House Agriculture Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1482
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1482”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1558
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1558”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1693
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1693”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…482. Next on our list, Reverend Smith informed me that that House Bill 1535, he has it withdrawn,”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1702
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “House Bill 1702, Williams. Representative Williams. Go back to Senator Salm…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB47
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…s that, but that bill has been withdrawn from our calendar. House Bill 47, Senator Baker.”
|
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
Is there any announcements that need to be made by any committee member? Glad to see we have a quorum. If not, we'll go down the agenda. Representative Pierce, anyone here to run the bills for Representative Pierce? Representative Westerman? Anyone? Nobody wants to take a stab at it? How about Senator Salmon? Salmon. Does anybody want to run a bill today? Ms. Tyler? Revenue to Tyler, your own.
Members, this will be House Bill 1482. Please recognize yourself and anyone with you, and you may begin. It's representatives that I'd ever
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:08
present to the Ag Committee, but it is an honor to
do that. I'm Representative Linda Tyler from Conway, and I'll let my guest
Speaker 11
1:16
introduce himself. MR. I'm Ryan Benefield. I'm the Deputy Director of the
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:27
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. MS. Mr. Chair, may we proceed? MR. Absolutely. This bill, House Bill 1482, it's an act that amends the Open Cut Land Reclamation Act and it provides for civil penalties that's based on the profit that's gained
when a company comes in and sets up a mining operation without a permit. Today we have the opportunity to fine that person, I believe for First Defense, is $1,000 or that company if they begin mining without a permit. We have a lot of increased mining going on, particularly in our areas with the Fayetteville Shell play because of the sand mining that's going on. And we feel like it's important that we're able to not only fine them $1,000 for that first offense without a permit,
but to reap any profits they may gain potentially if they are able to operate without a permit from the time they start to the time they get a permit. That's what the bill does. We've gotten a commitment from Southwestern Energy that they are in favor of this bill, so we'd entertain any questions that you might have. Yes, sir. Would your guests like to have
any comments before we go for questions? No, but I'll answer any questions. Okay.
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
2:48
Okay. Representative Link. The folks that get in trouble, if you will, that are fined or penalized for mining currently, do they know they're mining? Is that an issue? Does that make sense? Does that question make sense to you? In other words, when you go to folks that are
Speaker 16
3:12
illegally mining, they say, this is mining? If I can answer that. This would only be for facilities that are commercial mining and selling of this material.
If you're mining on your own property for your own purposes, you're exempt from this statute, and so this would not cover it. So this is folks who are removing unconsolidated material and then turning around and selling it to another company for their purposes. So generally, they do understand, I would say,
Speaker 24
3:46
their mining. Representative Jean. Could you give me some examples of people that have done this in the past and the problem
Speaker 16
3:53
you all have had up there? Sure. During this last year, we discovered an operation near Batesville that had been operating for nine months of removing sand from that site. A lot of sand is being used in the fracking of the Fayetteville Shell, and so they operated for nine months without a permit. Once we discovered that they were operating, our limit that we could seek against that company is $1,000. They simply stopped operation and moved away at that time. And, you know, the maximum penalty for that first offense we could seek
under the current law would be $1,000. We anticipate that they may have generated that in profit in less
Speaker 24
4:33
with open mining, which would be gravel, sand, lignite, coal? The
Speaker 16
4:37
first, the coal mining is actually under a different law that's already subject to these provisions as it is. This would be unconsolidated material, sand, gravel. It would not include consolidated material like stone being removed, which is under the Quarry law. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 4
4:56
Representative Letting. Motion at the proper time. Okay. Representative Smith, you
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
5:05
have a question? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said the company that left after nine months of operation, who's reclaimed that land? Who's going to be responsible for reclaiming that land? In
Speaker 16
5:13
this case, where they were mining inside the actual high water line, the land does a pretty good job of reclaiming itself. As you know, when you remove gravel or sand from inside the river, it doesn't take very long before it fills right back in. Okay, so it was inside a waterway?
Speaker 36
5:27
Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Collins, question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
5:37
So if a company was doing the proper thing but just didn't know they needed a permit, for example, and was more than happy to get one but learned of their error, because this is for a first offense, you could effectively, you know, destroy their operation or destroy the entire thing with the fine.
And even though in this particular example you gave there might have been bad actors purposefully, you know, doing bad things, There could also be somebody who innocently or inadvertently, because we're talking about a first offense versus a second or a third offense where clearly a person knows when I do something like this, I need this permit. Someone's not just delaying a permit, et cetera. Does that make sense? What would you think about considering this as a second offense, for example?
Speaker 16
6:25
is that the only way we really know about these operations is after extended, maybe even extended operations.
And they are able to generate a profit, you could say, at the expense of those companies that actually have come in and gotten the permit and done it correctly. This is something we've actually talked with the industry and they support once we added the language we did for that reason, because they are operating without even paying our permit fees, the minimum they would pay, and then able to provide a competitive advantage over those companies that have gone out and done it correctly. I do understand your concern regarding someone who does not know that the law exists,
but generally we find those folks, that's not the
Speaker 11
7:05
case with these folks. They're generally pretty significant operations occurring. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
Speaker 42
7:15
you. Representative Ratliff. I've got a question here. I've got
Speaker 43
7:18
a creek that runs through my property, and it washes gravel out all over my field. And if I go out there and scrape all that up and sell it, is that going to fall under the
Speaker 16
7:29
gravel part of that? If you were to sell it for a profit, then you potentially would be subject to the mining law.
And especially operating inside the creek, you might also violate the water quality laws of the state. There are some exemptions that a landowner can do with gravel. You could barter part of the gravel to the person who actually removes it and use it to pay for that removal. But if you start selling it and generating, you could say, a profit, you fall under the guise of the
Speaker 43
7:55
open-cut law. This is a dry-water creek, and it just runs in spring, and, you know, it's not a running-all-the-time type deal. But anyway, I'm just curious.
Speaker 16
8:03
But you definitely could take the gravel and use it on your property, connected for any purpose you need without violating the law.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
8:14
Any other questions? Representative Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a curiosity, how long does it take from the time that a company files for a permit until the time
Speaker 16
8:26
the permit is actually issued? In our mining department, we generally issue those permits within 90 days, and of that, there's 60 days of mandatory public notice as part of that 90. Our review time is generally about one month, but we have to notice that we got an application, let the public an opportunity to comment, and once we issue them a draft permit, it then has to go out for 30 days of public comment.
Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Is there anyone in the audience that wants to speak
against this bill, for the bill? If not, Representative Lidding. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed like? Representative Tyler,
congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1482. Next on our list, Reverend Smith informed me that that House Bill 1535, he has it withdrawn,
and maybe some technical difficulties, we'll find out what's that, but that bill has been withdrawn from our calendar. House Bill 47, Senator Baker.
Anybody here to run that bill for Senator Baker? House Bill 1558 Representative Stewart Representative Stewart will be here he is running the bill he can form in another committee he should be here momentarily House Bill 1693 Representative Brown is he here
Vice Chair would you take over I'm never We're rarely early, but I'm always right on time. So, Mr. Chairman, when you get to the end of the table, you're
recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I have seated with me Greg Butts with the Arkansas Parks and Tourism Commission.
And if you'll look up House Bill 1693, I hope you've all had time to read all of it. It's very lengthy, about eight or nine lines. And it is exactly what it says it is. They're raising their fees. They'd like to raise their fees for anybody that commits a misdemeanor in their parks. The old law states that it was $100. And if my information is correct, that has been in existence since 1937.
Greg might want to expand on that. But I think that I was also told that if we went by the rate of inflation, that that $100 should be $1,500 now. And the parks are just wanting permission to go up to $500. And Mr. Butts, you may have something that you'd like to add. If
you'll state your name and position for the record and then offer any input that
Speaker 56
11:32
you have, please. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Greg Butts, director of Arkansas State Parks.
As Mr. Chair has indicated, if you take inflation, the rate would be $1,554.46 today. The reason for this change is to not keep up with inflation, but certainly to move it forward. And looking at the history of what we do, our whole policy in Arkansas State Parks is to seek, certainly, voluntary compliance with our park guests. We don't write lots of tickets, and so it's kind of a verbal warning and then possibly
a written warning if necessary, and then a citation. And to give you an example, in looking at the last ten years of, I guess, incident reports in the parks, we had some 9,103 incidents that were recorded by our law enforcement officers. There were 1,861 citations in which somebody was written, you know, a citation for an infraction.
So that's a very small percentage. If you take that 1,861 citations, only one-half of 1 percent dealt with a park rule violation. So again, we're in the business of protecting the resources from the people, the people from the resources, and then the people from each other. So education is our whole mission. I think there were about 90-some-odd citations in 10 years for park rule violations.
Secondly, we don't receive the revenues from these fines. They go to the local jurisdiction. So, again, it's rare that we ever write a citation for a park rule violation. And moreover, it's the statutes and law that deal with anything from DWI to aggravated assault to battery to, you know, other state laws. So this is moving it forward a little bit. As Representative Brown
Speaker 60
13:48
said, it's only one-third of the inflation rate since 1937.
Thank you, Mr. Butts. Yeah, we will entertain questions. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Collins, you recognize? Thank
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
14:03
you, Mr. Chair. And since our income tax rates were established in 1929, if you did this same inflation rate calculation, you'd get that the top rate instead of applying at about $32,600 in income would be closer to a quarter million. So I'm with you on the need for keeping up with inflation, and I know that's a subject for another committee discussion. But could you just give me a couple examples of the kind of fines
or the kind of violations we're talking about here And I'm thinking a little bit about the 30 days in jail part, but I'd just be interested in the kinds of violations people would commit to
Speaker 56
14:43
get one of these. Well, to give you an example, back to our whole purpose is education. If one of our management staff or law enforcement officers, you know, met a person and we have a rule that says keep your pets on a leash, you know, on trails, picnic areas, and campgrounds.
They're under control and under a leash at all times. So the first time they didn't do that, we'd say, you know, ma'am, sir, we'd appreciate you following the park rule. You need to keep your pet on a leash for someone else's safety and the dog's safety, et cetera, et cetera. The second time, we ran into the same person doing the same thing. It would be a reminder, probably an oral reminder. Remember, we spoke about this a couple of weeks ago. You know, yes, sir, yes, ma'am.
Third time, it could be we've had enough. Apparently, you don't understand the reason why or you don't understand no. And so it could be a written warning or a written citation. And then, of course, it's up to the judge, the jury, to decide is it $100, $0, $500, or, you know, they're not going to put somebody in jail for up to 30 days for something like that. Those are the kinds of rules that are in place to protect resources,
to protect the people from each other, and to create a, you know, a good environment for a
great park experience. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Representative Collins. Quick question. You said that
the money, the fine money goes back to the local jurisdiction, I believe is the way you put it. Correct. Do you mean the
Speaker 56
16:20
local, the park that assesses the fine? No, not the park.
It actually will go to county government or wherever the court is. Do you have any idea about how much money is returned
Speaker 56
16:30
to the counties based from fines right now? No, I don't because, again, I think we've had about maybe 80, over 10 years, 80 citations that would deal with a park rule.
And oftentimes the judge will say, don't do that again and waive the fee. Who
is the ticketing officer in a situation like this? Is it only your officers?
Speaker 56
16:49
Only, yes, our officers. It would be either a park ranger, a superintendent, or an assistant superintendent who is a certified commission law enforcement officer. Can a county,
an employee of a county, a deputy in a county sheriff's office ticket somebody for a park violation? They could if they
Speaker 56
17:07
were in jurisdiction, and I don't know the answer to that.
Certainly, state police has statewide jurisdiction. I think Game and Fish does on several matters, so
they probably could. Okay. Thank you. Representative Perry, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
17:25
you, Mr. Chairman. On the fines that are assessed, what are those fines used for? You mentioned it goes back to the county that it's in, General Rebner. Is this the fine that's used for public school projects?
Speaker 58
17:44
I don't know the answer to that question. All right.
gotcha all right thank you mr chair thank you representative perry representative
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
17:57
link we uh sounds like you know we don't have a big issue we don't have write a lot of tickets and and there's not a whole lot of reason to collect the money because it's going back so why are we raising this what's it matter if
Speaker 63
18:11
we raise or don't raise it well the visitors conforming with park
Speaker 56
18:15
rules that are there for a good reason is important for everybody's safety and in use of the parks and their experience. I think that $100 meant something in 1937 as a deterrent for everybody to, you know, to stay in line and have that great experience. For the same reason that fines have increased over time, littering is a $1,000 fine, which which is not a department fine, but that's a statewide statute.
So I think raising it as a deterrent in today's inflated market is a very important thing to do because if somebody does something enough times and the judge decides that they've abused a rule and needs to get their attention, then if he wants to use or she use $500, then that would be a reasonable approach to try to deter others from doing it again okay
thank you representative link representative winderman motion proper time okay thank you the proper time we'll get there did I see another hand at the at the back I thought maybe I did are there any more questions from members okay is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill representative brown or chairman brown would you like to close for your bill we are closed mr chairman okay and uh representative winderman believe you have moved we do pass
this motion or this bill motion is do pass all in favor please say aye any opposed Thank you. Congratulations, Chairman Brown. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 67
20:01
Vice Chair. Thank you for the meeting. Yeah.
House Bill 1702, Williams. Representative Williams. Go back to Senator Salmon. Representative Stewart. Representative Stewart assured me he would be
here. What's the pleasure of the committee? Could we go in recess for no more than 10 minutes and wait for Representative Stewart since I know he has some people here to testify for his bill or would
you all like to adjourn what's the pleasure I'm sorry if it's okay this recess until 20 minutes until 11 1040 we stand in recess Thank you.
Thank you.
Representative Stewart, you are recognized with House Bill 1558.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
24:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is House Bill 1558. It's a license plate bill to authorize
the issuance, renewal, and replacement of a special license plate for the Department of Parks and Tourism to create a cash fund to provide scholarships
for those people entering the parks and tourism industry. Those of you not familiar with a special plate, Arkansas has several of those, and you've seen them, Game and Fish Commission, education plates, you know, breast cancer. There's, I think, about 90 of them out there, and it's a provision Arkansas has put forth where a group of people who want a special plate has to petition to DFA that we can sell enough of these plates to warrant doing it.
And then the fees, part of the fees go to the DFA, $10, and $25 go to the group sponsoring the plate, in this case the Parks and Tourism. That's worked well. When I was the chair of the Henderson Alumni Association, we did a plate for our university. And most universities have those plates now, and almost all of them use them for scholarship purposes. And so this will be in line with the other plates. And we'll be happy to answer any questions.
Representative Stewart, is it not true that so many of these plates have to be sold before they go into printing? Did
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
25:40
you go into that? Yes, there's a threshold that DFA puts forth that we have to guarantee that there'll be with that number of plates sold before they will print those special plates. And then in this situation where it's a big organization with a statewide reach, then we're pretty sure that it would be no problem.
You know, based on the Game and Fish Commission plates and the other ones that have a statewide issue, we think we can do that. We have some information, just like in the Game of Fish last year in 2010 collected for their share of the plates over a million dollars. So that is a fairly good source of income to provide scholarships, and it goes down. Some of the plates only brought in $925, but there is a threshold, and then once DFA is
satisfied with that threshold. There's an application process that we go through, and this authorizes the plate. Then they go through with the application process, and BFA will approve it and then print those special plates. MR. Mr.
Butts, is it the thinking of the parks and tourism that this might be one of the top-selling
Speaker 56
26:58
plates in the state? MR. Yes, sir. I'm Greg Butts, Director of Arkansas State Parks. We think it will be. The Game and Fishes program has been out, I think, for over ten years.
The reason I'm doing this is, you know, we have almost 50,000 fans on Facebook. I've had the public ask me, why in the world don't we have one for state parks? And I finally said, well, now is the time for you to come forward and prove that you want one. And certainly, we have a strong following of park supporters across the system. So with 52 state parks that cover outstanding states, natural, cultural, historical resources, I think it's a broad reach and it would be supported.
I can't predict about how much it would bring in for scholarships and education programs, but I think it will be successful.
Speaker 17
28:00
Any questions by any members? Representative Liddy. Motion at the proper time. Any other questions? I'm sorry, Representative Meeks? Seeing no
questions, does anybody in the audience want to speak for or against this bill?
Representative Liddy? Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Representative Stewart, you have passed House Bill 1558. Congratulations. Is there anyone in attendance that wants to run any bill that's on our present agenda? If not, we stand adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Jerry R. Brown Chair
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 11
Representative Kelley Linck
Unverified
Speaker 16
Speaker 24
Speaker 28
Speaker 4
Representative Garry L. Smith
Unverified
Speaker 36
Representative Charlie Collins
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 43
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Representative John Burris Chair
Unverified
Speaker 56
Speaker 60
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 63
Speaker 67
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 17