House Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (5)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1704
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1704”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1767
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1767”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1705
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1705”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1633
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1633”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1703
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ign, motion passes. Moving on, Representative Barnett here, House Bill 1703.”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
First, the amendment should be on your tablet. Representative Edwards, you're recognized to present your
amendment. Sir, the amendment changes the days from 90 days to 120 days. 1633. All right, is there
any questions of Representative Edwards related to the amendment?
If not, Representative Edwards, are you closed for your amendment? I'm closed for
amendment, and I make a motion that be approved. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor of approving the amendment, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. If the amendment passes, Representative Edwards, you're recognized to present your
bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. and I'm joined today with Mr. Christopher Crane, who I will ask to be recognized at the proper time to speak also upon this bill.
What this bill is all about is trying to help promote the film industry in the state of Arkansas. We're amending, we're wishing to amend a couple provisions of the law as it currently exists. We want to increase the rebate available under current legislation. And at this time, I will subject to your approval, I'll let Mr. Christopher Crane speak on the bill. Mr. Crane,
welcome to the House Ag Committee.
Please state your name for the record, and you may make
Christopher Crane
Unverified
1:45
your comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Christopher Crane. I'm with the Office of Arkansas Economic Development Commission. And what we have here, in the 2009 session, we passed our first incentive bill, which laid the groundwork for us to begin to build workforce and infrastructure for the film industry. And we did not want to put forth a bill that over-promised and under-delivered.
Since then, we have laid the groundwork to actually compete in this industry. This industry is the ultimate amalgam of all of the creative industries. It brings fantastic economic development to every community within the state of Arkansas. It doesn't matter if you have a port, an airport, whatever it is, you can take part in the film industry in the state of Arkansas because of the way that the industry and the skill sets are set up. We have excellent curriculum now within the local universities and two-year colleges
that are building our workforce, and I think that we're truly ready to compete. This bill will allow us to compete with our surrounding neighbors and make it the economic engine and use the beautiful topography of the state that we have like it should be. Any questions? Representative
Chair
Unverified
3:05
Steele, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. And I'm just curious to know,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
3:10
it seems like we've had a few productions in this state since this bill has taken effect, have we not?
Could you tell the committee how the bill has affected that, whether
Christopher Crane
Unverified
3:22
or not it encouraged it, how it operated? Yes, sir. We have. We recently had a production entitled MUD, which shot all over southeast Arkansas. It's the largest production in the history of the state. And the first incentive bill truly helped us capture that production. They spent about $9 million in southeast Arkansas, which is an extraordinary amount of money. over a couple of months to be put into the economy.
This particular bill now, with the minute increase that we're asking for, will help garner more productions and help us parlay the past production into a positive experience for our Kansans. So we're just improving a bill that's already been
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
4:03
successful? That is correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions?
Representative Letting, you're recognized for a question. Motion at the proper time. Representative Ballinger, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
4:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this increase from 15 percent to 20 percent, do we have any idea, and I apologize for my ignorance as to what this does, but do we have any idea on what we're talking
Speaker 13
4:36
about as far as additional revenues? Representative, that's a good question, and it's one of those
Christopher Crane
Unverified
4:41
that it's the industry is ambiguous as it is, And so, you know, our goal is to help foster independent production. So the revenue, there's no revenue impact attached to this because there's no additional appropriation, if that's the question.
It's already going to come out of a fund that's already set up for the Economic Development Commission. But we anticipate a large increase just because of a 5% increase in the amount of inquiries that we get from film companies and what we're able to offer them. Our goal is to have the workforce come from Arkansas and so that those revenues stay in the state and that dollar begins to circulate in the state more than it has in the past.
Speaker 25
5:26
Any other questions? Representative Edwards, are you closed for your
bill? Sir, I am closed. Representative Letting, you're recognized for a motion. Recommend do pass. Do pass as amended. As amended, yes. Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor of motion do pass as amended, indicated by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed by the same sign, motion passes. Moving on, Representative Barnett here, House Bill 1703.
I don't see him. Representative Ratliff, are you going to run House Bill 1704? All right. Representative
Ratliff, you're recognized to present House Bill 1704. Thank you,
Representative James Ratliff
Unverified
6:27
Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1704 is an act to provide merchants who sell livestock at an auction
to allow the governor to request extradition of persons charged with theft by deception relating to the sale of livestock at that auction for other purposes. We had a case up in our part of the world where it cost a sale barn a million, too. They went and got the guy, had him caught, and they couldn't bring him back to Arkansas. So we need a good vote on this. Committee, any questions?
Representative Ratliff, are you closed? Closed for the bill. Appreciate a good vote. Representative Gillum, you're recognized for a motion. Do pass. Any discussion? Okay, we have a motion. Do pass. All those in favor, say aye.
Aye. Any opposed by the same sign? Motion passes. Representative Ratliff, you're recognized for
Representative James Ratliff
Unverified
7:25
a motion. House Bill 1705. House Bill 1705 follows this other act right behind. It's an act to create livestock owner's lien, act to grant a livestock owner a lien against livestock
for any unpaid portion from when you sell your livestock at the sale barns. It keeps these guys from kiting and carrying their money off, and I'd
appreciate a good vote. Any questions? Representative
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
7:53
Linderman, you recognize for a question? Representative Ratliff, I understand that there is one sale barn in northeast Arkansas that was hit for in excess of $1 million? 1.2. 1.2 million. And this bill will alleviate or greatly enhance the ability to recover that?
Yes, sir. This will take care of the problem. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion is proper time. Any other questions? Representative Ratliff, are you closed for your bill? Closed for the bill. Appreciate it. Good vote. Representative Linderman, you're recognized for a motion. Motion to do pass. Okay, we have a motion to do pass. Any discussion? All those in
favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Representative Gillum, you're recognized to present House Bill 1767.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
8:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
committee. I've got before you today House Bill 1767. it's very simple straightforward in the language be happy to answer any questions in a second but basically the intent of this bill is to place agriculture in its what I feel like its proper place in the water plan in the priority list and like I said it's simple straightforward the language is not confusing and I'll be happy
to answer any questions if you have any, and I believe
that I also have some folks that can answer some technical questions if there are any,
and if you have any of those. Representative Gillum, I have a question. In reviewing the bill, was agriculture just not even mentioned initially? That's my understanding the way that I read it. Okay. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question. just a
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
9:50
fii for me was there anything that that prompted this necessity or is this just uh we
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
9:56
need to a little of both to be honest with you representative um in hearing from a great number of constituents throughout a lot of different senate districts my house district uh most of everybody in my county uh there was a great concern as these meetings took place that agriculture really was not being given its proper due. Now, I personally have not been in those meetings. That was feedback that I received from the individuals, so I cannot testify to the accuracy of that. But the feeling was that agriculture was not really getting a seat at
the table to basically represent the importance of agriculture that we have in the state and its economic importance to the state and so that's that's the purpose behind this bill is to make sure that it's reflected appropriately okay and I and I understand
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
10:45
agriculture is one of the top water users in the state has anyone expressed any concern about adding
them to the list and giving them a higher priority I believe so
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
10:57
and they may be here to speak in a few minutes and they
could probably explain why they maybe don't feel like agriculture needs to be on the list, I'll let them, I don't want to put words
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
11:11
in anybody's mouth on that. All right.
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
11:14
I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Linderman, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Gillum, two years ago we passed a statewide water plan. Yes. Did that not at least list some priorities for water? And is this bill, how does it work with the statewide water plan that we passed,
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
11:33
or how has it affected? I'm going to be honest with you, Representative Linderman, I am not an expert on the water plan and how that the meetings have all gone on. I will be perfectly honest with you on that. I know that the purpose of this bill is to make sure that agriculture in the water plan is reflective of its importance to Arkansas's economy and the survivability of our farmers throughout the entire state. That's the purpose of my bill.
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
12:04
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Jett, you're recognized for a question. Make a
motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman. Representative Edwards, you're recognized for a question. You know, one of my favorite colleagues in the House just made a statement that said if the word agriculture is in a bill, it's got to be good. and i agree with that but i have a couple of questions um can you expound upon who says
agriculture hadn't had a seat at the table because i've been working with this stuff for most of my life and i've never had a water issue where i hadn't had agriculture at the table can you can who who is
can you expound upon that yes and and to clarify that like i said earlier i i I have not been in these meetings, so I'm not necessarily testifying to the veracity of those claims. But
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
13:07
I've received phone calls from several constituents from around different parts of the state.
I mean, as far north, you know, up into, you know, representative of Ratliss territory, and as far south as the Stuttgart area, and quite a bit around a lot of different farmers, you know, in various fields of agriculture that have expressed concerns that they feel like that because of the way that the meetings have been progressed, at least their opinion, Representative Edwards, is that we're not maybe giving our proper place at the table.
Now, like I said, I'm not in those meetings, but that is the feedback that I have been getting when I attend agriculture meetings. You know, as you know, I serve on different levels of ag policy throughout the state, and the feedback I get when I attend all these agriculture meetings is a deep, deep concern about where we're going to end up at in this water plan. And so this bill seeks to only address the priorities list. It does not include any technical language as to the usage in gallons or anything like that at all.
I feel like that the agency heads, you know, ought to be able to work out and proceed without any handcuffing and limitations that I might put on them for this bill. So this simply is to make sure that agriculture is reflected in the water plan appropriately because of the economic status that it serves in our state. Now, in
the water plan, agriculture is reflected in the water plan, but I want to – so where is industry on this?
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
14:51
As far as their priority list, that was not my focus of my bill. No further
questions. Thank you. Representative McCrary, you're recognized for
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
15:02
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mine will be a question eventually. In responding to some of this, I'm 100 percent for what's trying to be done. Agriculture has spent millions and millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, building reservoirs and doing everything it can, but to try to reduce the amount of water
that we're pumping out of the ground. And if this plan were to end up limiting their ability to pump out of our streams and rivers and boughs to fill up, you've got to charge these reservoirs. And then you can't build a reservoir big enough where you've got to be able to recharge them sometime during the year. And, of course, drought years is when it's really stressed. And depending on what the water plan comes up with, they could shut agriculture down and cause tremendous.
And I commend you for doing this. And do you not agree? I totally agree. Thank you. Any other questions?
Okay, we have two individuals signed up to speak against the bill. Randy Young with the Natural Resources Commission.
Mr. Young, if you would, state your name and your position, and then you can
Randy Young
Unverified
16:40
present your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Randy Young. I'm the director of the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, and, Mr. Gillum, let me assure you and the committee that it's very serious for me to be at the end of the table ever speaking against a member's bill, and I think there's a great deal of confusion about what the current law and the Commission's regulations are and what this bill itself does.
For example, in the Commission's regulations, under the criteria for allocation, agriculture is the first priority, followed by industry, hydropower, and recreation. That's the current law regulations. Where the confusion is with Mr. Gillum's bill, he's seeking to amend the part of the law where the water is reserved and can't be reduced ever, and by adding agriculture to that along
with federally authorized projects and municipal and domestic use and in-stream uses, and the result of that would be the state of Arkansas would be in a situation where we would have no authority whatsoever to ensure that we could meet the terms of the Red River Compact that we are a party to along with Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana. And Louisiana, since 2010, has been adopting resolutions in their General Assembly
alleging that Arkansas is not providing Louisiana with the amount of water that they're entitled to under the Red River Compact. And that amount is essentially 40 percent of the weekly runoff. And my agency's ability to ensure that we comply with that compact is all embedded in this statute that we're talking about. And that's the Commission's authority to allocate water during times of shortage. And agriculture, as you all know, is the biggest consumptive user of water in the state.
And if we move that category of water use into what I term, what the law says, the reserved category, which means it's untouchable during allocation, then the only people that we could cut back in order to try to meet our obligations under the compact with Louisiana is industry, and they're not that big a water user. As far as I want to make
Speaker 69
19:25
one other comment, and then I'd be happy for questions.
Randy Young
Unverified
19:31
Mr. McQuarrie's comment about the importance of water and the ability to fill the on-farm reservoirs, which is a big program that we're helping push and providing financing to construct. The water that's pumped into those reservoirs is, under our current regulations, is usable without even having to have an allocation. Water can be, that's water that's captured
in tailwater recovery systems, Water diverted from lakes, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and the exclusive ownership of the individual. All of that is not even subject to allocation. Water previously captured, whether transmitted by a ditch, channel, or pipe, water diverted from intermittent streams can be done without an allocation. Diffused surface water is free for capture. Water captured in in-stream pit reservoirs and dams constructed by lawful permit are all free for use by the farmer without even having to have an allocation.
So let me just close by, again, saying under the current law and regulations, agriculture is the first priority. Thank
you, Mr. Young. And Vice Chairman Steele, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:03
Thank you. I'm just curious. I understand the concern about the interstate compact, but I think it's interesting that I don't have a problem with this, but the federal water rights are last on the list on this, on the water plan.
So it seems to me if we're going to be concerned about Louisiana, we would be equally or more so concerned about federal water rights, and they're last on the list here.
Randy Young
Unverified
21:26
Could you explain maybe why that is? Sure. The list you're looking at is the reserved uses. There's no priority in terms of how those
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:34
are listed. So this doesn't go from domestic water down to agriculture?
Speaker 69
21:38
No, those are all reserved and can't be reduced. Thank you. Representative McQuarrie, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
21:47
Mr. Young, you and I have worked on a lot of things together, and I'm behind you 100 percent, But I'm more behind trying to ensure that farmers had adequate water to, and I know that's your concern, too. The heart of the matter is the farmer's fear of minimum flow in their streams and their ditches and everywhere they're trying to pump. And, of course, minimum flow becomes an issue during droughts and hard times, and it could totally, and I'm not telling you anything I know you don't know.
But I think I heard you say when you were talking about all that that you either use the word at present or currently, that's the law. But the water plan, I understand, is looking at changing the current law. It's looking at, and if certain people, I'm agreeing with Mr. Gillum, if certain people are dominating or more dominating
than agriculture and the water plan, It can certainly put agriculture where, you know, we're, I mean.
Randy Young
Unverified
22:59
I have a couple of comments. Yes, please. I wouldn't couch what we're doing to update the Arkansas water plan in any fashion as looking to change the law. As you know, I worked on the water plan that we adopted in 1990. I was the director of the commission then. plan, I happen to think it's a good plan. We are reviewing the plan, and a part of that is updating all of the water use data, updating
our computer models on what the safe yield of groundwater is, making projections into the future about what the future demands are, and then identifying if we have shortfalls between supply and demand and what are some of the options to meet future needs. So a part of that naturally is reviewing what the current state of the law is, and if there's consensus coming out of that process that something needs to be amended, then that might
very well be a recommendation out of the plan. So
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
24:09
you cannot guarantee that agriculture won't come out on the short end of all this when it's said and done? Well, I think
Speaker 81
24:15
if you look at the makeup of the Natural Resources Commission, and I know you know some of them personally, I would
Randy Young
Unverified
24:21
encourage you to keep that in the back of your mind about it. They'll be
Speaker 79
24:25
making these decisions, not the people that are at the group that are putting
this. Okay. Thanks, sir. Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
24:36
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure I'm kind of understanding part of your testimony. We're talking about the allocation here that we're guaranteeing an allocation for agriculture, and I'm assuming that that's at current levels. How does that allocation, are we talking about so many gallons of water? How is that allocation broken out, a certain percentage of state water?
Is that a hard number, or where does that come from?
Speaker 84
25:06
Let me describe a little bit about how that process
Randy Young
Unverified
25:12
would work, And I think part of the confusion has to do with our calculation of what surplus water is under the water plan, and that's a part of looking at the in-stream uses, and that in contrast with what is minimum stream flow that we're required to protect. In calculating what is surplus water, we essentially, under the 1990 plan, asked the Game and Fish Commission, the Waterways Commission, ADEQ, what are the in-stream needs in order to protect those uses.
And then we picked the largest number so that we would protect all of them. And then that's how we arrived at how much surplus water do we have in the state. And that is not the minimum stream flow that's referred to in this section of the law of the code that Representative Gillum is seeking to amend. That minimum stream flow number is a much smaller number that's intended to protect the in-stream uses during extreme drought to ensure that, for example, that the fish survive
and that water quality permits that ADEQ have issued are not jeopardized and that sort of thing. And during a shortage under the commission's power to allocate, what we're charged with doing is quantifying that water that's needed for the federally authorized projects, the amount that's needed for municipal and domestic use, and then that minimum stream flow amount that's needed to ensure that the fish survive during the drought.
The water that's above those three then is allocated based on those priorities that I read to you earlier with agriculture being the first priority.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:13
So agriculture is already your first priority, So by stepping it up into this list, are we changing a whole lot? Yes,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:24
untouchable. Okay. And by doing that, you know, if we say agriculture gets this much,
is that a hard number that's going to be, say, for example, it's 20 million gallons? Are we saying every year they get 20 million gallons and that can never be reduced? Or is there
Randy Young
Unverified
27:43
always going to be a percentage based upon that excess? well to me it would be the amount of water that
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
27:50
agriculture has used historically okay so whatever they've used historically that becomes our hard cap that we can't go below and if in the future farmers start using more surface uh surface sources we have a year with their good rain
we still have to allocate that even though agriculture may not need that water if this bill goes into
Speaker 69
28:09
effect? I think it would be an ever-changing number depending on the previous, most recent period of
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
28:16
use. Okay, so you don't see a time where we would be allocating water for agriculture that agriculture wouldn't need. You see what I'm saying? Does that even make sense? Well, we have to set aside by law this much water for agriculture's use,
but maybe agriculture only needs 80% of that, So we've got 20 percent that's out there that can't be used. It's reserved for agriculture,
Randy Young
Unverified
28:45
but nobody's using it. Or is that even a good question? The concern I have is that when we reserve all of that water that's not subject to allocation and that we're using it, and the result of that is that we can't meet the commitment that we have with Louisiana and the Red River Compact, We don't have any way of cutting back on the use.
Okay. All right. And what the result of all of that would be is Louisiana filing a suit against the state of Arkansas in federal court
Speaker 69
29:16
to ensure that. And we'd have federal judges allocating water.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
29:20
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Chair
Unverified
29:24
Mr. Chairman. Representative Douglas, you're recognized
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
29:29
for a question. Yes, Mr. Young. Just a question, you keep mentioning these interstate water compacts here. I know we have one with Louisiana.
We have one with Oklahoma there. And could you explain what the benefits of those compacts are? Because I know up in our area, being close to Oklahoma, we've got the Arkansas-Oklahoma water compact there. And in my perspective and from the constituents in my area, it hadn't done a flipping thing to help us. You know, we've been under the gun from Oklahoma up there, and I'm just not real impressed with the water compacts here.
I need some explanation on how they're
Randy Young
Unverified
30:12
beneficial to us, sir. Well, the compact's primary purpose is to ensure an equitable apportionment of the water in the interstate stream. In the Arkansas River Compact that you're most familiar with, we are the upstream state. Under that compact, we're entitled to 60 percent of the flow from the watershed of the Arkansas River that originates in Arkansas.
And there's also some language under the compact that commits both states to working cooperatively to address water quality concerns, and I think that's the part you're most familiar with. And the Compact Commission adopted a goal probably 15 years ago aimed at improving the water quality in Lake Tinkiller in Oklahoma from nutrients, primarily phosphorus. And we've made significant progress.
But as soon as we got into an issue like the phosphorus water quality standard that Oklahoma adopted, in order for that Compact Commission to take any action, it has to be a unanimous vote. There are three commissioners from Oklahoma, three from Arkansas, I being one of them. And when you end up with the vote being three to three, it's hard to accomplish anything. And so that's really what's kept us from the Compact Commission
from having any meaningful impact on the water quality issue. On the Red River Compact, it's a four-state compact. There are two commissioners from all four states. I'm one of the Arkansas commissioners. I think Wayne Dowd from Texarkana is the other one. Our benefit under that compact essentially is with respect to the main stem of the Red River because both Texas and Oklahoma are upstream of us on the Red River.
And so that compact sets out what we're entitled to on the main stem of the red under that compact. With Louisiana, which I believe has reached four, sub-basin two of that compact, we're entitled to 60 percent. Well, first off, we're entitled to 100 percent of the water above the most upstream impoundments that are identified under the compact. and that's like DeGray, Lake Warstall, and maybe one or two others.
The water that originates below those dams, we're entitled to 60%. We've got to deliver to Louisiana 40% of the weekly runoff during times of shortage. So the benefit is to Louisiana in that respect. And that's what gives me such grave concern about this bill. well, if we move essentially all but industry into this protected, reserved category, we no longer have the ability under our allocation authority
to ensure that we can meet our obligation under that compact. And with Louisiana already making noise in their legislature that we're not meeting the terms of the compact, and incidentally, we've been working with the engineering committee of that compact since 2001 trying to reach agreement on what process we would use to calculate this weekly runoff, and we've yet to be able to reach agreement on how you go
about doing that because of the limited amount of stream gauging data that's available, and that's coupled with our water use reporting law, which requires an annual reporting. So if we're trying to compute weekly runoff during a drought, we really need to know what the weekly water use is. But we don't have that data. It's all annual reports. So what we've been trying to do is best professional judgment,
figure out how to prorate this annual water use data in which they don't identify what months they report they used the water. You really need to know that because if you pick out a week where you've got stream gauging data, you can come up with an easy, with an average daily flow. But coming up with the average daily use during that particular week in the year has proved elusive. And so meanwhile, the Oklahoma or the Louisiana legislature is continuing to pass resolutions
indicating that we're not complying with the compact and encouraging me and my agency to
Speaker 69
35:02
take steps necessary to ensure that they get there 40% of the water. Follow-up
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
35:15
a follow-up. I understand the dilemma you're in, but it seems like where there's no real method or data that each state can agree on to measure the flow and the runoff there.
And seeing like Oklahoma and Arkansas have been tied 3-3 and you're running the same thing, it looks kind of like using an old term Mexican standoff there as to who's right and who's wrong. Is that kind of the summary? And it's hard to break ground anywhere.
Speaker 69
35:50
Well, it does provide a formal structure for, at a minimum, once a
Randy Young
Unverified
35:55
year for me to sit down across the table from my counterparts from
Speaker 61
36:00
those states and talk about it and discuss how to attack the problem.
So it does do that. Representative Link, you're recognized for
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
36:13
a question. I think I heard you say you started the study or started studying most, what, in 2001?
Speaker 69
36:22
That's when we started trying to, what we were trying to do is come up with the rules for computing water compliance with the Red River
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
36:30
Compact. Okay. You mentioned some of the compounds, and those compounds are core of engineer compounds.
The increase in minimum flow of the White River out of Bull Shoals Lake, does that figure into any of this? No, it doesn't because we don't
Speaker 69
36:46
have a compact with Missouri on the White River. The White River is not a part of the Red River Compact. Okay. All right. And I came
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
36:54
in a little bit late, so I'm missing some of this. So this is just the Red River that you're referring to?
Speaker 69
37:02
In the part of Arkansas that's in the Red River Compact is essentially everything south of Little Rock,
Randy Young
Unverified
37:10
the Wachita and all the tributaries that flow into the Wachita,
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
37:17
which flow into the Red. Okay. I'm just, you know, it doesn't really specify in the bill as
Speaker 107
37:24
to what waterways or anything else. It just
Randy Young
Unverified
37:27
says all waterways, does it not? That's why looking at this bill, it looks so innocuous, but I assure you it is not. And that's because what this is amending is the Natural Resources Commission's authority to allocate water during times of shortage.
Okay. And it moves agriculture into the reserve category along with municipal, industrial, in-stream needs and federally authorized projects, meaning that they can't be reduced during the allocation. And the bottom line result of that is when we've got an obligation to a downstream state on a number of interstate streams with Louisiana, if we can't reduce any of our consumption
Speaker 69
38:16
in Arkansas, there's no way we can comply with that compound.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
38:20
What impact do you think this will have on those that are moved below you, the federal water rights, the minimum stream
Speaker 111
38:30
flow? Well, I don't think it will have any impact on them. You know, so moving it up in priority should
Speaker 84
38:37
have no impact on those that are moved down in priority. Well, all this bill does is add agriculture to the other three
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
38:45
protected reserve uses. But it's still ahead of two others in priority, though, isn't it?
Isn't it listed second? If it was just added, why would it be added?
Randy Young
Unverified
38:54
Those are not in any, that's not a priority order. It's not
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
38:57
a priority, it's just we put that in there in order, just. Well, those are all reserve uses prior
Speaker 88
39:02
to the allocations. But there's no priority to the reserve uses. Correct. I'm hearing a lot of answers back here
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
39:12
other than yours. It's kind of hard to concentrate. Representative Branskin, would you like to go down there and testify for us? You seem to know.
Speaker 107
39:26
asking a lot of questions, and I apologize, so
I'll move on. Representative McCrary, you're recognized for a question. And I'll be brief
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
39:38
and make this my last one, too. You know, you're talking about the compact with Louisiana and their legislature is so. And then I thought I heard you testify earlier that this could
go to the federal authorities to determine.
Randy Young
Unverified
39:56
How likely is that? Well, I think it's pretty likely. And, in fact, even if you don't pass this bill, that may be eventually where we end up anyway if we can't reach agreement with them on how you compute weekly runoff. Thanks, sir. And I guess the difference, Mr. McCrary, would be if without this bill, if it didn't pass and we don't reach agreement with them and we end up in court,
once that particular piece was settled in court, it would come back to the state to then exercise its allocation authority to make the allocations as opposed to with the bill.
Speaker 69
40:38
I think it would strictly all be in the hands of the federal court.
Speaker 25
40:49
Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Young.
We have Rodney Baker signed up to speak for the bill.
Mr. Baker, if you would take a seat at the end of the table and introduce yourself
Speaker 119
41:10
and present your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Rodney Baker with the Arkansas Farm Bureau. And I appreciate
Speaker 120
41:16
the opportunity to be here today to discuss this bill and some of the issues surrounding it. Let me tell you why I'm here
Speaker 119
41:25
first. We have a very large membership in Farm Bureau.
Speaker 120
41:28
We represent agriculture from across the state.
In fact, we count for about an $8 billion economic impact in this state. 17 agriculture accounts for about $17 billion or almost 20 percent of Arkansas's GDP when you include local businesses supported by agriculture. One in six jobs in this state is due to agriculture. I think everyone in this room understands the importance of agriculture to the state, and what we're seeking to do in this bill or hoping to do in this bill is to protect the agriculture community and our state's economy
by ensuring that the state of Arkansas recognizes the importance of agriculture and the importance of agriculture having the resources that it needs to produce the output that I've just related to you here, the production of agricultural goods. On a yearly basis, agriculture is responsible for a little over 90 percent of the ground and surface water consumption in the state. We understand that we are the biggest user.
We try to be good stewards of our water. Studies will show you that agriculture is currently using less water to produce higher yields than ever before. Farmers are investing in water conservation techniques, and they have for decades. Such techniques as tailwater recovery and retention ponds and other conservation methods. We've made huge, huge, as Mr. McQuarrie said, investments in conserving the state's water and being good stewards of that water. During the last two years, Arkansas suffered from severe droughts.
While the drought made normal agricultural practices difficult, and I'm particularly talking about row crop agriculture at this point, Arkansas did not suffer the same consequences as our neighbors in the Midwest. We produced good, healthy crops because we had the ability to irrigate those crops, to use the resources of the state of Arkansas in a way that produced the kind of economic returns our people need to keep the economy flowing and to keep people working in the jobs.
If we had had the kind of losses that was seen in the Midwest, you would not have seen the kind of economic activity. You would have seen people out of work. and we would be in much worse shape in this state as we have now. Arkansas is the largest producer of rice and bait fish in the U.S. We're the second largest producer of chickens, the third largest in cotton, turkeys and catfish, the fifth largest producer of soft wood timber. And we take this as a responsibility in our state to produce these products on our farms and on the land
not only for the good of the people producing those crops, but for the good of our state. This is something we feel very strong about. A lot's been said about where this is in the bill, and the state water plan has been talked about. Arkansas agriculture producers are very uncomfortable at this point in time with the state water plan that's going forward. This has been work done on this for the last two years.
The bulk of that work has been done among agencies, not with civilians, if you will, to this point, to have an economic interest in what comes out of this plan. There's been very little said about what's going to be done except this is the way the structure is going to go forward and this is how we're going to proceed. And if you've got anything of interest to you, you can express those interests at this point. I know we're not down to the final plan, but we've spent a lot of months to this point
and not have much indication as to where we're going. In those water meetings, stakeholder meetings that were held around the state, a lot of things were said by the consultants that were hired to work on this plan that have made people uncomfortable. They've talked about water models in other states, such as Florida and western states. They don't really relate much to us here, but continually we hear about those. We hear about other concerns that are going to have a large role as we go forward in this discussion.
Some of them have put money into funding this, and that has made people very uncomfortable. This is not just a matter for agriculture that it's an inconvenience. It can mean huge consequences for our producer. We have not at this point ever suffered one of the shortages that have been talked about here where all these rules have had to kick in. That doesn't mean one can't in the future, but it hasn't happened at this point. We continue as the largest water user in the state to try to put in conservation practices
and be judicious in our use and all of those things as we go forward. I would point out to you that, as Mr. Young said, under the reserve uses and talking about domestic and stream flow and that, you know, these are not hard. There's no numbers here. These aren't hard numbers. In fact, the definition of minimum stream flow is not in this. It's all done by the commission. It's subject to change. That's one of the things that we hear about that's being discussed is move forward in the water plan among the small working groups that are going on at this time,
And that's looking at alternative methods to what we have now, calculating minimum stream flows. There's only one reason that we can proceed to do that, and that is to increase those minimum stream flows. And these are reserve numbers, so you start to make a pool of water that's left smaller if that happens. These are why, these reasons are why Arkansas producers are very uncomfortable with where they stand, with their ability to use a water resource to produce the kind of economic abundance that we've enjoyed in this state
and why the bill has come forward to establish in the law the recognition by use of the General Assembly that agriculture needs and warrants some mention of priority in here to be given to this industry as we move forward. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I'll take a question if I have one. All right. Vice
Speaker 38
48:02
Chairman Steele, you're recognized for a motion.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
48:05
With all due respect to the witness and the next witness, we've got exactly ten minutes until we convene, and so I'd like to make a motion we limit debate
five minutes per side. Okay. That's the proper motion, non-debatable. All those in favor of motion to limit debate five minutes per side indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right. Five minutes per side starting right now. Any questions of Mr. Baker? Representative Meeks, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:35
Nobody at this table, I assume, has any problems with the concern you raise. Agriculture needs a high priority. My concern with this is that we're suddenly going to put agriculture on the same level as domestic drinking water and minimum stream flows to protect wildlife. life. So if we get into a situation where there's an extreme drought, what this law would in effect be saying is that the farmer who's watering his crops has the same right as a municipality does to provide drinking water to our citizens and to protect the minimum stream flows. Hopefully we'll
never face that situation, but should that arise, you know, if I had to choose between watering a farm and being able to provide water for our citizens, obviously, you know, we want to make sure our citizens have water to drink. I'm just wondering if
Speaker 120
49:30
my concerns there. We're not trying to take water from the citizens for drinking water or for health. If you look elsewhere in there, you know, during these times, you're looking at preservation of life and health and then creation of wealth.
These, yes, this does create these reserve functions. I talked to Mr. Young just this morning, and he's pointed it out again. I said, if you've got a better place to put that in there, we're certainly willing to entertain that, but we haven't found it. And he said, well, I don't know where – he's welcome to correct me, but he says, I don't know where that is, but I'll certainly take a look
Speaker 121
50:07
at it. Is that fair, Randy? I'm asking.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
50:15
I mean, like I said, I agree with you. I have no problems making this a priority. I'm just concerned making it the same priority level as drinking water. You know, when push came to shove, we're saying with this bill that both have equal access
Speaker 120
50:29
to that water. Well, as we go through our needs of life, certainly water comes before food, but food
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
50:34
comes pretty quick. I'm with you, but even if we can't grow it here, there are other areas where that food can be grown possibly. So, you know, you can't pipe in water from, you know, Missouri for our citizens to drink where we can ship in food.
So that's my concern with this. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I'll yield. Any other questions of this witness? Thank you, Mr. Baker. Next up, we have Mr. Mike Armstrong from the Game and Fish Commission to speak against the bill. Mr. Armstrong, you're recognized to speak, if you would, state
Speaker 125
51:15
your name and your position. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 126
51:17
Chairman. I'm Mike Armstrong. I'm Deputy Director at the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, and I also am the person
who is charged with working with ANRC, Randy Young's organization, on the revision of the state water plan for the next, I guess, year and a half. I'll be brief. I only have two points. I think Mr. Young covered most of my concerns. I will say that it is rare when Randy and I both agree on something, so I guess this might be somewhat of a hallmark, but I have two points. One is that, as Mr. Young indicating has been discussed, the ANRC is currently undergoing
a revision of the State Water Plan, and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission made a deliberate the decision to support that revision and also to financially commit some of our resources to help that in the tune of about a million dollars of the sportsman's and taxpayers' money because we see this as a very important economic and fish and wildlife issue going forward. And so in that vein, my request would be to allow that process to proceed where the agencies
and citizens in as much of an open and transparent process as we can make it are balancing all the needs of what essentially is in some areas a scarce resource, water, to try to come up with a remedy to allocate water to meet all the economic needs of the state that does not result in these situations ending up in a court and having judges make the decision.
And so it's been stated oftentimes this morning that there is a fear of what's going to happen during this revision process, that water is going to be increased for minimum flow or the agriculture will not be given due consideration. I can say unequivocally that from the Game and Fish's standpoint, that's not our intent. We're not out to rob water. We're not out to take water that's needed for economic development or agriculture. What we are in this for is to make sure that the ample water that the state of Arkansas
has is allocated to meet the needs that it does that has the lowest risk on fish and wildlife. And that's our approach on this, that we are going to find the water that agriculture, municipal water supply, industry needs that has the lowest risk to fish and wildlife, Fish and Wildlife is a trust resource of the state, and we believe that it deserves due consideration in this. And so I would ask your consideration that we allow this process of the revision of the state water plan to go forward where everybody has an opportunity for input and towards an
outcome where we are trying to balance all these needs. The second point I want to make is that, and I think Mr. Young covered it somewhat, that When you put the largest user as a reserve already in there with municipal water supply, federal water rights, and minimum stream flow, you essentially make nobody secure because there are shortages that are going to occur. And the charge to ANRC is to come up with an administrative remedy during shortages to avoid exactly what Randy is fearing, that they end up in court.
And when you add agriculture as a reserve, then nobody has protection. And you essentially eliminate or make irrelevant ANRC's administrative procedures to make decisions on how best to distribute a scarce resource in a time of shortage. And so I would encourage you all to, again, to consider what Mr. Young has already stated, that agriculture does have standing as the top priority during allocations of shortages.
To my knowledge, we've never declared a shortage in the state of Arkansas. I hope that we don't have to, but I think we do need a good administrative procedure that would allow ANRC to make those decisions during those scarcities. So again, I will conclude with that, that from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission standpoint, we're very engaged in this. We're not out to steal anybody's water. I'm not here with horns and a pitchfork and a tail, but we are after good law and good
policy for addressing situations where there is going to be shortage and we need an administrative remedy rather than leaving it up to the courts to make
those decisions. Thank you. MR. Thank you. Anybody else to speak? any questions we've got 25 seconds against all right is there anybody else to speak for the bill okay representative Gillum you're recognized and we've got
just a few minutes there like for my everybody we can't meet while the house is in session so we need to make this brief thank you mr.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
56:25
chair I'll make this very very brief after listening to testimony and everything and be quite honest with you, I think they made most of my case for me in speaking against the bill. You know, I heard a lot about what Louisiana might or might not do, and the last time I checked, they've not called us once to ask us our opinion on anything they're doing in their legislature. This bill does not put specific numbers into play.
What it does is put agriculture where it needs to be when looking at the importance it plays in our state's economy and protecting it. You know, they talk about these doomsday scenarios that might not affect what happens in Louisiana and everything. Think about what's going to happen to agriculture in these same scenarios. Think about your constituents back home that are in agriculture, that have been five or six generations of farms, and what's going to do to them. So with that, I simply state that I believe this is good policy, and I ask for a good vote.
As Mr. Chair, I move to pass. Okay.
We have a motion. Do pass. Is there any discussion? Representative Link? I
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
57:35
think that this is an awful big decision. This is water, and we know water is the next goal. And gentlemen, ladies on this committee, I think this is way too quick of a decision to make. We're rushing ourselves. We've got 30 seconds to make a decision and vote. I would like to, you know, consider either voting this down, tabling it, whatever we need
to do. But I'm not comfortable making a vote right now.
If I have to vote right now, it would have to be no. Are you making a motion? Is there a motion on the table? There's a motion. Do pass. Well, that's why I didn't make another motion. I'd like to make a motion and table this. Substitute motion and table this. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Yes,
sir. I'm not sure of the process either, so I'll make a substitute motion and table this. Okay. Proper motion is debatable. We have a substitute motion. Any discussion?
Okay, so the substitute motion is a motion to table. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those
opposed? No. The no's have it. Back to the motion, do pass. Any other discussion? If not, all those in favor of the motion, do pass. Indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? No.
The ayes have it. The motion passes. Do
pass. Members, quickly, before we adjourn, we are going to set, let's see, the Farrell-Hogg bill will be set for special order. That's House Bill 1478 will be set for special order Wednesday at 10 a.m. Next time we meet. Thank you. Without objection, we're adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd Chair
Unverified
Representative John Charles Edwards Chair
Unverified
Christopher Crane
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Representative Bob Ballinger
Unverified
Speaker 13
Speaker 25
Representative James Ratliff
Unverified
Representative Homer Lenderman
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative Joe Jett
Unverified
Representative Walls McCrary
Unverified
Randy Young
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 81
Speaker 79
Speaker 84
Representative Dan M. Douglas
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 61
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Speaker 107
Speaker 111
Speaker 88
Speaker 113
Speaker 119
Speaker 120
Speaker 38
Speaker 121
Speaker 125
Speaker 126