Repealing parts of Act 181 is the first step to rebuilding trust and moving forward with rural Vermonters

By Rep. Laura Sibilia

Vermont has a responsibility to address climate change and protect our communities and the natural systems that support us. We have seen firsthand the damage a changing climate is doing across our state, from flooding that damages homes and roads to increasing wildfire risk and the growing threat to species we depend on. 

In that context, Act 181 of 2024 is a large and complex update to our land use laws that changes how decisions about land are made and adds new protections for land and water that support us. Advocates have rightly emphasized the importance of protecting biodiversity as part of this work.

Two years later, many Vermonters are just beginning to understand all that Act 181 does and how it could affect their land, and the reaction is telling. We are seeing deep concern and frustration that reflect how much of this work moved forward without them.

The reaction is not a misunderstanding. It is an important signal. We did not do the work to meaningfully engage rural Vermonters in decisions about their land before moving forward, and we are paying for that now.

We are paying for it in the most important currency we have on climate and land use policy. Time.

When people are left out of decisions about their land, they will naturally push back. What Vermonters are experiencing is that their land is being discussed, maps and rules are being developed, and they do not hear themselves reflected – at all – in those conversations. When they raise concerns, they are frequently being told they are misinformed. Some are still learning about the law, and fear is running high. But that fear is not the issue. It is the result of being left out of decisions about their land.

We in the legislature have set up an adversarial situation, whether we intended to or not, and rural Vermonters are experiencing it that way.

Instead of moving forward with clarity and a shared purpose, we are now debating timelines, delaying implementation, and trying to rebuild trust after the fact. That is time we did not have to waste, not on housing, not on infrastructure, and not on protecting our communities from weather risks we are already facing.

I voted against Act 181 in 2024 for this reason. It was a large and historic bill that will shape Vermont for decades, and we did not have a real plan to go out and talk with rural Vermonters about what we were proposing for their land. I upheld the Governor’s veto for the same reason and have since urged that we slow down and do that work.

There has been some good faith effort. Anne Watson, now chairing the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, has worked publicly and sincerely to respond. Scientists and planners have brought critical knowledge to the actual implementation work. But we are not where we need to be, and continuing on the current path will only make the problem worse.

At the same time, I see political opportunists using this conflict for electoral gain, rather than working toward solutions. That will only deepen division and delay the work that needs to be done with our communities.

If the Legislature wants to move forward, we will have to change how we are doing this work. That starts with acknowledging that we got the sequence wrong. We moved ahead without enough shared understanding with rural Vermonters of what this would mean for their land and communities, and we are seeing the consequences of that now.

That is why I believe we need to repeal Tier 3 and the road rule in Act 181 and rebuild this work with rural Vermonters at the beginning of the conversation.

This is not about stopping progress. It is about making sure progress is lasting. Vermont still needs to protect our communities from flooding and safeguard the natural systems that support life in Vermont. But we will not get there by imposing a system people do not trust.

We already have examples of how to do this well. Vermont’s work on resilience and hazard mitigation starts with communities, focuses on real risks like flooding, infrastructure damage, and public safety, and brings together local knowledge with scientific expertise to identify solutions that will work on the ground in that area. That approach builds trust and leads to effective action. We should be building from those efforts, not working around them.

Applying that approach here means starting in the same place.That means going town by town, and having a real dialogue about what needs to be protected. It means recognizing that the people who live in rural Vermont also care deeply about the land and bring important knowledge about how it is used and stewarded. Some may welcome resources and technical assistance, and others may see things differently. The state’s role should be to support and partner, bringing together expert local knowledge with the expertise of scientists and environmental professionals.

If we do that work first, we have a chance to move forward with clarity and shared purpose. If we do not, we will continue to face delays, conflict, and lost time.

And the longer we wait to do that, the more time we lose.