Dem House majority rejects adding Current Use to conservation goals

By Guy Page

An effort led by Rep. Mark Higley (R-Lowell) to force a floor debate on a stalled current-use land bill failed Tuesday after a lengthy House debate over legislative process and committee authority.

Higley moved to relieve the House Environment Committee of further consideration of H.70, a bill dealing with the inclusion of use-value appraisal land in Vermont’s conserved land inventory, and place it directly on the House calendar.

State law requires Vermont to move towards permanent conservation of 50% of total land area by 2050. Adding the acreage in Vermont’s hugely popular Current Use program would help meet this goal without unnecessarily restricting development in rural areas, sponsors – including Higley – say. 

Dairy farmer Rep. John Brigham (R-St. Albans) made the case for agriculture as conservation. “Too often we treat conservation and agriculture like separate conversations, but in Vermont they are deeply connected. The people maintaining fields, forests, and waterways are helping to preserve the character of our State. Bringing H.70 to the floor acknowledges that partnership and helps move us closer to our long-term goals.”

“H.70 was introduced on January 23 early on in this biennium,” Higley told the chamber. “In 2025, H.70 was a high priority for the rural caucus and others.”

Higley said supporters had repeatedly sought committee action on the bill, but testimony was not heard until shortly before the crossover deadline and no committee vote was ever taken.

“This process by approving Rule 51 will allow all members to consider and vote on H.70,” Higley said before requesting a roll-call vote.

The motion sparked debate over whether bypassing the committee process would undermine the House’s legislative structure.

Rep. Thomas Burditt (R-West Rutland) argued that lawmakers had already been informally debating the issue through chamber-wide emails despite the bill never reaching the floor.

“There’s therefore a desire from members of this chamber to discuss the merits of this bill with all House members,” Burditt said. “A vote not to call up after this open invitation for debate on this exact topic would be counter to the questions and answers presented in the email.”

At one point, a point of order was raised after Burditt began referencing the merits of the legislation itself. Jill Krowinski ruled debate must remain limited to procedural issues surrounding the motion.

Opponents said granting the motion would set a damaging precedent.

Corrections and Institutions Chair Alice Emmons (D-Springfield), the chamber’s longest serving member, said she had seen such motions fewer than five times during her legislative career.

“Our structure here is designed for the committee process,” Emmons said. “If we continue to do this in 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.”

Rep. Michael Boutin (R-Barre City) took issue with Emmons’ sentiment: “Respect the committee process. Easy to say when you control the entire process. A process where you can kill any bill with ease. Imagine if the tables were turned. Would the same folks respect the process?”

Rep. Gina Galfetti (R-Barre Town) supported Higley’s motion, saying the House rules exist partly because committee processes can fail.

“There’s a reason that we have this rule in our House rules, and that is because sometimes it’s been acknowledged that the process has hiccups,” Galfetti said. “Today we have the opportunity to show up in this building as Vermonters first.”

Rep. R. Scott Campbell (D-St. Johnsbury) urged lawmakers to reject the motion, calling the committee system essential to deliberate lawmaking.

“This is a deliberative process. It’s a slow process, frustratingly slow many times,” Campbell said. “This is no way to legislate policy.”

The motion ultimately failed by roll call, leaving H.70 in the House Environment Committee.

The roll call saw several GOP chairs vote no – perhaps out of concern that their committee might someday be relieved of a bill by force from the floor. Several Democrats crossed over, but not enough to affect the outcome. 

Yes votes (58)

No votes (80)

Absent