leaders at a lunch on Sunday that its time. Were going to stop this nonsense. Its time.
Secretary Tebbetts who follows in the footsteps of his many predecessors at VAAFM, is not trying to clean up the lake. He is trying to shield Vermont dairy from the kind of regulations that would. Those who want the state to meet its water quality standards should press their legislators to look again at Act 64 and the new Required Agricultural Practices Rules and ask where in these regulations is any mechanism for reducing milk production in the watershed by 85%. The target cannot be met with buffers and keeping cows out of streams. The problem is attributable to the importation (statewide) of 40,000 tons of NPK fertilizer, the importation of 400,000 tons of feed supplements and the stocking of more than one cow for every acre on which that cows feed is harvested and her manure spread. Do not be distracted by other efforts like cover cropping and nutrient management plans. No regulation that does not constrain production will obtain.
The Vermont Climate Council has seated a conventional farmer, who I presume will inform the public that conventional farming is the leading cause of global greenhouse gases, ahead of both electrical and heat generation and transportation.
Re: “Big Ag Sale: Is There a Market for a $23 Million Vermont Dairy Farm?”
An old adage says that a business is worth a multiple of its earnings. A farm with 2,700 cows produces 54,000,000 lbs of milk or 540,000 cwts, which at $17/cwt earns $9,180,000 gross revenue. If the farm’s cost per unit of production is $16/cwt (a BIG if) then net revenue is $9,180,000 - $8,640,000 = $548,000. $548,000 is just 0.023 of $23,000,000, which when you consider that the owner would have to work too is a terrible return on investment.