Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 10 Chapter 41
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1021 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 002 : ALTERATION OF STREAMS

(Cite as: 10 V.S.A. § 1021)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: In Re Vermont Marble Co., 648 A.2d 381 (Vt. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Vermont Marble Co., 648 A.2d 381 (Vt. 1994). “10 V.S.A. § 1021(a) prohibits any person from altering the “course, current or cross-section of any watercourse” without a permit from the Secretary.”
ANR v. Sanford (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “Stream Alteration Without a Permit ANR first alleges that Respondents violated 10 V.S.A. § 1021(a)1 by “adding and/or moving more than 10 cubic yards of fill to the cross section of the watercourse [of Jewel Brook] without a stream alteration permit.”
ANR v. Deering & Andrews (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “Respondents also did not receive any emergency authorization for the work or provide notice of the work to local or ANR officials, as contemplated by 10 V.S.A. § 1021. 9. On or about April 26, 2010, ANR officials were notified of Respondent Andrews’ work along the White River on…”
ANR v. Deering & Andrews (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “Respondents also did not receive any emergency authorization for the work or provide notice of the work to local or ANR officials, as contemplated by 10 V.S.A. § 1021. 9. On or about April 26, 2010, ANR officials were notified of Respondent Andrews’ work along the White River on…”
Moore Accessory Structure Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 4413(d), then providing in full that: [n]o [municipal] plan or bylaw adopted under this chapter7 shall restrict accepted agricultural or silvicultural practices as defined by the commissioner of agriculture or the commissioner of forests, parks, and recreation, respectively,…”
ANR v. Town of Lowell & Pion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “See 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(a), 1022; 10 V.S.A. § 1259(a).”
Clark & Castle Final Plan Amendment - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “SUB00-7 includes a permit condition that prohibits further subdivision of the Property and provides that the Property shall only be developed for residential and normal accessory use and/or accepted agricultural practices, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(f), 1239(f) and 6 V.S.A.”
ANR v. Sanford (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “The Decision and JO concluded that Robert and Andrea Sanford (Respondents) violated 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(a) and 1259(a). We also assessed Respondents a penalty of $4,385.”
Intervale Ctr., Inc. & Half Pint Farm (Hoop House) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “§§ 4810– 4815 or 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(f) and 1259(f). The Agency of Agriculture purports to have issued its AAPs determination under its authority to make declaratory rulings under 3 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1021(a) — 4 cases
In Re Vermont Marble Co., 648 A.2d 381 (Vt. 1994). “10 V.S.A. § 1021(a) prohibits any person from altering the “course, current or cross-section of any watercourse” without a permit from the Secretary.”
ANR v. Sanford (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “Stream Alteration Without a Permit ANR first alleges that Respondents violated 10 V.S.A. § 1021(a)1 by “adding and/or moving more than 10 cubic yards of fill to the cross section of the watercourse [of Jewel Brook] without a stream alteration permit.”
ANR v. Town of Lowell & Pion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “See 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(a), 1022; 10 V.S.A. § 1259(a).”
ANR v. Sanford (Vt. Super. Ct. 2013). “The Decision and JO concluded that Robert and Andrea Sanford (Respondents) violated 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(a) and 1259(a). We also assessed Respondents a penalty of $4,385.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1021(b) — 2 cases
ANR v. Deering & Andrews (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “Respondents also did not receive any emergency authorization for the work or provide notice of the work to local or ANR officials, as contemplated by 10 V.S.A. § 1021. 9. On or about April 26, 2010, ANR officials were notified of Respondent Andrews’ work along the White River on…”
ANR v. Deering & Andrews (Vt. Super. Ct. 2011). “Respondents also did not receive any emergency authorization for the work or provide notice of the work to local or ANR officials, as contemplated by 10 V.S.A. § 1021. 9. On or about April 26, 2010, ANR officials were notified of Respondent Andrews’ work along the White River on…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 10, § 1021(f) — 3 cases
Moore Accessory Structure Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “§ 4413(d), then providing in full that: [n]o [municipal] plan or bylaw adopted under this chapter7 shall restrict accepted agricultural or silvicultural practices as defined by the commissioner of agriculture or the commissioner of forests, parks, and recreation, respectively,…”
Clark & Castle Final Plan Amendment - Decision on the Merits (Vt. Super. Ct. 2020). “SUB00-7 includes a permit condition that prohibits further subdivision of the Property and provides that the Property shall only be developed for residential and normal accessory use and/or accepted agricultural practices, pursuant to 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(f), 1239(f) and 6 V.S.A.”
Intervale Ctr., Inc. & Half Pint Farm (Hoop House) (Vt. Super. Ct. 2009). “§§ 4810– 4815 or 10 V.S.A. §§ 1021(f) and 1259(f). The Agency of Agriculture purports to have issued its AAPs determination under its authority to make declaratory rulings under 3 V.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.