This commentary is by Pat Suozzi, of Hinesburg. Suozzi is the president of the Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds.

In the recent opinion piece “Vermonters Get Rid of Your Lawns,” author Lucie Lehmann describes the wonderful transformation that took place when she removed her lawn and planted native perennials and grasses. Her yard came alive with color, attracting all sorts of birds, butterflies, native bees and more. She describes many of the benefits of doing this, including reduction in the use of pesticides.

I would like to add another very important benefit of less lawn: improving the health of Vermont’s lakes and streams.

Grass with its shallow roots does not absorb much rainwater. However, native plants, shrubs and trees, with their deeper root systems, are far more absorbent, which significantly reduces stormwater runoff. 

Even if you live far from a lake or stream, runoff from a lawn — laden with nutrients, sediment and other pollutants — will end up in a nearby stream and eventually into one of the state’s 800 lakes and ponds.The nutrients, consisting mainly of phosphorus, contribute to creating the toxic cyanobacteria blooms that have closed so many beaches along Lake Champlain and on other lakes in the state. Stormwater flowing across your lawn can also erode roads, carrying that dirt and gravel along with salts and other pollutants into the lakes and streams. 

Removing lawns and planting native species can help to reduce this pollution, protect water quality and bring you the pleasure of a garden full of life that will require little to no mowing and give you more leisure time to get out and enjoy a nearby lake. 

Interested but not sure how to get started? We can help.

The Federation of Vermont Lakes and Ponds has published a landscaping booklet that includes a variety of landscape design templates and planting plans, lists of native plants, shrubs, and trees, as well as maintenance tips. While this was created mainly for lake shore property owners, all of the designs, native plant lists and maintenance tips are completely relevant to anyone who would like to change their lawn desert into a garden.

Help protect Vermont’s lakes and ponds. Stop mowing and plant a garden.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Pat Suozzi: Vermont lakes and streams like fewer lawns, too! .

This commentary is by Joshua Reap, of Candia, New Hampshire. Reap is the board president of the Vermont Construction Academy, where he helps lead efforts to expand hands-on construction education and credential-based workforce training across the state. He also serves as the president and CEO of the Associated Builders and Contractors of New Hampshire/Vermont (ABC NH/VT), advocating for workforce development, opportunity in the trades and policies that support a strong, skilled construction industry.

We’re facing a workforce crisis: thousands of open jobs in the trades, and not enough people trained to fill them.

On one side, we have thousands of job openings across the skilled trades — positions in carpentry, electrical, HVAC and more — offering strong wages, long-term security and a clear path for advancement. On the other side, we have young adults uncertain about their future, displaced workers needing to retool and an aging generation of tradespeople preparing to retire.

The Vermont Construction Academy was built to bridge that gap.

With multiple pathways into the workforce — whether it’s our boot camps, registered apprenticeships or custom, off-site technical trainings — the academy is helping to redefine what career success looks like. 

We’re doing it at a critical time, when traditional education systems, especially public career and technical education centers are simply unable to serve the number of people who want to build a better future with their hands and minds.

We believe the trades deserve a seat at the table — not just because we need buildings built or roads paved, but because we also need problem solvers, creative thinkers and lifelong learners who understand how to lead, collaborate and show up with purpose. The academy doesn’t just teach technical skills. We develop the social skills, teamwork and integrity needed to thrive in today’s economy.

The truth is, our economy is changing faster than anyone can keep up.

As artificial intelligence begins to disrupt a variety of industries — from legal and financial services to media and customer support — the trades are emerging as a future-proof career path. You cannot replace a plumber with an algorithm. You cannot patch drywall with a chatbot. The construction industry is — and will remain — one of the most knowledge-driven, human-powered sectors of the workforce. In Vermont, we’re doubling down on that.

The latest workforce report from Associated Builders and Contractors National ranked New Hampshire among the top four states in the country for lowest construction unemployment in June. Much like our neighbors to the east, this report shows Vermont not far behind — and with the work we’re doing through the Vermont Construction Academy, we’re on track to close that gap even further.

We’re not just talking about it. We’re building real momentum.

Under the leadership of Ross Lavoie, the academy has expanded real-world, hands-on training opportunities. Ross regularly brings in industry experts to work directly with students, giving them the chance to learn by doing — welding, roofing, framing and more — all under the guidance of professionals actively working in the field. 

These immersive experiences are what set the academy apart. Our boot camps are upskilling students, veterans and career changers alike. We’re building partnerships with contractors who are eager to hire. We’re reaching individuals who have long been underserved or overlooked by traditional systems because that’s what the workforce actually needs.

We don’t do it alone.

Everything we do at the Vermont Construction Academy is grounded in our core values:

• Professional: We uphold the highest of standards in everything we do — from our teaching to our safety protocols.
• Initiative: We teach our students to take ownership of their success.
• Teamwork: We believe in building trust, shared responsibility, and strong site culture.
• Integrity: We hold ourselves accountable to quality, safety and doing the right thing, even when no one’s watching.
• Innovation: We embrace progress — new tools, new training models and new ways to meet workforce demand.
• Work ethic: We demonstrate determination, grit and ambition every single day.

We’re not waiting for someone else to solve the labor shortage. We’re solving it here in Vermont, one student at a time.

Beyond solving a workforce challenge, we’re also changing hearts and minds about what it means to “make it” in this world. Not every student needs a four-year degree to find purpose. Not every graduate needs to move to a city to find opportunity. Not every family needs to carry the burden of debt to feel pride in their future.

At Vermont Construction Academy, we offer something different. Something real. Something lasting.

It’s time to rethink what success looks like — and start investing in the workforce we actually need.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Joshua Reap: Trade education solves more than just a labor shortage.

This commentary is by Charlene Webster, of Arlington, and Dorinne Dorfman, of Plainfield. Charlene has taught grades 3-6, special education and structured literacy in southwestern Vermont over her 40-year career. Dorinne teaches reading to grades 5-8 at Barre Town Middle and Elementary School, and has served as principal of Leland and Gray Union High School in Townshend and Champlain Elementary School in Burlington.

It’s never too early to start reading instruction and intervention in our schools. The best time for students to obtain strong foundational reading skills is between prekindergarten and the second grade. During a child’s pre-K through kindergarten years, deficits in language, alphabetics and phonemic awareness that may develop are small. 

Effective intervention, especially at this early stage, can close these gaps. Unlike other developmental milestones (such as walking and talking), reading rarely develops without direct instruction. Consensus research has shown that literacy gaps in the earliest grades predict reading problems later. The longer schools wait to remediate, the greater the reading failure gap, the harder to correct and the less likely students will ever become proficient readers.

In the past, American schools have chosen to “wait and see” by giving students more time to develop reading skills. This approach has been renamed “wait to fail” because rarely did gaps close without evidence-aligned intervention. 

Vermont passed legislation in 2024, Act 139, which abandoned this approach. Parents/guardians can pay careful attention to see how their schools are providing effective intervention beginning at the youngest grades. 

Parents/guardians will know effective remediation is being delivered when they see their children’s growth by receiving detailed progress-monitoring assessments and hearing their children sound out new words and read aloud with fluency and accuracy. 

In fact, when students as early as pre-K and kindergarten demonstrate poor skills on these predictive assessments, schools should provide intervention right away to close existing gaps before these students fail to make reading progress. 

These assessments include:

1. The names and sounds of all letters in the alphabet
2. Rapid Automatized Naming, which are skills in retrieving the names of letters, numbers and objects accurately and automatically.
3. Oral language skills: speech articulation, vocabulary, grammar, understanding longer sentences, attention and following directions.

Act 139 requires all students in grades K-3 be assessed and receive classroom instruction in the five components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension. Assessments must be valid and reliable, and administered following the test’s technical specifications at least once a year. 

Schools must notify the parents/guardians of students found significantly below proficient. Some schools have chosen to report all their students’ progress on the five reading components. Parents may always request results from these screenings.

Although Act 139 has put an end to misguided instructional approaches that have harmed student reading, thousands of Vermont students today continue to struggle to learn to read and write. 

For this reason, Act 72 — which was formerly called H.480 and was passed in June 2025 — requires public and approved independent schools to provide effective intervention to students significantly below proficiency in reading or whose poor reading skills impede school progress. 

Act 72 applies to all grades K-12 and requires an appropriately trained education professional to provide remediation. Schools must notify, support and share information with parents/guardians of students found significantly below proficient. 

Carrying out Vermont’s reading laws provides every student the opportunity to learn to read well and succeed in school and adulthood.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Dorrine Dorfman and Charlene Webster: Following up on Vermont’s Act 72.

This commentary is by Jennifer Mamola, of Washington, D.C. She works with the John Muir Project, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting national forests from fire-phobic policies, advocating community-out approaches to wildfire resilience, untangling woody biomass from the clean energy narrative and defending nature’s ability to manage biodiversity.

James Campbell’s recent commentary, “How the ‘Fix Our Forests Act’ protects Vermont’s future,” suggests logging is the solution to wildfire, framing forests as overstocked and dangerous. Vermont’s forests historically had dense canopy cover, and fire naturally recycles nutrients, creates habitats and promotes regeneration. These forests are resilient and do not need logging to be “safer.”

The “Fix Our Forests Act” would not protect communities or forests. Thinning and logging leave flammable debris, open the canopy and fragment landscapes, increasing fire spread. Focusing on forests where fire occurs naturally diverts attention from human-built areas, where wildfire truly threatens lives and property. 

Even U.S. Forest Service scientists note that thinning and post-fire logging can increase tree mortality, push flames faster toward homes and release more carbon than the fires themselves would.

Wildfire danger is primarily tied to the human-built environment. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and wildfire experts point to home hardening, defensible space and community preparedness as the most effective ways to protect lives and property. 

Vermont’s recent fires — 82 in 2024 and 45 in 2025, nearly all human-caused — show the real threat comes from human activity and proximity to homes, not forest density. Policies should focus on strengthening communities rather than industrial logging of resilient forests.

H.R. 582, the “Community Protection and Wildfire Resilience Act” introduced by Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., offers a more effective approach. It helps communities develop resilience plans emphasizing home hardening, defensible space and preparedness.

Vermonters deserve solutions grounded in science, not legislation that industrializes forests. The “Fix Our Forests Act” diverts resources, weakens protections and undermines ecosystem resilience. Protecting Vermonters means strengthening communities and homes while letting forests function naturally, supporting both ecosystem and climate resilience.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Jennifer Mamola: ‘Fix Our Forests Act’ misrepresents wildfire solutions.

This commentary is by Marcie Gallagher, of Burlington. She is a year-round bike commuter and Complete Streets specialist at Local Motion. Local Motion works to make it safe, accessible and fun for everyone to bike, walk and roll in Vermont through advocacy and technical assistance. 

On Saturday, Aug. 16, Colchester resident Michael Pickering was killed after being struck by a car on Malletts Bay Avenue. This is a tragedy for everyone involved, and it was entirely avoidable.

That’s because Malletts Bay Avenue is dangerous by design.

The stretch of the road that Michael was killed on was built exclusively for the movement of cars, despite running through a neighborhood where people live, walk dogs, collect mail, garden, exercise and greet their neighbors. It transitions abruptly from a country road into a residential area with no design elements to slow drivers down or alert them to the presence of pedestrians.

It lacks continuous sidewalks and shoulders, forcing anyone walking, biking or rolling into the lane of traffic. It lacks safe crossings. It lacks adequate lighting. The road divides a neighborhood with a high-speed corridor, with no protection for the people who live and move here. 

Without protection, our neighbors are at risk whenever they use this street. There is little margin of error for drivers — any mistake can lead to another tragedy.

Malletts Bay Avenue connects Winooski and Colchester. In 2024, the Winooski Walk/Bike Master Plan identified Malletts Bay Avenue as a top priority for safety improvements. Over the past five years, more than 75 crashes have been reported along this corridor, resulting in more than 15 injuries — and now a death. 

Still, our towns are not making changes we need to make fast enough to save lives. Town officials are not planning to install a sidewalk until 2028 or 2029, according to WCAX.

Two days after Pickering’s death, Strong Towns, a national leader in livable communities, published an article arguing that such tragedies are “statistically inevitable outcomes of building a place where human life outside of a car has no real value in the design.” When tragedies happen, we must have a public conversation that says, “This place killed someone. Here’s why, and here’s how we stop it from happening again.”

Malletts Bay Avenue killed Pickering. If nothing changes, it will happen again.

So, the question now is: How are we going to stop it?

We already know how to prevent tragedies like this. What we need is the public will to make it happen. Join your local walk/bike group and advocate for safer streets in your community.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Marcie Gallagher: Michael Pickering’s death on Malletts Bay Avenue was avoidable.

This commentary is by Barbara Felitti, of Huntington.

“Blasphemy” and “sacrilegious” is how a Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department biologist described the agency’s proposed rule change to allow hunters to use a rifle or shotgun to kill antlerless deer as a means of controlling the deer population. 

The comments by Nick Fortin were an acknowledgement that, until now, existing hunting rules and cultural norms restricted killing antlerless female deer to the use of bow and arrow or muzzleloader. 

The palpable angst on the part of Fish & Wildlife about the ethics of hunting antlerless deer with rifles is at great odds with their position at a House Environment Committee hearing in February of this year against a bill, H.132, which would prohibit the use of bait as an attractant when hunting furbearing wildlife. Despite repeated questions from legislators, Fish & Wildlife would not offer an opinion about the ethics of baiting which is seen by some hunters as unsportsmanlike for providing an unfair advantage over game.

Another reason for prohibiting hunting over bait piles is public safety. Emotional testimony was presented to the committee from people who lost their dog after it was attracted to and shot over a bait pile. Despite this, the response from Fish & Wildlife’s interim commissioner was that the issue is “nuanced” and the onus to address it should not be put solely on people who use bait piles.

To be clear, Fish & Wildlife acknowledged that they do not know how many furbearers are killed over bait piles every year or how many hunters use bait piles as there are no reporting requirements for the practice. Without this information, there is no meaningful way to assess the legitimacy and ethics of using bait piles as a hunting practice. Fish & Wildlife also failed to answer a question about how important hunting over bait piles is to managing wildlife populations such as coyotes.

Nonetheless, Fish & Wildlife sees it as more important to allow use of an unspecified number of bait piles by an unknown number of hunters rather than address the known safety issue of bait piles causing the death of people’s dogs. Fish & Wildlife expressed no problem with continuing to allow people to shoot from their homes out at a bait pile in the daytime or nighttime. 

Fish & Wildlife staff claim to “try to deal with the issue of safety and what normal people would, average people would, consider reasonable behavior on the part of the hunting community.” I think the average general public would see it as reasonable behavior to have this unnecessary practice stopped.

In 2022, Vermont passed the wanton waste bill, which bans the intentional killing of wildlife without a useful purpose. It resulted in bans on practices such as animal killing contests. It banned this form of hunting not because there was a conservation issue, but because there was a social values issue that indiscriminate killing of wildlife was offensive to the general public.  

Baiting is similarly offensive and unnecessary. At a minimum, Fish & Wildlife could have declined to support the bill or at least not oppose it. Instead, they put their support behind an unknown number of hunters who use bait piles at the expense of safety to the general public and their pets.

Once again, Fish & Wildlife is showing itself to be oblivious to the general public on wildlife issues. 

Back in 1984, the name was changed from the Department of Fish & Game to the Department of Fish & Wildlife. Perhaps it is time to revert back to “Fish & Game” so we are honest about whose interests are being served. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Barbara Felitti: The issue of hunting over bait piles in Vermont.

This commentary is by Larry Satcowitz, of Randolph. He is a Democrat representing the Orange-Washington-Addison District in the Vermont House of Representatives and is the ranking member of the House Environment Committee.

Every day I look at the headlines with a sense of dread. Every day, it seems, the oligarchs and authoritarians gain a bit more control of our country. 

As I was writing this commentary earlier this month, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard to Washington, D.C., and threatened to do the same to other major U.S. cities. It was just one of a long string of abuses of his power as president. 

It is hard to overstate how unprecedented and dangerous our situation is, and it is horrifying to think that they are just getting started. Resistance right now is critical. 

In Vermont, our resistance ought to be led, at least in part, by Gov. Phil Scott. Our governor, however, has done little to resist the bully in Washington. Not only has he failed to condemn the outrageous excesses of the federal administration, but he has also readily acquiesced. 

In winter, while hundreds of Vermonters protested, he welcomed JD Vance to the state. In April he rejected a call from Vermont state senators to cancel contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agencies that have been illegally snatching people off the streets. 

Last month, his administration failed to provide evidence to the courts that would have allowed Vermont to obtain funds which had already been committed to help us with our electric vehicle charging infrastructure, undermining the efforts of our attorney general.  

Earlier this month Scott met with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin, who I think is doing everything he can to undermine the rules and laws that keep our nation’s environment clean and safe. Shortly after the visit, Zeldin canceled $62.5 million of already appropriated funding that would have helped low-income Vermonters get energy from solar power projects. 

A few days later, and perhaps most egregiously, Scott saw fit to release the personal information of more than 140,000 Vermonters to a federal government that has no legitimate purpose for it. Governors of other states rejected the demand for this information, but our governor capitulated. 

Again, the Trump administration is just getting started. There will be more assaults on our liberty and civil institutions. How many more times will Scott disregard Vermonters’ values, safety, livelihood and privacy in favor of taking the easy path?

As we all know, appeasing bullies gives them more power. Our governor either does not understand this or supports Trump’s actions. Either way, he’s dramatically failing us. We need to stand up to the cruel, inept and corrupt administration in Washington. Instead, he’s helping to pave the way for its continued consolidation of power. 

Scott is only part of the way through his current term. He still has plenty of time to join other Vermont leaders in resisting Trump. I urge him to do so. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Rep. Larry Satcowitz: An open letter urging Gov. Phil Scott to stand up to the Trump administration.

This commentary is by Sharon Francis, the former executive director of the Connecticut River Joint Commissions, and James U. McClammer, a commissioner, both of Charlestown, New Hampshire. Francis was a conservation assistant to President Lyndon Johnson, assistant administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and worked for then-Sen. Henry Jackson in writing sections of the National Environmental Protection Act. McClammer is an environmental scientist, who was the senior environmental scientist at the engineering firm Dufresne-Henry, Inc., and has held positions at the Smithsonian Institution and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

We write to our Vermont neighbors with a sense of urgency about forthcoming federal decisions that will affect our great Connecticut River for decades in the future. 

Now is the moment for all who care about the Connecticut River to raise our voices and ensure that future licenses for power production by Great River Hydro from the dams at Wilder, Bellows Falls and Vernon address the effects on river habitats, species, communities, landowners and recreational users. 

We testified on July 17 in Bellows Falls at the public comment session held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on their draft environmental impact statement for licenses that will define operating conditions for the three hydroelectric facilities for the next 30 to 50 years.

In reflection on the licensing process, we recognize the importance for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to hear, loudly and emphatically, from as many voices as possible before the agency crafts its final license requirements. Today, all of us who care about the Connecticut River and who want our children and grandchildren to share the benefits of living near it need to make our voices count. 

Is boating on the river important to you? Is fishing? How about knowing that Connecticut River fish are not contaminated by toxic substances and that birds and wildlife along the river’s shores are protected? Do you care that riverfront farmers and other landowners lose land due to erosion caused by dams, which also undermines the integrity of roads along the river?

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on its draft before issuing a final environmental impact statement. While the draft identifies some of the adverse effects of hydroelectric production and offers measures to compensate for these effects, we believe that adverse effects are vastly underestimated and many rightful uses of the Connecticut River are ignored. 

It is imperative that additional compensation measures be identified in the final statement and required in the licenses. 

Not all problems and not all future uses of the Connecticut River can be identified 30 to 50 years in the future. Licenses issued now, however, must provide a mechanism to address issues and opportunities during the lifetime of the licenses. 

That’s why we are advocating that the licenses require the establishment of a Mitigation and Enhancement Fund that would be paid for from the profits Great River Hydro generates. It would provide funding to prevent and correct damages to riverfront properties and habitats, conduct relevant studies, and provide opportunities such as trails, picnic sites and boat launches, so the public can directly benefit from our public river.

Regional planning commissions, local town officials and others have all developed well-considered plans regarding our shared resource, the Connecticut River. This work should not be sitting on shelves. It deserves to be implemented. 

A company that will control flow in the river for profit should understand its shared partnership with other river users whose interests deserve support, not indifference. For these reasons, we urge that a necessary condition of the future licenses to operate these three dams also  include a mitigation and enhancement fund.

Precedence for such a fund was initiated in 2002 by the owners of the Connecticut River dams upstream at Fifteen Mile Falls, New England Power Company. The fund had an $18 million-limit and accomplished many worthwhile projects carried out by local communities and organizations. 

In the case of the current licenses now sought by Great River Hydro, we recommend a required commitment of at least $1 million per year for the lifetime of the permits. Unmet needs are already well known and documented. Over the next generations, new urgencies and opportunities will inevitably arise. 

Our many years of responsible actions on behalf of the Connecticut River and the people of its valley have prompted our engagement now. We reach out to you because we know that a chorus of concern and hope will be heard better than the voices of a few. 

The comment period is currently open and comments must be submitted before 5 p.m. Thursday. Please join us in advocating a commitment for additional protection and enjoyment of the Connecticut River.

Correction: An earlier version of this commentary incorrectly described Sharon Francis’ term as the Connecticut River Joint Commissions executive director.

Clarification: The headline of this commentary has been updated to clarify the individuals who wrote it.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Sharon Francis and James U. McClammer: Speak up now for the Connecticut River.

This commentary is by Jennifer Lovett, of Starksboro. She is a conservation biologist, author of “Beavers Away!” and a former museum curator and educator.

Beavers are amazing animals who are simultaneously admired for their industrious engineering skills and disliked when their activities flood roads and fields. Our often-contentious relationship with them is long overdue for change. 

Recently, several studies have demonstrated the financial benefits of managing beavers humanely with beaver deceivers, pond levelers and fences rather than traditional methods of trapping, shooting or blowing up dams. Now that federal disaster relief is not guaranteed and emergency funds may not be available to towns for infrastructure protection and flood remediation, towns could save thousands of dollars by employing non-lethal beaver controls.

As a keystone species, beavers create, enhance and maintain habitat that countless other species rely on for survival. As ecosystem engineers, beavers change the landscape by converting small streams into vast dynamic wetlands, swamps and meadows. 

Beaver wetlands slow the rate of snowmelt and runoff by storing and cooling vast amounts of water underground, which, in turn, reduce the erosive impact of floods and can be released during droughts. Wetlands also act as firebreaks and critical places of refuge for wildlife during wildfires. Moreover, the sediment at the bottom of ponds filters out pollutants and improves water quality downstream.

While beavers could be among our best allies in the ongoing battle with the changing climate, I admit that they can be frustrating and can cause serious problems in areas prone to flooding. Flooded roads, farm fields, building sites and blocked culverts are often extremely expensive and recurring problems for towns and landowners. 

Beaver conflicts are often handled by killing the beavers and destroying their dams. However, this is rarely a permanent solution since any good territory will be claimed by new beavers, resulting in a continual cycle of flooding, road or culvert damage, infrastructure repairs and repeated annual killing of numerous animals. 

Alternatively, non-lethal means of controlling beaver activity can be achieved by simply regulating the flow of water out of ponds or wetlands. Devices can allow water to flow through a dam or culvert without the beavers’ desire or ability to block it. This permits the many benefits beavers provide to ecosystems and biodiversity to remain in place while also protecting infrastructure. 

In Alberta, Canada, researchers assessed the efficacy of pond-leveling devices and fencing to manage beaver activity in areas with chronic flooding. A cost-benefit analysis compared the cost of traditional management approaches, such as trapping, with non-lethal alternatives. The difference was remarkable. Over a period of seven years, traditional management cost the province more than $3 million, while the installation of non-lethal devices cost $179,440.

In Billerica, Massachusetts, 55 beaver-conflict sites were studied from 2000 to 2019. Again, results showed that the sites managed with non-lethal controls cost much less than those managed by lethal removal. While it cost $409 to trap beavers at each site per year, installations of flow devices at each site cost on average $229 per year. Thus, the town saved $7,740 annually with non-lethal management.

Another study analyzed the efficacy and comparative costs of using flow devices to resolve beaver conflicts along roads in seven counties in the Coastal Plain of Virginia. 

Flow devices were installed in 14 sites damaged by beavers. The average maintenance cost at each site was less than $20 after flow devices were installed, compared with $21,490 per site per year for maintenance, road repairs and population control prior to this installation. 

The work on this project was also executed by Skip Lisle, the inventor of the Beaver Deceiver and president of Beaver Deceivers International, which is based in Grafton. Lisle has successfully installed his flow devices — with lifespans estimated at 30-40 years — all over the country and in several locations in Europe. 

With such a resource here in Vermont, this state should be leading the transition away from lethal management toward coexistence.

Cost-benefit studies have not been done in Vermont. However, the small town of Andover, New Hampshire, resolved decades of costly beaver conflicts by rejecting traditional lethal management in favor of beaver deceivers and coexistence. In 2007, the town hired Lisle, who, over 10 years, installed protective devices at eight sites where culverts had been repeatedly blocked and roads damaged by flooding. 

Although financial considerations were paramount, Andover’s transition from lethal management strategies also reflects changing attitudes toward beavers and the critical role they play in wetland ecosystems. Andover town officials estimated that over 10 years, the town saved about $130,000 and projected a savings of almost $500,000 to town coffers over 30 years. Alternatively, repeated killing of the beavers and the associated repairs to infrastructure would cost the town well over that amount.

Fiscal savings are quantifiable when it comes to the time, equipment and labor involved in repairing culverts and roads, but the value of a functional, ecologically balanced wetland system is immeasurable. 

Sadly, traditional methods for controlling beaver activity are still commonplace and seem to be the first choice of towns, landowners and wildlife managers. The resulting loss of wetlands has dire ecological detriments. Floods, droughts, biodiversity losses and wildfire are all symptomatic of our rapidly changing environment. 

Clearly, harnessing the beaver’s ability to mitigate impacts from climate change makes sense and is far preferable to removing them again and again from the landscape in a way that damages ecosystems and needlessly drains municipal funds. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Jennifer Lovett: Humane beaver management could save Vermont towns thousands of dollars.

This commentary is by James Campbell, of Brooklyn, New York. He is the director of federal affairs at Megafire Action, a nonprofit organization committed to ending the megafire crisis through a holistic approach to land management, wildfire response and community resilience.

When people think about wildfires, Vermont is hardly at the top of the list. But wildfire risk for the Green Mountain State is growing amid more frequent hot and dry conditions.

The wildfire danger facing Vermont and much of the U.S. today is far different — and growing far greater — than it was for most of our nation’s history. While some amount of fire is a natural part of ecosystems across the country, especially out West, decades of mismanagement and accelerating climate change have driven an alarming rise in catastrophic and severe wildfires that devastate communities, landscapes and lives. 

All of these factors have boiled over to turn wildfire seasons into wildfire years. Wildfires also fuel a vicious cycle of cascading disasters contributing significantly to drought, diminished water quality and making land more prone to flooding. Additionally, wildfires are a major contributor of carbon emissions further fueling the climate crisis.

Fortunately, this crisis is solvable, and a big part of the solution is making its way through Congress right now. At its core, S.1462, known as the “Fix Our Forests Act,” tackles two key challenges — permitting reform and technology adoption for improved decision making — that are essential to scaling up effective wildfire mitigation. 

The bill would achieve this by establishing a new community wildfire risk reduction program to help communities become more fire resistant, creating a wildfire intelligence center to embed cutting-edge science and technology into fire prediction and response, and by making it easier to reduce buildups of dead wood and brush that significantly increase wildfire risk. 

In particular, a wildfire intelligence center would provide tools to help small fire departments — like many in Vermont — predict fire or smoke behavior.

In an era of sharp political divisions, particularly around environmental policy, S.1462 stands out as a notable instance of bipartisan agreement. First introduced during the Biden administration, it was reintroduced earlier this year and swiftly passed in the U.S. House with the support of every Republican and 64 Democrats. A bipartisan group of senators recently negotiated and released a companion bill that is even stronger.

Opponents have argued that S.1462 would stifle public input, roll back environmental protections and remove science from land management. These arguments are simply false. 

The bill appropriately balances the importance of community engagement and environmental review with the need to dramatically increase the pace and scale at which we implement wildfire resilience projects, including selective thinning and prescribed fire to reduce fire risk on public lands. 

Scientific evidence shows that active forest management as envisioned under S.1462 would not only build wildfire resilience, but it also would directly mitigate future droughts, leading to less fire-prone conditions and less ecological and community damage overall.

The legislation would also substantially strengthen how we incorporate science into land and fire management by providing real-time analytical services, comprehensively modeling wildfire, consolidating air quality data, and establishing information systems accessible to federal, state, local and tribal governments.

No single policy will eliminate the risk of catastrophic wildfires, but S.1462 would advance the policies and practices needed to reduce the threat of megafires, protect communities, and restore the health of fire-adapted landscapes. 

It is essential that Congress continue building upon its bipartisan efforts to change policy with additional investments in wildfire-fighting workforce, fuels management, home hardening and grid resilience, and emerging technologies.

Progress means not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and S.1462 would certainly be progress. It represents months of negotiations and input from stakeholders across the ideological spectrum. Currently, the bill is awaiting a markup in the Senate Committee on Agriculture. 

Vermont not only has a direct stake in this bill as the state’s wildfire risk grows, but also because Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., is a member of the committee. That means he is set to cast a vote on whether to move the bill forward to the full Senate. 

If passed, S.1462 would be an important step to ensuring that fire is less of a threat for Vermonters — and all Americans.

Read the story on VTDigger here: James Campbell: How the ‘Fix Our Forests Act’ protects Vermont’s future.

This commentary is by Lucie Lehmann, of South Burlington. She is the vice president of the Green Mountain Audubon Society. 

Across Vermont, the sounds of late summer compose a natural symphony. Birds sing, albeit less lustily than in spring. Bees and cicadas buzz sonorously, and frogs twang like well-plucked bass strings. 

Other noises, less pleasing, are equally ubiquitous: the roar of gas-powered lawn mowers, string trimmers and leaf blowers.

Americans are obsessed with their lawns. They are the single largest irrigated crop that we grow — more than 40 million acres, or 2% of our land mass. Eighty-one percent of homeowners have a lawn, according to the National Association of Landscape Professionals. 

We do not just mow those confoundingly green deserts. We obsessively water, fertilize and treat them with pesticides. 

Americans collectively apply roughly 70 million pounds of fertilizer and a staggering 80 million pounds of pesticides annually to achieve the perfectly green, but lifeless, quilts that blanket most yards in the United States, according to the Pesticide Action Network. 

That does not include the 9 billion gallons of water a day that Americans use for landscape irrigation; the 3 billion gallons of gas needed to mow and edge the lawns every year; or the ecological toll those actions inflict on the environment, on lawn care workers and on unsuspecting people who walk barefoot on treated lawns or ingest the chemical fumes.

It certainly does not factor in the loss of habitat for wildlife or the deleterious effects of chemical runoff on our drinking water sources, lakes, rivers and other bodies of water.

The planet is growing hotter and drier every year, and extreme flooding is more prevalent. Aquifers are draining at unprecedented rates. The linkages between toxic chemical use and rising rates of cancer and other diseases cannot be dismissed, and we are experiencing a catastrophic crash of bird, insect and amphibian species, among others. Still, most American homeowners continue to subscribe to a deadly, 1950s vision of the endless, perfect lawn. 

We simply cannot afford to do that anymore. 

Three years ago, with the approval of my homeowners’ association, I took out my 20-by-20-foot front lawn. Clustered tightly together, the gardens in my neighborhood — such as they are in newer developments — were devoid of almost any life. 

While I had not expected the abundance that I had enjoyed on the farm where I lived for decades, I also was not prepared for the utter sterility of my new environment, a neighborhood that touts its self-proclaimed eco-friendly footprint. The mowers that roared over our identical green patches barely disturbed anything alive. 

By contrast, as soon as I took up the lawn and replaced it with native perennials, including grasses, honey bees appeared, followed quickly by a wide variety of native bee species. Hummingbirds arrived and found the tubular flowers of the penstemons and other nectar-rich blooms. Butterflies sipped milkweed blossoms. Sphinx moths appeared at dusk to pollinate, and tree frogs sang from my gutters, portending rain. 

Now, during spring and summer, there are regularly 10 species of birds singing in my yard, and bluebirds and chickadees nest in my boxes. When I added a rain garden to mitigate the runoff from the houses behind me, the new vernal pond became an amphibian breeding hotspot. Today, damsel and dragonflies swoop over the shallow water while mixed flocks of songbirds bathe together.

It was not just the wildlife that noticed the changes in my yard. So did my human neighbors. At first the garden attracted curiosity, then admiration. People asked questions about what I had done and what plants I had used. Before long, other people began eliminating part or all of their lawns and planting pollinator-friendly gardens. 

It is an encouraging trend.

Every change matters, but imagine what we could achieve collectively in Vermont if we reimagined the outdated and often lethal model of what a yard should look like. If everyone who owned a lawn replaced even a part of it with a patch of something beneficial. 

You do not have to be an avid gardener to make that possible — but you do have to care more about the environment than you do about a perfect lawn. There are wonderful low-maintenance native shrubs and grasses that provide food and habitat for birds and pollinators. There are lots of local resources to advise people on what might work best for their yard. 

Nature will always try to rebound when given the chance, but we have to act before it is too late. At a time where many of us feel impotent to effect positive change, you would be surprised at how empowering it is to create a living space that welcomes nature in, rather than continuing to extinguish it. 

Read the story on VTDigger here: Lucie Lehmann: Vermonters, it’s time to get rid of your lawns.

This commentary is by Habib Meiloud of central Vermont.

I recently read Mark Treinkman’s letter to the editor, “Clearing up misconceptions about H.310,” as a response to my own, titled “Do not support bill H.310.” I would like to clear up some misconceptions about my critique of the bill.

First, the notion that bill H.310 does not mention Israel is incorrect. While it never says it outright, it does allude to it. For example, it includes in the definition of antisemitic harassment with “negative negative references to Jewish customs or the right to self-determination in the Jewish people’s ancestral and indigenous homeland.” The first part on customs is understandable, and I support it wholeheartedly as someone with Jewish ancestors. However, the mention of self-determination is not a protection against antisemitism but rather anti-Zionism. 

A part of the “ancestral homeland” of the Jewish people — as mentioned in the bill — is where the Palestinians, both in the West Bank and Gaza, are currently residing, their homes blown away and then re-settled. 

I worry that any critique of Israeli settlements in both parts of Palestine will be seen as a “negative reference” to the aforementioned “self-determination” in the ancestral homeland. Perhaps the bill is not malicious, but it is vague and lacks enough nuance that it opens the door for infringement on such a contentious issue. 

From my own anecdotal experience, even without this bill, one has to be very careful in how one critiques Israel to a degree that is unique among political discourse. I have no issue bolstering protections against Jewish students against antisemitism; that is what is right. Nobody should suffer attacks against parts of their identity. However, the notion of the Jewish people having the right to self-determination in their “ancestral and indigenous homeland” is inherently political. Instead of stomping out those critiques in schools, we should steer towards teaching our youth to have the maturity to critique ideas instead of people. 

Those skills will stop hate; ambiguous legislation will not.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Habib Meiloud: A response regarding H.310.

This commentary is by Windham citizens, who are listed below the text.

Earlier this year, the Town of Windham underwent a full property reappraisal which has left a significant number of our residents struggling. The Board of Abatement reconvened on Monday, February 10, for the second time to hear and decide on more desperate cases. 

According to the law (32 V.S.A. § 6066), residents with an annual household income not exceeding $47,000 should not have to pay more than 5% (3% for municipal and 2% for educational taxes) of their household income for their house and 2 acres, as long as their reassessed property value is under $400,000. In all of the abatement cases the Board of Abatement heard, this applied to each of the appellants who should not have had to pay more than roughly $600 and yet were charged more than four times that amount. The one-year lag in the income sensitivity calculation is also a very unfair challenge in a reappraisal year for probably every town in Vermont.

In one instance, a person received a tax bill that amounted to 16% of their household income. They own less than 2 acres, 1.09 acres to be exact. Their household income was similar for 2022 ($14,230) and 2023 ($14,871), less than $15,000 in both instances, which qualifies them for a 4.5% cap. Their homestead value rose from $180,000 to $345,000 after reappraisal, which is still less than the $400,000 limit. How does this comport with 32 VSA, Chapter 154, Sec. 6066(a)(3-4), which indicates that they should not be paying more than 4.5% of their household income for their total tax bill? And how are they to handle the increase in their mortgage payments if and when their taxes are in escrow?

Windham is a small rural community with just over 550 permanent residents and about 55% second-home owners. Our town has no grocery store, no post office, no school nor any other amenities — hardly even a street light — and yet it ranks at the top of the tax rates in the state. We are being penalized for the fact that wealthy buyers from out of state have been buying properties for more than twice their value, often sight unseen. 

We fear that if income sensitivity is not effectively applied to the income tax equation, Vermonters will not be able to stay in their homes. We hope that a solution will be found to address the apparent anomaly that occurs as a result of a pandemic and reappraisal. 

In our deliberations that Monday, the Board of Abatement decided to calculate the appellants’ appeals based on the 4.5% value that 32 VSA, Chapter 154, Sec. 6066(a)(3-4) indicates. 

The remaining balance will have to be divided among the town’s residents in order to fulfill our tax obligations, but this cannot be the norm, nor can we continue to see tax rates rising beyond affordability. Oddly enough, all attempts to get confirmation and advice on how to proceed based on 32 V.S.A. § 6066 led nowhere. It seemed like relevant officials were unaware of the income sensitivity 5% cap or did not know how to answer our questions. We wonder how many other communities in Vermont have had a similar experience.

Antje Ruppert

Mary McCoy

Michael Simonds

Marcia Clinton

Michael Pelton

John & Anne Finley

Lewis & Barbara Lettenberger

Kord & Kathy Scott

Karen Osborne

Dave Osborne

John Boynton

Catherine Stover

Rachel Spengler

John J & Sally R Hoover

Alden Wicker

Paul & Gail Wyman

Steve & Imme Maurath

Bill Casey

Frank Seawright

Betsy Riley

Susan Persa

Alison Schantz

Rory Rosselot & Keith Gustafsson

Bill & Chris Dunkel

Pete & Diane Newton

Dave & Ginny Crittenden

Pete & Beth McDonald

Vance & Maureen Bell

Alan Partridge

John Pozzi

Susan Brown

Thomas Lynch 

Michael France

Lydia Pope France

Nathan Boynton

Gary Cheney

Catherine Edgerly Fales

John Hunting Fales 

Howard Ires

Chris Hopkins

Ariel Cheney

Alison Trowbridge

Read the story on VTDigger here: Concerned Windham citizens: Property taxes may drive residents out of their homes.

This commentary is by Justin Dempsey, of Burlington. He is a PhD candidate at the University of Vermont Rubenstein School of Environment & Natural Resources. 

Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, the vast majority of us feel a deep connection with nature and outdoor public spaces and do not want to see them sold. Unfortunately, America’s public lands are now under attack and at-risk of being sold off to the highest bidder.

The Trump administration has fired rangers and defunded the parks department. On February 14, 5% of the National Parks Service was laid off. These people are stewards of our national treasures and their stories are harrowing. Yet these cuts are just the beginning. There are plans to further reduce the Parks’ budget, slashing it by as much as one-third.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Ariz., introduced legislation to sell up to 3 million acres of our public land while making 250 million acres available for sale. While it failed, there is still a looming battle over our shared natural inheritance.

In Vermont, over 12,000 acres of forestland are converted to non-forest use annually. While this is more due to rural sprawl, our forests are being fragmented, threatening biodiversity and animal migration. A recently failed proposal to build an Amazon distribution facility in Saxon Hill shows how ardently Vermonters oppose this type of development. 

Privatization of public lands leads to mining, logging and other destructive activities. At an oil industry conference, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum called our national parks the “largest balance sheet in the world.” The Trump administration has repeatedly advocated a “Drill Baby, Drill” approach to our public lands.

This is not how most Americans feel about our purple mountain majesties. Polls show that, regardless of political affiliation, preserving our natural wonders is wildly popular. Americans recognize our obligation to preserve the natural splendor for future generations. Unfortunately, the state is abdicating its duty. 

While America’s natural wonders are under threat, her financial assets are booming.

The stock market hit a record high on July 2 and has continued its upward trajectory. A strong jobs report caused U.S. Treasury yields to spike. That said, the link between Wall Street and Main Street is severed. Wages have failed to keep pace with productivity gains across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Almost 4 in 10 Americans don’t own any stocks or bonds. The trillions in stock market gains are enriching already-resourced individuals, creating an even bigger divide between the haves and have-nots. 

When the government steps back, non-governmental organizations step up. Many groups are filling the void left by the cuts to National Parks Services, and they need your help.

As a member of the board of The Nature Conservancy in Vermont, I own my bias, but there are many groups doing important conservation work in Vermont — from local land trusts to state-wide initiatives.

The Nature Conservancy is a politically non-partisan group, putting the work over the politics. We advocate for practical, science-based policies under both red and blue administrations. In Vermont, The Nature Conservancy is working to conserve critical habitats for biodiversity and climate resilience, store carbon by preserving our forests, and create a vast network of connected, conserved lands.

If you feel that our shared natural inheritance does not belong in the hands of Wall Street, please consider donating to the vital conservation work happening around our beautiful state. Once these lands are lost, we’ll never get them back.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Justin Dempsey: We need to protect Vermont’s forests.

This commentary is by Heather Wood, of Waterbury.

In his recent letter to the editor, “Clearing up misconceptions about H.310,” Mark Treinkman accuses Habib Meiloud — who had written an earlier commentary opposing H.310 — of failing to read H.310. Well, I suspect Habib Meiloud did, in fact, read the bill. And so did I. 

H.310 indeed does not mention Israel. It does, however, in Sec. 2. 16 V.S.A. § 11, define “antisemitic harassment” as including “negative references to Jewish customs or the right of self-determination in the Jewish people’s ancestral and indigenous homeland.”

In other words, if this bill was passed and implemented as written, it could reasonably be interpreted as prohibiting discussions of, say, the ramifications of Israel restricting humanitarian aid in Gaza or undermining the possibility of an eventual Palestinian state by moving ahead with controversial settlements in the West Bank.

In other words, contrary to Mark Treinkman’s assertion, the bill states clearly that “negative references” about “self-determination” in Israel would constitute “antisemitic harassment.” Israel is considered to be “the Jewish people’s ancestral and indigenous homeland.”

It is also the ancestral and indigenous homeland of the Palestinian people, hence our ongoing conflicts and endless debates. Those conflicts and debates are not going away, no matter how many bills targeting free speech like H.310 get passed and how many universities get their research funding cut because of accusations of antisemitism.

It is true that both antisemitic harassment and anti-Muslim harassment are on the rise; that is, indeed, a concern worthy of legislative intervention. But criticism of Israeli government actions and policies in and of itself is not antisemitic harassment, just as my criticisms of the Trump administration’s actions and policies are not anti-American. It might behoove the Jewish people to stop equating Israel’s politics and state actions with their ethnicity; otherwise, they might start seeing antisemitism absolutely everywhere and in everything.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Heather Wood: A response to Mark Treinkman regarding H.310.

This commentary is by Monique Priestley of Bradford. She is a Vermont state representative for Orange-2.

I share Vermonters’ anger and deep concern over the Scott administration’s decision to release sensitive SNAP data to the Trump administration. This action was not legally necessary, ethically defensible nor protective of the privacy and dignity of our neighbors.

Gov. Phil Scott’s administration stated that Vermont had no choice but to comply. Meanwhile, national privacy and legal experts — including the Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Protect Democracy — made clear in their detailed May 2025 analysis that the USDA’s request violated several federal laws, specifically the Privacy Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act and the E-Government Act. 

USDA failed to meet legally required steps before requesting Vermonters’ personal data, including publishing notices for public comment, creating a privacy impact assessment and establishing a system of records.

Attorney General Charity Clark recognized this clearly and was prepared to challenge the legality of this request. Instead, the Scott administration chose to comply without meaningful resistance, despite the fact that at least 20 other states refused on solid legal grounds. Vermont chose compliance over protecting Vermonters’ privacy and civil rights.

The damage this disclosure causes is real and immediate. Vermonters’ personal data — including Social Security numbers, addresses, income and household information — is now unnecessarily exposed. Such data can be misused in decisions regarding housing, employment, education, healthcare, insurance, loans and immigration. It threatens Vermont families with discrimination, surveillance and loss of critical support programs. Most troubling, it undermines trust, discouraging people from seeking the assistance they need for fear their information will be used against them.

I have spent the past several years leading efforts in the Legislature to strengthen Vermont’s data privacy protections. Many fellow legislators joined this tripartisan fight and supported comprehensive privacy laws, only to face a veto from Gov. Scott in 2024 and significant industry opposition again in 2025. We could have acted sooner to prevent this exact situation. Some politicians now speaking out publicly failed to step up when it mattered most: when we were in the trenches, crafting meaningful legislation to protect Vermonters’ privacy.

Leadership is not speaking up only when headlines break. It requires showing up every day, pushing back against powerful lobbyists and taking tough, principled stands when no one is watching. Vermonters deserve genuine, consistent advocacy, not opportunistic statements issued after the fact.

Today, I urge Vermonters across all political parties to unite behind strong data privacy protections. Privacy is a fundamental issue that transcends partisan divides. Democrats, Republicans, Progressives and Independents alike share core values of freedom, dignity and protection from unjust surveillance. We must turn our collective concern into sustained action and demand that our elected officials fully commit to passing strong privacy laws.

I believe we have an obligation to lead proactively on these issues. Privacy rights affect us all, and protecting Vermonters’ dignity and personal freedom must remain central to our shared mission.

Vermont can lead again by enacting enforceable privacy protections that respect and safeguard every resident’s personal information. I will continue fighting for these critical rights, and I ask Vermonters everywhere to join me in holding all elected officials accountable.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Rep. Monique Priestley: A response to Vermont’s SNAP data disclosure.

This commentary is by Beth Zigmund, MD, of South Burlington.

Severe heat, abnormally dry weather, and wildfire smoke have assailed Vermont and much of the U.S. throughout this summer, a testament to the growing menace of climate change. Despite this  — and adding to a long list of assaults on public health — President Trump is now using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to aim its sledgehammer at the endangerment finding, the rule which gives the EPA the authority to regulate air-polluting, climate-warming gases.

If President Trump succeeds, Vermonters will be sicker and poorer for generations to come. Now is the time to use our voices to protect this critically important rule.

The endangerment finding

The endangerment finding was issued by the EPA in 2009 to protect the public by regulating six planet-warming gases. The rule rests on a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision finding that greenhouse gases are pollutants, leading the EPA to make a science-based determination that they endanger public health under the Clean Air Act. The endangerment finding underpins long standing safeguards, including critical vehicle and power plant emissions standards.

Seemingly unaware of the EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment, President Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office directing the EPA to review the endangerment finding, arguing that regulating planet-warming fossil fuel emissions is too expensive for the industries causing the pollution. On July 29, the EPA fulfilled the President’s order, and the rule is now under review.

Vermonters should be alarmed by this reckless proposal to place industry profits above the interests of our communities, loved ones and future generations.

The costs of ignoring climate science

The consequences of fossil fuel-driven air pollution and climate change are not theoretical. Air pollution from burning fossil fuels causes between 5–10 million deaths per year globally. Recent floods in Vermont and other states have devastated whole communities. Smoke from climate change-driven wildfires has become a regular feature of Vermont summers, carrying toxic particulate matter linked to premature births, exacerbations of lung and heart diseases, increased risk of dementia and some cancers and premature mortality. Heat-related deaths are expected to increase as extremely hot days become more common. Warmer, more humid weather in our state is creating a vast utopia for dangerous, vector-borne illnesses while also lengthening and intensifying the allergy season. 

Poorer mental health is at the nexus of all these climate impacts.

According to the EPA itself, the consequences of climate change and air pollution are disproportionately borne by children, pregnant women, older adults, people with disabilities, low-income communities, people of color and indigenous populations.

Health threats aside, economic facts pour cold water on the Trump Administration’s claim that regulating planet-warming gases is too expensive. The inflation-adjusted economic costs of climate-related events are staggering, totaling $462 billion in the U.S. from 2022-2024.      

The American Lung Association estimates that by switching away from fossil fuels to cleaner energy, the U.S. would generate $1.2 trillion in health benefits, while averting 13 million lost workdays, 110,000 premature deaths, and 3 million asthma attacks by 2050. According to the US Department of Energy, moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy would spur job growth and could position the U.S. as a global leader in designing, manufacturing and deploying renewable energy technologies.

The public wants stronger protections

President Trump’s proposal to gut the EPA’s pollution-regulating authority is wildly out of step with public opinion. People know they sit in the crosshairs of weak public policy on climate change. Polling consistently shows that about two-thirds of Americans believe the government is not doing enough to protect us from climate change. Three-quarters want stricter limits on air pollution. Meanwhile, “climate denialists” are dwindling in number, representing only about 15% of Americans. Vermonters are among the most concerned about climate change in the country.

Despite accelerating climate impacts, broad-based public support for regulating health-damaging climate-warming gases and air pollution, and the rapidly mounting costs of climate-related disasters, the Trump Administration is boldly proceeding with its attack on the endangerment finding and attempting to undo decades of scientific consensus.

Fortunately, there is time to act. The EPA public comment period is open through September 15, 2025. Anyone can comment, no matter what your background. Authentic personal stories about how climate change is affecting you are the most powerful.      

For those who want to provide oral testimony, a virtual public hearing will occur from August 19 to August 22, 2025, recently lengthened due to a very high number of registrants. Anyone can sign up to provide oral testimony; oral comments are limited to three minutes or approximately 450 words.

Every written and oral testimonial must be considered in the EPA’s decision. And, if the EPA rescinds the endangerment finding, testimony will serve as evidence in legal challenges to the EPA’s decision.

Please use your voice to protect this vitally important rule, which stands as a bulwark between public health and dangerous, unregulated fossil fuel pollution.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Beth Zigmund: President Donald Trump wants to undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect our climate and air — and we must speak up.

This commentary is by Peter Walke, of Montpelier. He is the managing director of Efficiency Vermont.

Vermonters feel it every time we get an energy bill or fill up at the pump: Costs are high and unpredictable. 

Global markets swing wildly. Storms knock out power. Heating our homes in the winter takes a bigger bite out of our paychecks than it used to. 

We cannot control global fuel prices, but we can control how much energy we use. That’s why energy efficiency is the single most powerful, affordable tool we have to keep costs down.  

Efficiency Vermont is now planning our next three years of programs to help Vermonters save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s a moment to reflect on the importance of efficiency in our state. It’s also an opportunity for Vermonters to take our survey and share your feedback on our programs and services. 

When a business replaces outdated lighting or upgrades to efficient equipment, it lowers its bills and strengthens its bottom line. When a home is weatherized, insulated and air-sealed, it uses less fuel to keep us warm in January and less electricity to keep us cool in July. These are not just small savings. They add up. Over the past two decades, Vermonters have saved more than $3.3 billion thanks to efficiency improvements. 

Efficiency is also our cheapest energy resource. It costs far less to save a unit of energy than to produce one. Every kilowatt-hour of electricity we don’t need is one we don’t have to generate, transmit across expensive power lines and pay for. This means lower costs for utilities, more manageable peaks when demand surges and, over time, more affordable bills for ratepayers. 

It’s also a homegrown solution. When we cut our energy use, we reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels and keep more money circulating in Vermont’s economy. That’s energy independence in action — something that benefits every household and business in the state. 

The benefits don’t stop at the wallet. Efficient appliances and heating systems improve indoor air quality. A well-weatherized home is more comfortable, quieter and healthier. And every bit of energy we save means fewer greenhouse gas emissions, helping us meet Vermont’s climate commitments while protecting communities from the devastating impacts of a warming world. 

Some may think of energy efficiency as a “someday” solution — something to get to after tackling other home projects or business priorities. But it really should be the first step. Vermont can build new renewable energy sources, modernize our grid, and electrify our vehicles and heating systems. But if we don’t streamline how we use energy in the first place, we’ll need to spend more on generation and infrastructure, driving up costs. Efficiency makes all those other investments work better and cost less. 

The bottom line: Energy efficiency isn’t just about using less — it’s about living better for less. It’s a proven, practical and immediate way to make energy more affordable for all Vermonters. In a time of economic uncertainty and climate challenges, it’s the common-sense solution we can’t afford to ignore. 

When it comes to energy, so much happens in a global market that’s beyond our control. But we can control how we use energy and we can choose to use energy wisely. When we do, Vermont becomes stronger, more resilient and more affordable for everyone. 

As Efficiency Vermont looks ahead, we want your help in improving the work we do together to make Vermont’s energy more affordable. Please join the thousands of Vermonters who have taken 10 minutes to fill out our survey by calling 888-921-5990 or visiting our website.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Peter Walke: Efficiency is our first, best tool for lower energy bills.

This commentary is by John R. Killacky, of South Burlington. He was the previous executive director of Flynn Center for the Performing Arts and he is a former state representative and the author of “because art: commentary, critique, & conversation.”

In 1973, I left Chicago on a one-way ticket to New York to pursue my dream of becoming a dancer. Part-time jobs and unemployment subsidized my performing career. In between tours, I finished my college degree in psychology. 

After I stopped performing, I managed two dance companies in New York, worked at contemporary art centers in Minneapolis and San Francisco with stints in philanthropy and ran the Flynn Center in Burlington. After retiring from the Flynn in 2018, I served two terms in the Vermont House of Representatives. As I moved through the world, I was blessed to have my husband willing to relocate. 

All the while, I never stopped writing personal essays and making films. Complications from a spinal surgery left me paraplegic nearly three decades ago — and yet, my art background served me. While kinesthetic connections in my legs were lost, I learned how to walk again in front of mirrors, just like I did in dance class.

Now retired from day jobs, what a joy it is to wake up every morning and imagine, “What can I make today?” 

I finished my 21st short film and have a print on view at T.W. Wood Gallery in Montpelier with an installation opening next month at Burlington City Arts Gallery. Videos of mine were broadcast this summer on Vermont Public and Maine Public. While tremendously validating, there is little financial reward. Even with grants, commissions, royalties, publishing and broadcast fees, breaking even remains aspirational.

Last year, Vermont Arts Council awarded creation grants of up to $5,000 to 22 artists, which cover a portion of their estimated expenses. Winners are only eligible to apply again after a five-year waiting period. So, few can realistically pursue an artistic career full-time locally. 

National opportunities are ever slimmer. Federal arts and humanities grants that had already been awarded were clawed back and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting just announced it will be closing after losing its funding. Art-making in America remains avocational.

In our fractious times, further capitalizing the arts seems prudent as culture demonstrably builds community and creativity sparks innovation — necessary components for a path forward. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM, curriculum is enhanced when you add the ‘a’ for art to provide STEAM problem-solving in our schools. 

Making work is stimulating and filled with wonder. I wish this for others.

Artists are often among the first responders in political protests with potent iconography. The Civil Rights, Queer Liberation, Reproductive Freedom for All and Black Lives Matter movements are pertinent examples featured in the multidisciplinary exhibition, “It often rhymes” at The Current in Stowe. 

These kinds of voices are essential to democracy. In our current Trumpian apocalypse, clarion dissenters are even more necessary, along with soothsayers offering hope.

Artifacts from every epoch are indicators of the vibrancy of that society. It is the disruptors that are often remembered. In art (as in politics), change happens from the fringe. What will our legacies be? For an emboldened and transformed future, invest more deeply in artists. They begin, and begin again.

Read the story on VTDigger here: John R. Killacky: We need to support artists in Vermont.

This commentary is by Jen Colman, of Burlington. She is a mental health provider for children and adolescents, and collaborates with youth-based organizations and schools to provide direct mental health services. Colman is also the executive director of Green Mountain Mobile Therapy, a nonprofit organization that provides accessible mental health and social emotional resources for children and adolescents.

As a mental health professional who works with Vermont’s youth, I see how our students are struggling everyday. 

Nationally, young people have reported a dramatic increase in conflict and divisiveness in our communities. A constant barrage of media, combined with social disconnectedness, creates a systemic feeling of hopelessness. 

Earlier this year, Vermont This Week on Vermont Public hosted a panel discussion on the state of youth mental health in Vermont. The conversation focused on the Vermont Department of Health’s 2023 Youth Behavior Risk Survey, released in November 2024, and the results showed that Vermont youth’s mental health is still in crisis with little improvement since the Covid-19 pandemic. 

One of the questions asked in the panel was “What do kids need?” and the collective response was that kids need to be believed and listened to. They need to feel like they belong and that they matter. It’s time for Vermont to get creative in how we approach our youth mental health crisis. 

Through providing youth with evidence-based, relationship-centered mentoring programs, we can help youth feel like they matter and instill a sense of belonging. 

Mentoring programs play a crucial role in supporting youth mental health by providing individualized, one-on-one attention and fostering meaningful relationships between youth and trusted adults. In Vermont, 96% of mentees in mentoring programs funded by the nonprofit organization MENTOR Vermont reported that their mentor made them feel like they matter, and 92% said having a mentor made a positive difference in their lives. 

MENTOR Vermont leads, expands and strengthens the mentoring movement, building capacity to make high-quality relationships accessible to all young people, so every young person in Vermont has the supportive relationships they need to grow and thrive.

Mentors offer emotional support, guidance and encouragement, which are particularly beneficial for youth struggling with mental health issues. They help young people engage in their schoolwork, think critically about their future and navigate personal challenges. This support is essential in preventing risky behaviors among young people. 

Moreover, mentoring meets youth where they live, learn, work and play, providing them with a consistent person outside of their family that they can turn to for support. 

Despite this data, 1 in 3 youth will grow up without a mentor and without the support of a trusted adult. According to the National Mentoring Partnership, young people who have mentors are more likely to improve in areas such as emotional regulation, social skills and overall life satisfaction. A study by the Journal of Primary Prevention found that mentoring can lower the likelihood of depressive symptoms and suicide attempts by providing emotional support, positive role models and a sense of belonging. 

Overall, mentoring programs are a proven tool in promoting mental well-being and ensuring that young people have the supportive relationships they need to thrive. 

Although the Vermont youth mental health crisis may seem overwhelming, it can be addressed by being proactive and putting in place proven early intervention programs such as mentoring. 

Thanks to the work of MENTOR Vermont, such programs already exist in many communities throughout the state, but they need sustainable investment to adequately meet the needs of youth across Vermont. This investment will ensure that every child who needs a mentor has access to one, and the path toward stabilizing and moving out of this crisis will become clear.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Jen Colman: Mentors help Vermont youth feel like they matter.

This commentary is by Paul Dragon of Underhill. He is the executive director of the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity.

Nearly two years ago, I received a call from a Vermont woman in her 70s. It was the dead of winter. Her furnace was broken, and she was out of fuel. She said she wouldn’t normally ask for help, but she was worried about her dog and how cold it was. 

In rural areas across Vermont, the federal government for decades has quietly but critically supported communities through community action agencies like the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity. We repair furnaces, provide crisis fuel assistance and weatherize drafty homes, saving homeowners money to expend on other vital needs. 

Thanks to the small Community Service Block Grant that we leverage with donations from community members we can fill gaps in emergency services like food, shelter and fuel. 

The proposed cuts and elimination of the grant, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and weatherization services do not trim the fat off the budget, they sever the arteries of services and supports which are a lifeline to rural communities. Make no mistake, in these proposed federal cuts, rural communities and rural states like Vermont are taking the brunt. Community Service Block Grant funding and community action agencies serve all people in need and in particular older Vermonters, children, people with disabilities and veterans. 

Food, fuel and shelter are not luxuries. They are necessities. 

Rural Vermont, like much of rural America, is already skating on thin ice. Disappearing farms, higher-than-average poverty rates, food insecurity, little and aging infrastructure, limited public transit, and shrinking hospital networks already make it a daily grind just to get by. In this budget, the grind could become life-threatening as people are forced to choose between food, heat and health care. 

Our money tends to follow our values. What we fund is who we prioritize. The federal budget is not prioritizing rural Vermont or rural America, plain and simple. Decades of effective, proven programs are at risk of disappearing — leaving rural communities and the people who live closest to the land with little or no support. 

The Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, like other community action agencies around the country, use Community Service Block Grant funds to fight poverty with local, targeted strategies — from emergency food aid, fuel assistance, emergency shelter, housing education and advocacy, Head Start, microbusiness development, weatherization and access to employment.

Our budgets should be a blueprint for dignity by providing the infrastructure and services that will grow our economy, build self-reliance, and strengthen our communities. This 2026 budget does none of that. Instead, it threatens to undermine and visit ruin upon our rural communities. Vermont deserves better.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Paul Dragon: What happens when Vermont’s rural communities are left behind.

This commentary is by Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, of Burlington.

For years, the city of Burlington has worked hard to adapt our responses to public health challenges, including homelessness, substance use disorders and mental health crises. 

Camping and rough sleeping have been prevalent in city spaces for decades. However, since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, Vermont has seen an alarming increase in the number of people experiencing homelessness. 

Over the past three years, uncertainty around the State Emergency Housing Program, also known as the motel program, has left the city and partner organizations in a near constant state of crisis-response. 

Vermont’s municipalities do not have the staff or resources to adequately respond to these overlapping challenges. The most recent round of motel exits on July 1 saw hundreds of people pushed out of the motel program statewide, including families with children, older adults and medically vulnerable individuals. 

Many who exited had nowhere to go.

Based on local data, while Chittenden County accounts for 26% of Vermont’s population, we hold 34% of the state’s residents sleeping unsheltered. This is a policy failure that has left vulnerable people and those trying to serve them in crisis. We need more residential treatment beds, more shelter capacity, stronger renter protections and more affordable housing — real solutions that we have collectively failed to achieve.

On July 24, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order: Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets. This executive order promotes forced institutionalization, prioritizes the criminalization of homelessness and deprioritizes funding for evidence-based public health responses. This executive order is not a mandate, and we will not treat it as such in Burlington. 

As Burlington’s mayor, let me be clear: We will continue to move forward with compassion, using evidence-based practices like housing first and harm reduction while also prioritizing public health and safety, and maintaining our public spaces for all to enjoy.

In Burlington, we have made progress in evolving our responses to public health challenges, including increased funding for embedded social support providers and clinicians within our police department, creation of the fire department’s community response team, continued support for the urban park ranger program, and an increased investment in Howard Center’s Street Outreach Team. 

Key staff across multiple departments meet weekly to identify encampments, remove them from city parks, and assess campsites on other city land for health and safety. 

We also recently launched the Situation Table, an international model for intensive case coordination with the goal of reducing relevant risk factors for individuals at a heightened risk of harm to themselves or others. Anonymized risk factor data is then recorded so that we can track interventions, measure the effectiveness of the Situation Table, and assess if services are successfully mitigating risks. 

This data helps inform the development of local policies and initiatives to address safety and can be used to advocate for additional resources. We are also preparing to launch the City Circle initiative, which will offer an immediate accountability process for individuals who violate local ordinances and employs a restorative justice approach. 

I am proud of these innovative initiatives, however, they are at best triage and harm reduction responses necessitated by our maxed-out and chronically underfunded system of care. 

As mayor, I and other municipal officials have pleaded with state leaders, hoping to impress upon them the impossible burden municipalities face when the state fails to take action. My office has coordinated with city councilors and department heads to send several letters to Gov. Phil Scott on this issue. 

I have personally met with Scott and Agency of Human Services leaders to request a truly collaborative statewide response. Homelessness, substance use disorders and mental health crises touch every Vermont community in some fashion. If we are serious about supporting Vermonters, then we cannot ignore the public suffering that is affecting so many communities across our state. 

Municipal officials have advocated repeatedly for a coordinated response by the Agency of Human Services, including expanded shelter capacity and treatment beds. These pleas have largely been met with inaction. Burlington remains a willing partner to Scott, other state leaders and service providers to identify and implement real solutions to homelessness and our housing crisis. 

The conversation around H.91 was a good start, but Scott vetoed that bill to the surprise of many legislators and without offering alternatives. H.91 would have allowed for a more regional approach to shelter and service provision, offering a bridge to more community based shelter capacity and away from motels. 

Our city team will continue to adapt within our capacity to respond to the unprecedented scale of unsheltered homelessness in our community. However, we cannot do this work alone. When we expend resources to fill gaps left by the state, we have less for other local services and have to make difficult decisions, as we did in the previous two municipal budget cycles. 

Finally, I ask people to combat the narrative that just because people do not have permanent housing, they pose an inherent risk to others. Now more than ever, it is imperative to maintain our collective empathy. 

I encourage Vermonters to reach out to Scott. We need help from his administration. The level of human suffering in our communities is unacceptable, and the financial costs are untenable.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak: Vermont’s municipalities are at a breaking point. We need state partnership now more than ever..

This commentary is by Jack Pitblado, of Burlington. He is the climate action coordinator for the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

When I started my new job at the Vermont Natural Resources Council this spring, I stepped into the middle of a legislative session unlike any other. President Donald Trump was hacking his way through our government institutions and slashing investments in climate and energy programs. 

We saw the trickle-down effects of these actions. In the weeks after Trump signed an executive order aimed at Vermont’s Climate Superfund Law, our opponents in the House and Senate called to repeal fundamental provisions of the Global Warming Solutions Act and to strip funding to implement the superfund. These are two backbone climate laws that put Vermont on a path to climate resilience and lay the groundwork to reduce fossil fuels and electrify our communities. 

To help fight against these attacks on critical climate policy, I urged Vermonters through countless calls and emails to reach out to their representatives and senators to ask that they vote against these proposed rollbacks. 

One of the people I spoke to was Henry Bonges, a resident of Milton, 10-year community volunteer on Milton’s Energy Committee and former Democratic candidate for state representative.

Bonges’ email to the Milton delegation, to which I was also a recipient, was not so different from most communications between legislators and concerned constituents. He asked them to support meaningful climate action and to embrace the scientific evidence that forebodes existential threats. 

In doing so, he appealed to his representatives to stand against this wave of attacks, and to think independently and clearly, unlike their peers in Congress and the White House. 

His appeal did not move his representatives into action. Instead, Bonges was ousted from his board and commission posts by the Milton Selectboard for speaking out.

Some of the members who voted him out happened to be on the receiving end of that email: Reps. Leland Morgan, R-Milton, and Brenda Steady, R-Milton. These two also co-sponsored H.518, the bill to repeal Vermont’s landmark Climate Superfund Law.

Bonges’s removal was a shock. But, when looking at it closely, it is clear that many Vermont elected officials are willing to follow Trump’s lead in pushing for major climate rollbacks. It was only a matter of time before our local leaders adopted Trump’s framework for shutting down the opposition.

Trump’s approach to handling dissent is relatively new (or perhaps resurgent) in American politics — shutting up the opposition. It is a simple three-step playbook: consecrate power into the hands of friends, bend the rules to your will and make your doubters pay.

He deployed Marines to tamp down protests on the streets of Los Angeles. He fired General Charles Q. Brown from his position as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in February for producing a video five years earlier that Trump deemed too focused on diversity. He has unlawfully detained Palestinian rights activists and pursued deportation for those who speak out.

The resounding message of the administration? Free speech comes with a steep price.

The parallels between Trump’s actions and those of the Milton Selectboard are clear.

I believe the Milton Selectboard has become a social club for the town’s Republican caucus, with Rep. Michael Morgan, Leland Morgan and Steady serving as members, and Rep. Chris Taylor, in a paid capacity as town manager after leaving the selectboard for the position in May.

With the state delegation taking a majority on the selectboard, decisions to hire and fire, commission and decommission are up to their majority votes.

Since power is so consolidated, the rules are subject to their administrators. There is nothing unethical about an engaged community member pleading to his representatives on how they should vote in Montpelier, even if Steady and Leland Morgan did not like his terse choice of words. 

There are, however, serious ethical concerns with local elected officials mixing their duties to be responsive to community input with their political apprehensions about the necessity of climate action — and personal disputes with a former Democratic legislative candidate in Milton.

They may disagree with Bonges, and that’s their prerogative. But disagreement doesn’t warrant retribution. Just because the president does it, doesn’t mean they should.

The primary consequence of Bonges’ removal is intimidation.

So many of the most politically active members of our communities serve on several town boards and commissions. They truly care about their neighbors and they want to live out their values, not just pay lip service to them. 

Removing a committed public servant for his views only sends a message to others that they should get in line or get out. It’s undemocratic and unacceptable.

This kind of vindictive behavior is not fitting for the peoples’ representatives. For the sake of Milton, I hope all residents concerned with the state of our democracy and freedom of speech speak up for Henry to be reinstated to his posts.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Jack Pitblado: The Trump administration’s attack on free speech is alive in Milton.

This commentary is by Laura Cannon, of Hardwick. Laura is a parent of two preschoolers, a speech-language pathologist and a member of the Rural School Community Alliance.

We won’t always agree with every decision our school boards make — but we should all agree on this: They must exist. Without them, we lose local democracy, community involvement and taxpayer oversight. 

Whether you’re from Hardwick, Newport, Wells, Brattleboro or Grand Isle, one thing is clear: Our communities value taking local responsibility for education, community-based schooling and school board representation. We care deeply about where and how our kids learn — and we want a say in it. 

The Rural Schools Community Alliance — a coalition of community and municipal groups, school boards, and educators — has fought hard to preserve these values in the current legislation. Thanks to their efforts, the new law Act 73 recognizes supervisory unions in addition to supervisory districts, giving rural voices a chance to be heard. But the Rural Schools Community Alliance cannot do this alone. Now it’s our turn. 

So, what’s at stake? 

If existing school districts are eliminated and replaced by a large supervisory district — as favored by Gov. Phil Scott and Agency of Education — our local school boards would vanish. Existing articles of agreement would be dissolved. Decision-making power would shift to a distant, centralized board overseeing 4,000 to 8000 students. Town-level representation would disappear. Budget decisions and school closures would happen without a vote of the town. 

Under a supervisory union structure, by contrast, existing school boards would continue as would existing articles of agreement. Although this may entail boundary shifts and much larger supervisory unions than we are used to, we would keep a seat at the table. We would continue to have a meaningful voice in decisions made. We would keep our say. 

Some advocacy groups argue that supervisory unions open the door to privatization. That’s a distraction. The real threat is centralized power in sprawling districts, where communities lose influence. Supervisory unions allow for shared efficiencies, collaboration and cost-effective shared services, without silencing community voices. That’s the balance Vermont needs. 

Act 73 established a redistricting committee that has been appointed and is already beginning their work, with up to three proposals due in December and a vote by the Legislature to approve one in January. 

We must act now to influence the outcome. We are not powerless, and there are knowledgeable members on this committee who understand rural concerns. Talk to your school board. Call your legislators. Let them know that we want to stay in a supervisory union. We value local decision making.

Much of Vermont is rural. Our education system should reflect that and be accessible for rural families. 

Without community-based schooling, transportation challenges and long bus rides may force young families like mine to leave Vermont’s small towns at a faster rate than they already are, further accelerating small-town economic decline. 

Consolidation of school governance means disappearing civic engagement and a diminished ability to influence important decisions about education in the future — that’s what we risk if we let our school boards go.

This is a fight for more than education. It’s a fight for our communities. It’s a fight for democracy. It’s a fight for rural Vermont.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Laura Cannon: Preserve local school boards. Preserve local democracy. .

This commentary is by Rebecca Holcombe of Norwich. She is a Vermont state representative for Windsor-Orange 2.

On March 20, the Trump administration issued an executive order directing all federal agencies to break down “information silos” and gain “unfettered access” to data from every state program funded by the federal government. 

This includes a terrifying array of data: your psychiatric and health records, detailed financial data, photos, and more, all to be consolidated into a single massive federal surveillance database.

Then, last month, the Trump administration ordered states to turn over sensitive personal and financial data from Americans who have used SNAP, a food assistance program, in the past five years, including during the Covid-19 pandemic. In response, 21 states and Washington, D.C., sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture, seeking to block the order.

Vermont was not one of those states.

Instead of joining those leaders who are standing up for their residents, Gov. Phil Scott handed over the data — without the consent of affected Vermonters. No press release. No consultation. Just quiet compliance.

Let’s be clear: This is not abstract. 

According to Vermont Public, these records include “names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and home addresses of all members of any household in Vermont that received SNAP benefits in the past five years.” The Scott administration even plans to share your specific food purchases. 

At least 1 in 5 Vermont households is affected. Many of them are working families, children, U.S.-born children of immigrants and people who lost jobs during the pandemic. 

This wasn’t just a technical decision. This was a political decision — and a moral one.

Other leaders said no. 

Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky called the order what it is: unlawful. California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta called it “a bait-and-switch of the worst kind.” As he put it, “SNAP recipients provided this information to get help feeding their families — not to be entered into a government surveillance database or be used as targets in the president’s inhumane immigration agenda.”

Why didn’t Scott do the same? Why didn’t he stand with other states to fight back? Why didn’t he give Vermont’s own attorney general, Charity Clark, a chance to resist in court? As Clark told Vermont Public, “(The Scott administration is) approaching this in a way that prevents me from being able to join a lawsuit.”

This is not how Vermonters expect our government to behave. Data collected to ensure that Vermont children do not go hungry is now being used to fuel a federal surveillance regime. It is a betrayal of consent, a violation of trust, and a direct contradiction of Vermont’s proud tradition of protecting privacy and resisting federal overreach.

This isn’t about “waste, fraud and abuse.” In 2024, Vermont had the fifth-lowest SNAP payment error of any state — a level even the Trump administration deems acceptable. The federal government explicitly stated that Vermont does not need corrective action on SNAP. So if they are demanding our personal information, it’s not to solve a problem with SNAP. It’s to serve a different agenda.

And yes, there’s an obvious and immediate threat: immigration enforcement. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, who requested the data from Vermont, has publicly called for “mass deportations” and “no amnesty under any circumstances.” The fear is not hypothetical. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is already using data-mined insurance claims as a “deportation tool.”

Now, thanks to Scott, ICE and other federal agencies may have access to the updated addresses and immigration statuses of tens of thousands of Vermont residents. Vermont did not send the National Guard to round people up, but we did tell the federal government where to find them.

Even federal technologists have warned against what’s happening. In a public resignation letter, 21 staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency wrote:

“We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans’ sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services.”

But that’s exactly what Scott enabled. Once this data has been handed over, it cannot be taken back.

The people of Vermont deserve answers. We deserve to know what was shared, with whom and why. We deserve to know why our state’s leadership broke ranks with other governors who chose to defend their residents. We deserve to know how the Scott administration will protect the people who are now at risk: neighbors, children and families whose only “crime” was asking for help to eat.

Vermonters do not believe in big government surveillance. We do not believe in handing ICE a search engine to find our friends. We certainly do not believe helping feed your kids should cost you your privacy.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Rep. Rebecca Holcombe: Why does Gov. Phil Scott want to give DOGE your grocery list?.

This commentary is by John Bossange of South Burlington. He is a retired middle school principal and a board member of Better (not bigger) Vermont.

At long last, there is some good news coming out of Burlington. 

It comes in the form of an inspiring group calling itself Building Burlington’s Future. Teams of local community leaders, past and present, have created a nonprofit organization dedicated to building an affordable, safe and livable future for Burlington. 

I am hopeful that all of the leaders in our city, regardless of political party affiliation, will engage with Building Burlington’s Future. 

The organization aspires to be a dedicated and coordinated force for change by connecting grassroots advocacy and policy development. The group sees what we all see, every day and every night: a struggling downtown. 

The cost of housing is pushing families out of the city, and gaps in public safety and health services are putting individuals and families at risk. 

The good news is that Building Burlington’s Future will focus on developing practical policies that will make the city more affordable, safe and livable. They will do this work collaboratively, with input from Burlington’s wealth of direct service providers, business leaders and everyday residents to drive change that is needed now and will last.

Since launching in June, the nonprofit has been supporting positive and productive action in Burlington. I expect that we will soon see initiatives from Building Burlington’s Future on important issues, such as affordable housing, public safety, the expansion of community service personnel, the retention of police officers and the encouragement of public health initiatives that support those experiencing homelessness.

Our community needs this kind of action more than ever before. We need people to show up downtown to community events and activities, to attend public meetings, and to participate in conversations that seek solutions. Building Burlington’s Future promises to bring more people into the conversation — and for many of us, we are grateful for that effort. 

The questions that remain on my mind are: How will our elected leaders serving on the Burlington City Council react to the formation of an independent advocacy organization? Will our leaders on both sides of the political spectrum be open to feedback and new ideas? Will they be receptive to integrating action steps coming from the Building Burlington’s Future? 

I’m not sure what to expect once the organization begins to advocate for policies that will require integration and implementation by the city. 

We know that Burlington, like many other places, can be resistant to change. We also know that some of our hardest conversations can often take unproductive and divisive turns. 

Some examples of this include the conversation about the removal of a “Food not Cops” feeding location in a public parking garage to City Hall Park without a permit, allowing cars of unhoused individuals to park overnight at Perkins Pier or the growing tent settlements along the bike path and in the Intervale. We must come together in a partnership if there are to be long-lasting solutions.

I believe the most important challenge facing the city right now is the environment that is creating a lucrative and illegal market for drug trafficking and dealing. In my opinion, drug dealing, not just usage, is the greatest threat to public safety in Burlington. On that issue alone there should be no debate on our City Council. Helping the most vulnerable population deal with their substance use is critical if we are to address our city’s drug crisis.

I hope for a future where discussions can take place in a productive, civil manner and where we build bridges rather than jump to label those who don’t agree. I believe Building Burlington’s Future can play a constructive role in creating some common ground for positive, productive change. 

If you attend a City Council meeting these days, too often you are likely to encounter people who are just there to criticize or advocate against things. That negative rhetoric just compounds our problems and the perception people have about Burlington. 

We need an organization that is willing to convene all the citizens of Burlington, including tax-paying residents, renters, business owners, vulnerable individuals, students and, of course, visitors. 

This is a critical and timely opportunity to combine resources and ideas — and move beyond political ideology and rhetoric. 

I hope readers of this commentary and other interested citizens will join me in welcoming Building Burlington’s Future to the table and participate in meaningful conversation. We need to ensure that Burlington’s future will be affordable, safe and livable for everyone.

Read the story on VTDigger here: John Bossange: Will the good news coming out of Burlington make a difference?.

This commentary is by Miriam Voran, who practices psychoanalytic psychotherapy in Montpelier and West Lebanon. She is a clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth.

It’s indisputable: We have a crisis. 

A housing crisis, we call it. More people want to live in Vermont than we can support. The state’s Agency of Commerce and Community Development predicts we will need at least 24,000 new homes over the next five years. With an aging population, Vermont faces a workforce shortage. Without more housing, we’re warned, Vermont’s economy will die.  

Vermont’s lack of affordable housing is also immoral. The present shortage drives home prices and rents sky-high. We are seeing more unhoused individuals, more whose housing costs outpace their income, and many middle and low-income families who simply cannot afford to buy homes. 

We dare not become the playground of the wealthy, the privileged who protect their bit of paradise.  

To solve the crisis, Vermont has loosened environmental regulations in developed districts and funded infrastructure to encourage growth. More housing, we believe, is an economic and moral imperative. Yet, we are tortured to see the clear-cutting of land and the loss of cooling vegetation and wildlife habitat — all to build more hardscaping that sheds water and reflects heat and to house ever more humans.

Important as it is, the housing imperative is the least of our problems. Growth comes with costs that Earth can no longer bear. In 2020, humanity crossed an unthinkable line: the mass of human-made stuff exceeded all living biomass on Earth. 

We’ve blown past our right-sized place on the planet. We’re just one of over 8 million species, but we’re crowding out the rest of nature. We’re losing birds, wild mammals, reptiles and insects at an unprecedented rate. We’re destroying the climate, and we’re destroying the lacework of life.  

We’re in overshoot. Overshoot occurs when a species’ population outgrows its environment.  Earth Overshoot Day is the day by which we’ve exhausted all the resources that Earth can generate for the year. This year, it arrived on July 24, eight days earlier than last year. For the next five months, we are stealing resources from future generations. We’re spewing pollution Earth cannot absorb. Humanity now uses 1.8 Earths each year. 

Ecologists say that even experts cannot understand our nightmare. Even they underestimate the challenges of avoiding a ghastly future. 

Overshoot will likely cause the collapse of global supply chains, violent conflicts over shrinking resources, mass migrations from climate change and the hoarding of remaining wealth by a few. 

No governmental body can address the crisis. A population decline during the second half of this century is inevitable. The only question is, do we decline deliberately or do we crash?  

From pandemics and floods to President Donald Trump’s dismantling of almost everything, we daily experience unimaginable destruction. Some claim that the worldwide rise in authoritarian populist leaders is itself a symptom of overshoot. 

There’s a certain tribalism here in Vermont. It is, perhaps, just as dangerous as isolationism. Our tribalism is pro-growth. We’re pro-housing, pro-worker immigration, pro-economic expansion. This, we’re told, leads to abundance and a sustainable future. We’re clinging to outdated views of security. We’re protecting our tribal interests while destroying Earth as a sustainable home for biodiverse life.     

In times of crisis, morality changes. The old morality of individual rights no longer works.  Because we’re trapped in a bad-ending game, morality must adjust to the vital needs of the larger human community. This means not just the community in front of us, but the community of the future, a community that exists within ecological limits. Survival ethics requires changing our morality and changing our game.  

It’s almost impossible to imagine such change. But if humanity is to survive, the ecologists say we will need to down-size the global population between 2 billion and 3 billion. 

Anticipating the collapse of global supply chains, we would want to right-size local populations to fit regional resources. Sure, this threatens endless economic growth. But there is an alternative: the steady-state economy that fits within ecological limits.  

Without this ethical shift, we’re marching off the cliff, like the mythical lemmings. It’s the legacy of our infancy. We never forget those early days of helplessness, screaming in our cribs, utterly dependent on the kindness of caregivers. We learn from the beginning to fit in and please. It’s the way we keep resources coming. 

Over the years, the urge to please and belong extends to friends, employers, community, even the broader culture. We embrace business as usual, even bad business, to belong. We don’t ask uncomfortable questions or start awkward conversations for fear of being ostracized.

Let us hope we can find our collective capacity to tolerate our fear of ostracism. Maybe, when our hearts are shattered, we’ll find our courage to look reality in the eye and speak truth to each other.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Miriam Voran: Environmental overshoot in our Vermont backyard.

This commentary is by Dr. DaShawn Groves of Winooski. Dr. Groves is the commissioner for the Department of Vermont Health Access, which administers Vermont Medicaid and Vermont Health Connect.

For the better part of a year, I have had the privilege of serving as commissioner for the Department of Vermont Health Access, which administers Vermont Medicaid and the health insurance marketplace through VT Health Connect. At a time of great uncertainty in our health care landscape, Vermont continues to be a nationwide leader in health coverage. 

According to the recent Vermont Household Health Insurance Survey, 97% of Vermonters are enrolled in health coverage and Vermont’s “underinsured” rate dropped significantly since 2021. The survey results show that our brave little state, amazingly, emerged from the Covid-19 pandemic with stronger, more stable coverage than we had going in. 

This does not happen by chance. It is the result of years of thoughtful policy, relentless coordination and a shared commitment to making sure Vermonters can get the care they need.

Vermont has long had one of the lowest uninsured rates in the country, and that trend continues in 2025 with only 3% of Vermonters lacking any health coverage. This is in the context of the Medicaid renewal process that the Department of Vermont Health Access conducted following the Covid-19 pandemic, which re-determined eligibility for all members enrolled through Medicaid. 

It is an encouraging sign for Vermont’s insurance landscape that many Vermonters maintained their Medicaid enrollment or transitioned to the health insurance marketplace during this time. 

From 2021 to 2025, all measures of Vermonters’ health insurance coverage are trending positively or are holding steady over time. These are important — and encouraging — trends. 

Insured Vermonters are more likely to visit a doctor, seek preventative care and have better health outcomes than those without health coverage. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the cost of health care, for the average Vermonter, continues to increase and that trend impacts Medicaid and the marketplace.

One indicator of Vermont’s insurance landscape is the shrinking percentage of Vermonters who are considered “underinsured,” meaning they are enrolled in a health plan but still have significant expenses not covered by their insurance. 

In 2021, Vermont’s underinsured rate was 40%. Today, that has dropped to 31%. This represents a significant improvement in ensuring Vermonters are enrolled in plans that meet their needs.  

This is likely a result of more robust plans being available at lower costs due to enhanced federal premium tax credits. For 2025, the Department of Vermont Health Access helped enroll Vermonters in qualified health plans with higher levels of coverage but lower monthly premiums because of this increased availability of federal funds. This practice has allowed thousands of Vermonters to move into better plans at lower out-of-pocket costs and has resulted in record enrollment through Vermont’s health insurance marketplace.  

We need to maintain our progress and our position as a nationwide leader in health insurance coverage.

This coming year, Vermont will see changes in the availability of federal subsidies. Enhanced subsidies, which have helped keep monthly premiums affordable for thousands of Vermonters, are set to expire at the end of 2025. That change, in addition to new eligibility requirements included in the federal budget, may impact our uninsured and underinsured rates here in Vermont.

Vermont has been, and continues to be, a nationwide leader in health coverage. 

At the Department of Vermont Health Access, we have been acutely aware of the health care affordability crisis facing Vermonters, with rising costs for health care services and health care coverage. This moment calls for creative solutions, strategic partnerships and a shared commitment across leadership to protect what we’ve built. 

While we don’t know the full extent of the impact changes at the federal level will bring, the Department of Vermont Health Access remains committed to improving Vermonters’ health and well-being by providing access to high-quality health care.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Commissioner DaShawn Groves: Vermont remains a nationwide leader in health coverage.

This commentary is by Sophie Bowater, of North Middlesex. She is the coalition lead at Vermont Coyote Coexistence Coalition.

The Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department — and the scientific community at large — recognizes the tremendous value of bobcats, coyotes, foxes and other wild animals labeled “furbearer” predator species on our landscapes. 

Ironically, Fish & Wildlife’s hunting and trapping policies do not reflect that. 

Instead, their policies feed into a culture of loathing toward predator species, as some hunters and trappers view them as competition over prey species, like deer, turkeys and rabbits, that they want all to themselves to hunt.

Furbearer species are often hunted at night with the aid of thermal scopes, high-tech game calling devices, hunting hounds and bait piles, even on private land and our shared public lands. There are few regulations to protect these animals from unethical and dangerous forms of killing. We must rely on the Legislature to address this, since Fish & Wildlife seems content to keep hunters and trappers happy.

There is a bill, H.132, that would prohibit the hunting of furbearer species using bait. Hunting using bait is already illegal for hunting bears, deer, moose and other wildlife, and it’s time that prohibition extends to other hunted species. Not only does baiting violate the fair chase ethics of hunting, but it also spreads disease, sickens our pets who feed off the bait and habituates wildlife to human landscapes, causing conflicts with people.

Fish & Wildlife asks the public not to feed wildlife, but meanwhile it is legal to feed/bait wildlife for the purpose of hunting. This seems very contradictory. 

There are numerous studies that warn of the dangers of baiting wildlife. One review of multiple studies states, “Large concentrations of wildlife activity centered around feeding or baiting sites have been widely implicated as a major mechanism influencing inter- and intra-specific transmission of infectious diseases.”

Hunting over bait piles has also resulted in at least three dogs, over the past few years, who were mistaken for coyotes and shot and killed by predator hunters in Vermont. There’s likely more tragedies that we don’t know about. 

Allowing this form of hunting encourages bad actors and signals to the public that these wild animals don’t matter — but they do. 

Foxes and coyotes are top predators of white-footed mice, which are the primary hosts for the bacteria that causes lyme disease. Many people resort to using toxic rodenticides to address rodent problems when we should be relying on foxes, bobcats, coyotes and other furbearer species to manage rodent populations.

Herbivorous mammals like groundhogs might otherwise overpopulate without the presence of furbearer species. In addition, unlike prey species like deer, furbearer species like bobcats and coyotes do not overpopulate. 

There really is not one good reason to hunt them at all. To hunt them over bait piles is simply an abomination. Please support H.132.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Sophie Bowater: Stop hunting furbearer species with bait by supporting bill H.132.

This commentary is by Casey Jennings of Lunenburg. He has a master’s degree in forestry and has worked a variety of jobs outdoors, ranging from the U.S. Forestry Service to the private sector.

With the Trump administration attempting to destroy the National Labor Relations Board and Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introducing a bill in Congress to abolish the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, I am calling on the Vermont Legislature to expand worker protection in the state to counter any fallout. 

I ask that private sector employees be allowed to bring their claims to the Vermont Labor Relations Board, that steps be taken to ensure VOSHA will not be impacted by any federal changes, and that H.348, a bill aimed at protecting workers from extreme temperatures, be passed.

I believe it reasonable that employers be required by statute to provide workers with opportunities to warm up when working in winter temperatures. I have witnessed coworkers in single-digit temperatures and subzero wind chills outdoors allowed only one or two short bathroom breaks for 8-hour shifts. One coworker’s nose was frostbitten while others experienced borderline hypothermia. This is unacceptable.

Vermont has also experienced record-high temperatures this summer, with temperatures hitting the upper 90s. It is probable that Vermont will continue seeing these extreme summer temperatures due to climate change.

I remember years ago working in a factory when it was merely in the 80s outside, and over 100 inside. It was quite unbearable, but normal production was still expected — and the one time I expressed concerns to management as well as to OSHA, it was rather callously brushed aside. 

It shouldn’t be accepted as normal when there are reasonable ways of addressing this problem, including extra breaks and better ventilation. A federal proposal was issued by OSHA under the Biden administration to better protect workers from hot temperatures, but it seems unlikely that the Trump administration will follow through with the ongoing rulemaking process.

Vermont should not simply follow the rest of the nation in a backward direction on this subject. We should be a model state in terms of labor laws, and protecting workers from our increasingly extreme weather should be a top priority.

Read the story on VTDigger here: Casey Jennings: Workplace protections in the Trump administration.