Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (18)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB415
Act 695
· 5 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB415 Stone TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRESCRIBED BURNING ACT.”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRESCRIBED BURNING ACT. | Stone | Notification that SB415 is now Act 695 |
|
SB407
Act 693
· 4 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB407 M. McKee TO REQUIRE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN SOURCES BE…”
|
TO REQUIRE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN SOURCES BE CONSIDERED CARBON NEUTRAL; AND TO REQUIRE ENERGY … | M. McKee | Notification that SB407 is now Act 693 |
|
HB1788
Act 598
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1788 Lynch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EGG MARKETING; AND TO AME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EGG MARKETING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EGG MARKETING ACT … | Lynch | Notification that HB1788 is now Act 598 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SPECIFIC DATE RANGE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 Vaught REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR…”
|
REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR RESIDENTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE A MINOR WHO IS … | Vaught | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE RESIDENT FEE WHEN VISITING A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN. HB1549 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION; TO AMEND THE LAW … | Beck | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1645
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1645 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT O…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2023; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by Joint … |
|
HB1673
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IVES FOR HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. HB1673 McCollum TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETE…”
|
TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND VETERINARY TECHNOLOGISTS. | McCollum | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1746
Act 834
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1746 Lundstrum TO ALLOW CERTAIN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BUSINESSES…”
|
TO ALLOW CERTAIN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BUSINESSES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES UNDER … | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1746 is now Act 834 |
|
HB1763
Act 755
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1763 Wardlaw TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM FEES FOR A YOUTH LIFETIME HUNT…”
|
TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM FEES FOR A YOUTH LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE FOR RESIDENTS TEN … | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 755 |
|
HB1800
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1800 Watson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PLANT ACT OF 1917; TO REQUIRE…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PLANT ACT OF 1917; TO REQUIRE THE STATE PLANT BOARD TO … | Watson | Died in the House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1808
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1808 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING REGUL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS; AND TO MAKE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF … | Unger | Died in the House at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
HB1813
Act 852
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…F WILDLIFE REGULATIONS CRIMINAL AND PUNISHABLE AS FELONIES. HB1813 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW TO SUBSTITUTE "GAME WARDEN" FOR "WI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW TO SUBSTITUTE "GAME WARDEN" FOR "WILDLIFE OFFICER". | Pearce | Notification that HB1813 is now Act 852 |
|
HB1827
Act 600
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/3/23 @ 8:55 AM) Added HB1827 to Regular Agenda House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry,…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS POULTRY FEEDING OPERATIONS REGISTRATION ACT; AND TO TRANSFER DUTIES FROM THE … | Milligan | Notification that HB1827 is now Act 600 |
|
SB339
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB339 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die Adjournment |
|
SB403
Act 691
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB403 B. Johnson TO CONSOLIDATE AGRICULTURE BOARDS AND COMMISSION…”
|
TO CONSOLIDATE AGRICULTURE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; TO ABOLISH CERTAIN BOARDS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB403 is now Act 691 |
|
SB476
Act 706
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB476 Hill TO CREATE THE RURAL VETERINARY STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP PRO…”
|
TO CREATE THE RURAL VETERINARY STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM; TO CREATE THE AGRI SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO … | Hill | Notification that SB476 is now Act 706 |
|
SB534
Act 664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB534 Crowell TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS ROCKS! MINING AND MINERAL T…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS ROCKS! MINING AND MINERAL TRAIL". | Crowell | Notification that SB534 is now Act 664 |
|
SB433
Act 697
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB433 Irvin TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; TO CREATE…”
|
TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST AND … | Irvin | Notification that SB433 is now Act 697 |
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 6, 2026
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
0:00
department to make sure that we're not taking away anything we're gaining from the number of license that we're bringing into the to the department so i mean that's a good question i did feel like that question would come up and i think it's important to understand how that revenue hits the department the other thing is and there's some concern that we're hitting the revenue of some of those folks that would buy license at 16 that now won't so uh there is a balancing act here that we're trying to hit to achieve more revenue, not less revenue. So thank you for that question.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
0:35
Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're recognized. First, I want to thank you for this bill and the work that you and the commission are doing for the state. This is kind of, I guess, my question is part of what you promised when you first spoke to the legislature. This bill targets the future of game and fish and the outdoorsmen in the state. And you're delivering on what you said, and I applaud you and thank you for that and hope that there's more just like this,
more changes coming that we can be proud of. And I just want to take a second to thank, not really a question, but thank you for this bill. Sure. Any other
Speaker 9
1:24
questions? what's the will of the committee we have a motion do pass all in favor any opposed congratulations your bill is passed thank you Mr.
Speaker 11
1:34
Chair and committee and I think we've got a group of visitors here who are these fine
young people what school are you from Not Representative Wings group.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:58
Carlton, is that your group? Yes, sir, Mr. Chair. This is the sixth grade class, Mrs. Matthews' class from Immaculate Conception in North Little Rock. They are coming in to tour the Capitol today. We're giving a little bit of a view of an actual committee, and then a little bit later I'm going to let them go to an empty committee room,
and they're going to debate a bill themselves, they can learn the process. So I'm grateful they get to see us do it, and then they'll figure out a way
Speaker 11
2:31
to do it even better. Well, congratulations. Well, we'll just let you watch us do a model piece of legislation.
Speaker 9
2:36
We're just about to pass a bill about eggs. Representative Lynch, go down there and do your best for them. This will be House Bill 1788.
Chair
Unverified
2:59
Recognize yourself for the record, and then go
Speaker 21
3:04
ahead and present your bill. Roger Lynch, State Rep,
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
3:08
District 60. This bill has to do with egg production and distribution. It does five things. It exempts producers who own fewer than 700 hens. It limits the repackaging of eggs in retail. It provides for the safe handling of eggs delivered directly to the consumer.
establishes the authority for the destruction of any container of eggs that are not compliant with the statute and clarifies the authority of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture to carry out the duties and functions required to be performed by the commission. So it's not a little short, Bill, but not a lot of change to it. actually loosens it up a little bit and then clarifies the lines of authority to deal with
Chair
Unverified
4:04
people that deviate from the act. Okay. Thank you. Any questions, committee?
Speaker 9
4:12
No one signed up to speak for or against it. What's the will of the committee? We have
Chair
Unverified
4:19
a motion to pass. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Your bill is passed. Congratulations. That's how it works right there. I think Representative Wing is going to take you all outside and maybe buy ice cream and stuff. That's what I heard.
Thank you for coming, guys. Okay, as they exit, is anyone here to present Senate Bill 407? Representative Beatty would you go to the end of the table please recognize yourself
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
5:17
Thank you, sir. You're recognized. Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. I'm here to present Senate Bill 407. It's an act regarding bioenergy and carbon capture technology and to require energy produced from certain sources to be considered carbon neutral, to require energy produced from certain sources in conjunction with carbon capture technologies be considered carbon negative and for other purposes.
Basically, what this bill does, in short, is it adds some definition and some language to the code. On page one, it defines biomass, meaning bioenergy feedstocks from forest products manufacturing, including without limitation. It lists several things. One area that we can see is downed wood from extreme weather conditions and events or natural disasters, as we've experienced in the last week. Non-hazardous landscape and right-of-way trimmings and municipal trimmings,
plant materials that are removed for purpose of invasive species, and forest management activities conducted for timber stand improvement to increase the yield and ecological restoration and to maintain a healthy forest balance. The other thing that it adds language that bioenergy, with carbon capture and storage means the process of capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide from biomass energy generation, and that bioenergy produced from biomass is considered renewable
and carbon neutral. And then when bioenergy produced from biomass is paired with bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, the bioenergy is carbon negative. So also bioenergy produced from agricultural harvesting is considered renewable and carbon neutral. And then when the bioenergy produced from ag harvesting is paired with bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, that bioenergy is carbon negative. So it adds that language, provides some definitions, and this will be areas that we will improve
and add to in the future for the state. With that, I'll entertain any questions.
Chair
Unverified
7:38
Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none,
Speaker 33
7:44
what, uh, Representative Hawk? So I'm a little bit conflicted about landowners, um, property
Speaker 34
7:48
rights. I've heard from a number that have some concerns. How would that be addressed in this bill? I
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
7:55
actually think that your property owner rights are probably more
with the other bill on 415 because this would not affect property right and property ownership in any way but you're on my next bill Senate 415.
Chair
Unverified
8:09
Any other questions? No one signed up to speak for or against this bill. What's the will? Motion do pass. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations your bill is passed. Thank
Speaker 9
8:24
you committee. Thank you Mr. Chairman. And Representative Beatty why don't you just sit right there and we'll move down to Senate Bill 415.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
8:33
Mr. Chairman, I'll have Justin Allen join me at the
Justin Allen
Unverified
8:41
table. Would you introduce yourself for the record, please? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Justin Allen, and I'm here today on behalf of the Arkansas Forestry Association to help Representative Beatty
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
8:53
present this bill and answer any questions. Okay. Go ahead and present your bill. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, today I sit in front of you to present Senate Bill 415, an act to establish the Arkansas Prescribed Burning Act and for other purposes.
I would tell you that this bill has the support of all the foresters and forestry industries in the state. I'll start off with just a few points that of a prescribed burn is a good burn. It reduces the fuel for forest fires, improves wildlife habitat, allows for planting and regeneration and vegetation control. The Arkansas Department of Ag has in place smoke management guidelines that prescribed burners will follow. That includes notice to the agency, the identity of the prescribed burner, the location, timing, duration, among other things.
It also notes the importance of weather conditions when deciding to burn or when to conduct the burn. The challenge in Arkansas is that prescribed burns are being underutilized. There's an issue with obtaining insurance to cover prescribed burn. An Arkansas law on liability for conducting such a burn is somewhat ambiguous. I'll get that word out there. Senate Bill 415 will clear up the ambiguity and makes it clear the standard is negligence.
If a landowner or his prescribed burner negligently conducts a burn and it results in damage to a third party, the third party will recover his or her damages. It also sets forth several requirements for conducting a burn, such as utilization of a qualified burner, planning the burning prescription with details of the burn, and that the prescribed burner be present on the site the entire time that the burn is being conducted. It's the belief of the industry that this clarity will allow for more of these good burns to take place
that are beneficial to the forestry habitat and our
economy. And with that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative Cozart. Thank
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
11:02
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beatty, I just have a couple of questions. If I own 100 acres in the middle of a
pine plantation area that some of the forestry people own, does that require me to do a prescribed burn? Restate that. I was
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
11:16
a little confused. You said you owned it in the middle of...
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
11:20
If I own 100 acres, and I'm surrounded on three sides by timber farmers, and it's a, say, warehouser or IP or someone like that, am I required to
prescribe burn my property every so often? No, sir. As far as I know, there's no requirement that you have to conduct a prescribed burn. Okay, just making sure on that. And the other
question of follow-up, sir? Sure. If I do a prescribed burn, you said we need to have a certain person there to go over that with it on private land.
Is there a fee for that? Is that the private land people have to pay that
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
11:57
fee for that person to be present? I think if you read the bill that that's an option that's open to the landowner. You do not have to pay the fee. Now, the 100-acre, you can do that on your own, but there are some conditions. This will provide you some protection
if you follow what's in the plan, and I'll let Mr. Allen speak further to that point. A few things,
Justin Allen
Unverified
12:19
Representative, and I've learned some stuff here recently about this, especially from Mr. Fox over there.
I'd say if you're a private landowner, and I think this is, I'm going to get to an issue that some of y'all have heard about concerns with, and a gentleman that's going to testify here in a little bit, we talked at length earlier. Let me tell you what this bill does not do. It does not require you to follow this. This Forestry Commission is not going to go out and regulate you and write you a ticket if you don't follow this. This is being put in place so that if you do follow it as a landowner, whether you're burning 50 acres or 50,000 acres,
that if you do follow it, the liability standard is negligence, and that will enable especially these larger landowners to get insurance. Their obstacle right now is that they can't get insurance to conduct a burn, so the burns are not being done at the rate that we'd like. So to answer your question, as a private landowner, you can burn however much of your own property as you want without following this, and you will not be liable to the regulatory entity or a prosecutor or anything like that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 9
13:26
All right. Representative Lynch, I believe you have a
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
13:33
question. Representative Vaught. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you'd please turn to page 4, the very top of page 4, it says requirements for prescribed burning prescription and prescribed burning. Before conducting a prescribed burning, a qualified prescribed burner shall develop a prescribed burning prescription. So do they have to or don't they have
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
13:55
to? I think that goes a qualified prescribed burner,
someone that would qualify under the rules and avail themselves of the protections provided in this legislation. Okay, but
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
14:08
that was what, I thought that's what Cozart just asked, Representative Cozart just asked, and I thought you said they didn't have to, but that's not what the
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
14:16
bill says. The key word is qualified. So if you just want to be a burner, that's fine. You're not required to follow this. but if you want to be a qualified burner under this legislation and have the protections, then you have to follow the guidance in the legislation.
Justin Allen
Unverified
14:32
And, Representative, the thing I would add to that is if you go to 153104, the civil liability provision, it says a prescribed burning conducted in compliance with this subchapter. That's the key language is that if you do do these things, then that's going to be the liability standard for you. If you don't do these things, your liability standard may be different. Okay. Thank you. Representative Quozart, you're recognized.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
15:00
Okay. Let's go back to that for just a second.
So I've got a good friend of mine that owns about almost 2,000 acres close to Hot Springs, and he just
did a burn on a lot of his land. I think he had talked to the Forestry Commission there and talked to him about it. I don't know what they didn't help him, but he just let him know they were going to be doing it. If he was going to do that, he would need to make sure he had a liability policy for in case anything got out off his property on to the next property. Would that be correct? He should do that. Yeah.
He should do that. Okay, so I'm going to speak a little bit on more of that if I'm okay, Mr. Chair. Sure. As a leasee of property that I leased to Weyerhaeuser and others, we have a liability policy with our club for anything like that. If we get something out and it burns any of their land, we are not totally liable for that. So that's kind of the same policy as what I'm trying to say. If we have something happen, make sure they have a liability policy, they should be okay. Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Members,
Speaker 9
16:04
are there any other questions? Yes, Representative
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
16:08
Cooper. Okay, so let me try to understand this. I, as a private landowner, if I want want to burn 200 acres of my property, I can do that, and this bill does not
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
16:23
affect that in any way whatsoever. The limitations in this bill, 100 acres. Now, you could burn, I mean, you could burn, this bill wouldn't stop you from burning, but the way this bill is
drafted, there's a limit of 100 acres in a single burn. That's right, but I
Justin Allen
Unverified
16:39
think the answer to your question is yes.
You can go burn as private land over 500 acres, 5,000 acres. This bill will not stop that. But your liability standard is probably going to be different, arguably. And that's what we're trying to clear up is the ambiguity in the law as to what the liability standard is for prescribed burn. And here it's defined as negligence. And the tradeoff for that is that you follow these checklists. Follow up.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
17:07
Sure. Go ahead. Okay. Okay. On the 100 acres, so is that 100 acres a day, a month, a year, a week?
How are you defining that? I don't necessarily see that in this bill.
Justin Allen
Unverified
17:18
Yeah, I don't think it's directly addressed in the bill, but I would think, and Senator Stone answered a question similar to that on the Senate end, that if you burn 100 acres and you properly extinguish it, then you can go burn another 100 acres. Now, it's probably not practical you would do that in the same day, but you could probably do several, and I'm no prescribed burner. I'm going to get out of my lane here, but I would guess that in the course of a couple of weeks, you could probably do several 100-acre tracks. One more? Certainly. Go ahead.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
17:50
I wish you would have defined that in the bill. You know, 100 acres a day or 100 acres properly extinguished, another 100 acres in the same day. I think that leaves a little bit
Speaker 75
18:01
of ambiguity there where somebody maybe could be sued, ticketed, or something. Understand what I mean?
Justin Allen
Unverified
18:08
Understand, but, again, there will be no ticketing. This is not giving the department any regulatory authority over these burns. This is defining what you have to do in order to afford yourself this negligence standard. No authority to go.
If you go burn 5,000 acres, that's fine. You can do that. This is not going to change
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
18:27
that. But this is just going to provide some protections if you're burning your 100 and you accidentally burn
5,000 acres. So this just provides some additional protection and gives some cover for the prescribed burners in the state. And
Justin Allen
Unverified
18:41
if I might, a few other observations. A couple things that I've learned, and one is that a private landowner is more than welcome to become a qualified prescribed burner.
And Mr. Fox explained last week in Senate Committee that training is done free of charge. So if you really want to burn a lot and afford yourself this protection, go to a three or four day course free of charge and you will be a qualified prescribed burner and you can write your own prescription. Also, the Forestry Commission can provide you with a prescription for a burn if you're going to do less than 100 acres and want to afford yourself this protection. So there are plenty of options under this bill, including the status quo, which is a private landowner can go burn his or her 5,000 acres and they will not get ticketed.
Chair
Unverified
19:27
Representative Hauck, you're recognized for a question. I can answer your
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
19:38
question. Okay. Representative Vaught. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a lot of farmers in my area use the Rural Fire Department. They come out, they do help with the cut, you know, to make sure that the fire doesn't
Speaker 73
19:51
get out. Are they considered prescribed burners? No, ma'am. Crop residue
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
19:55
is exempted from this bill. No. I don't think, so I have very little crops in my area.
Oh, okay. So I probably should say ranchers, sorry. A lot of my ranchers in my area, if they're going to burn something off, they use their volunteer fire department to come cut and make sure that they stay within those boundaries and that there's trucks there to put out anything that might would jump. Are they considered prescribed burners? if if they
Justin Allen
Unverified
20:27
haven't taken the course perhaps not however you'll note and this was put in an
amendment the department is going to promulgate rules on defining a qualified prescribed burner and i would absolutely think that that's something that they would look at because that makes a lot of sense and it's convenient and it'll be convenient for the landowners so i think the goal is is going to be to make this convenient and reasonable the trainings their offerings the timing, who qualifies. We're going to work on that through a rule promulgation. Thank you.
Speaker 9
20:59
Committee members, you have any other questions? If not, we have some people signed up to speak.
We'll start with Thomas Baldrige, and he's speaking against the bill. Please recognize yourself for the record. Yes, sir. My name
Speaker 84
21:19
is Thomas Baldridge. I'm a private landowner. I want to, maybe I can shed some light on some of the concerns from a private landowner's perspective, and also give some of my background. So my career has been spent in the fire service. I have a bachelor's degree in fire science.
I've investigated fires for a living both in the public and the private sector, so in the public investigating the crime of arson, And in the private sector, working for attorneys, insurance companies, primarily focused on subrogation issues. So I do have a little bit of background in this and then currently have a farm and also focus on wildlife and ecology type things. I'm an advocate of burning. I'm an advocate of prescribed burning.
It is very, very important that we do put more fire on the ground. The first part of this bill is almost impossible to disagree with if you read the first part of this bill in the reasoning to put more fire on the ground, in a safe manner, of course. I think the intent of the bill, and maybe some of the representatives or senators can speak to this, but the intent of the bill is to reduce liability in the event that you are doing these things, that you're doing them in a safe manner and you're reducing liability.
So I had to pick a side today to be for or against, and the reason I'm against this is I'm not against the bill in its entirety. I'm against a couple parts of the bill. I've got three issues with it. Obviously, Mr. Allen spoke earlier and said, you know, you can just ignore this if you want, and you're not going to get a fine. And while that may be true, and I'm not going to contest that, because I don't think forestry has authority at this point to come write me a ticket for that, what it does do, if this is voted into law, it definitely increases my liability if I choose to ignore it.
I think that would be extremely ignorant and, forgive my common vernacular, but stupid if I, especially in my position, just chose to ignore this bill. So one thing I'm concerned about, the first thing is the 100-acre reference and limitation to private landowners that do not complete the training but do obtain a prescribed burn plan. I think that number's arbitrary. I think it is not based in science. As you may know or may not
know, there are certain weather conditions that impact when you're burning outside, and it could be just as risky or more risky if you're burning five acres versus 5,000. So I think that just simply eliminating that sentence and putting the responsibility on the person who is certified and writing the burn plan is a wise idea. And the reason for that is that person who has received the training and qualifications would be able to put boots on
the ground, look at what is going on, or at least ask some questions and have a better understanding and knowledge to be able to write that burn plan to say, no, Thomas, you don't need to burn 50 acres today. You need to break this up in smaller units because the fuel load, there's so much more fuels there. Or, you know, you burned this last year or two years ago, and you barely have enough fuel to carry a fire, so maybe you can burn 500 acres. Maybe there are other factors, like if you think about the slope, if you get in certain parts of Arkansas, slope, weather, topography, all these
things can impact how fire behaves. So I think that should be put back on the responsibility of the prescribed burn plan writer, which would be your prescribed burner. The second issue I have is with training. Right now in this bill, the way I see it and being in Senate committee the other day, the way I understand it, the training is ambiguous. I've had, I hope you don't mind me saying, Austin. Okay. I've had multiple conversations with Director Booth as well as
as others that have sponsored this bill and possibly even some of you. And they have given me assurances that they're going to try and address these concerns in rulemaking. The only problem I've got with that is, and I told Director Booth this, the last time that I, and I mean no offense, please, the last time I trusted a politician, it didn't go well for me. So I mean that with all kindness.
But I think the intent here is a very good intent. It's just I'm worried that the training won't be accessible, it won't be affordable, it won't be equitable among different individuals, whether they're from the private industry, whether they're a private landowner, whether they're working for Game of Fish or a corporation or wherever. And so I think that it's important to make sure that we have multiple opportunities for these classes,
that it's reasonable for the average student, both physically and mentally, that it's equitable so it's not limited to certain students. Some of these classes have prerequisites that are necessarily, they vary from what forestry, I think, possibly, Forestry Commission, I'm sorry, or Forestry Association possibly has in mind versus what maybe Game and Fish has in mind. And my concern is that when those discussions take place and a meeting of the minds come to promulgate these rules,
that there will be some middle ground reached, And that may prove to be difficult for a private landowner. The other thing I'm concerned about, which Mr. Fox did discuss the other day, is his hope and belief that there will be funding available to reduce these expenses for training. And currently, Game and Fish is putting on a couple classes. Some of you may or may not have taken that are free of charge. But that was before this bill was introduced.
So what comes after this, I'm not sure. I do reluctantly trust Director Booth and what he has told me. I believe he's a good man, and I'm going to hold his feet to the fire on what he told me. But at the same time, I do think that we, instead of rushing, I know you're busy. I realize that. I had other people that were coming with me today, and they're trying to help tornado victims,
and they're trying to do other things, we are all busy. And I know you need to put this through. And listen, this bill needs to pass. I'll be a 100% advocate of the bill with a couple of modifications. That's where I stand on it. And I think that 100-acre limitation, there's just no reason for it. The training, somehow I wish you could give me some type of assurances that it's going to be fair and equitable for all Arkansans, whether they comprehend things on a seventh-grade reading level
or whether they're in fire science with a college degree. There's a lot of variance there. And so I just want to make sure that that is well stated. I also am – I send a little bit of money, not a lot, to Arkansas Forestry Association. So I want to commend these and the senators and representatives that sponsored this bill that are trying to help because from an ecological standpoint, We've got big issues in the state. We've pretty much lost our quail population.
Our turkeys are in decline. The monarch butterfly is, by some groups, already placed on the endangered list, and that's not even getting into the forestry aspects of it. So fire is a good thing. Don't believe what Smokey Bear tells you. Fire is a good thing. I'm serious. I'm very serious. It's true. That campaign reduced fire on the ground, and our fire, our ecosystem in this state is necessary,
and it has been happening since Native Americans were here. It is necessary that we have fire on the ground. Removing that fire has hurt us, and we're losing habitat, and a lot of species and ecosystems, whether you care about a butterfly or a collared lizard all the way to wild turkeys are being impacted by this. So it is important, but at the same time, I think it's important that we don't rush through this and then just have a couple of things here that, I mean, I don't really understand how the process works, but a whiteout pen could fix this very easily. So thank you for
your time. If you have any questions, I would love to attempt to answer them,
Speaker 9
30:32
and I appreciate all you do. Thank you. Members, there are any questions for Mr. Baldrige?
Speaker 88
30:40
Representative McGee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Baldrige. So I want to follow up on what Representative Vaught talked about a minute ago. It seems to me, I mean, this all sounds good except for the private landowner. So her farmer goes out and gets the rural fire department and they don't have a certified burn plan and they're going to burn 40 acres and that thing gets out and even
though the fire department's there it gets out it seems to me that owner if he does not have a certified burn plan and follow it to the t his liability he's really hanging himself out to some increased
Speaker 84
31:18
liability would you agree with that um so let me let me share my opinion without just answering yes or no, if you don't mind. Okay. So one of the representatives earlier asked about different insurance. And so currently on my property, I carry a hunting liability policy. I carry a timberland liability policy. The issue is right now, if I want to obtain a policy
specifically to burning, okay, because my timberland liability and my general hunting policy does not cover me actually doing prescribed burns. So there is a specific insurance policy that is for prescribed burning. Some people, even big companies like, say, Lloyd's of London, won't currently underwrite, especially corporations, some private landowners, and when they do, it's very expensive.
So that has hindered a lot of corporations from risking that. So secondly, maybe more to your question, is that landowner liable? Potentially. My issue right now is there is ambiguity in the law, and right now he would be liable as well. If this is passed and he chooses to ignore it, I'm not an attorney. Mr. Allen might want to answer this question. But I do think his liability is increased if he refuses to follow this.
Now, again, to their also other statement, you know, the Forestry Commission is not going to show up and write the man a ticket for it. So that's why I think training is it's important to get training that's equitable and open to a variety of people. We have a lot of different agencies, Forestry Commission, Arkansas Fire Academy, Game and Fish. There's a lot of agencies putting on classes about fire, just not all of them are accessible to the private landowner.
Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 63
33:20
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, are there any questions? Yes. Representative Cooper.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
33:28
Mr. Braverd, thanks for being here. Yes, sir. Do you know how many classes are available to the public annually or how many people could potentially be trained right now as it is without increasing the amount
Speaker 84
33:41
of training? So I guess it would depend, and this is where I'm nervous. Mr. Fox is grinning at me.
It would depend on what the Forestry Commission and Game and Fish actually does after we leave this room, if we vote this into law today. And having to trust that is nerve-wracking on my end. I'm all for training. I'm all for education. I even told Director Booth the other day that I would have probably done that section different if it were me. But it wasn't, and this is what we have right now. So I think that currently, and Mr. Fox can speak to this, currently Forestry Commission, you know, has some classes.
It was my understanding. I think he originally said maybe four and a half days. I was told five. I was told $500. You know, you're told a lot of different things. I do know there are prerequisites, and I did check with some of the councils that he referenced. I've got them pulled up on my phone. A lot of those have prerequisites. I'm concerned about that because I want accessibility for landowners. And not all landowners have a fire background or even care. Maybe they just care about turkeys or butterflies or improving their forest stand.
Well, that's a great thing, and it's a great tool. It's cost effective. it works very well and it is easy to do with certain guidelines so um i i think there will be but i'm having to trust them uh that they're going to do that and and make that accessible and with director booth like right now the game of fish free of charge does learn to burn one and learn to burn two workshop you can do those one day after after work and then you can turn around and do the other maybe on a weekend or something like that if that is the standard then then great
it's free of charge and and he's been you know the game of fish has already been doing that if if we go to the standard of where we have to travel to Russellville and spend three and a half to five days maybe even get a motel room or gas back and forth and then the material becomes either requires prerequisites or the material itself is more difficult for the average person to understand who doesn't have a fire background, then I think we burdened and hindered landowners to be able to do this. So for me, the training aspect is, and building that out is very important.
Speaker 63
36:10
All right. Thank you. Any other questions, members? All right. Thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir.
Chair
Unverified
36:16
Thank you. We have an individual signed up to speak for the bill, and you're going to have to forgive this old man. I think it's still S-T-I-L-L or maybe S-H-I-L-L or maybe S-U-L-L. Will you help me? Come on up here. Not too close. Richard Stich. Hey, I never... C-I-C-H. Okay, well, come on down there and introduce yourself, Richard. Okay.
Richard Stitch
Unverified
36:45
No? I appreciate the time. My comments will be pretty brief. My name is Richard Stitch. I'm
Speaker 98
36:54
an environmental affairs manager with Weyerhaeuser Company. I work out of Hot Springs, but also cover many of the southeastern states from Virginia to Oklahoma where we have property. And, you know, basically when we started talking about developing a bill to update Arkansas's prescribed burning rules,
one of the things that we identified was that we looked across the entire South and where the different prescribed burning laws were, what they were, how they dealt with private landowners, and particularly how they dealt with risk and liability. And one of the things that we wanted to do is be able to draft some prescribed burning language that would provide landowners with some meaning liability, risk reduction, but with adequate actions of responsibility built into it as well.
So we're giving something, we're going to get something as far as the liability reduction, but also have to give something as far as putting together those responsible actions that a landowner would implement in order to have a safe bird. And, you know, some of the things that we're trying to accomplish with this is not only have more healthy forests, That's important to a company like Weyerhaeuser through some silvicultural burning,
but also to be able to do some conservation burning, if that's for quail or turkey or if that's for other species, we wanted to be able to do that. And a big part of that was also just having a healthier forest, to be able to do our site preparation burning, do understory burning to control, you know, fuels in the understory and those type of things. So I really appreciate Mr. Baldrige's comments.
I thought they were tremendous. I thought he hit on some pretty good issues. But one of the things that we run into in Arkansas especially is Arkansas is the only state in the south where if there is a break over, something happens with a control burn, that the assumption through the Cole-Crutchfield laws is that you're guilty of negligence. That's where you start off with in Arkansas.
And Arkansas is the only state like that. The other states in the southeast don't have that assumption of guilt. And the other thing that Mr. Baldrige talked about is that the whole idea around a qualified prescribed burner. Nine of the 11 states in the southeast have a definition of what is a qualified prescribed burner, Arkansas being one of the two that does not and Virginia being the other.
So what we want to be able to do is just kind of clarify what are those responsibilities because the assumption of guilt if you have something that breaks over, if you have a prescribed burner and you've checked all the safety boxes, you've notified the Division of Forestry, you have a burn plan, you have the right equipment, you have the right personnel on site, we want to be able to say that if you have been able to check all of those boxes of responsibility, that there is not this presumed assumption of negligence.
If weather conditions change or something unforeseen happens, we don't have that hanging over our head. And the other issue that Mr. Baldrige brought up around the prescribed burning training, again, nine out of the 11 states have some type of definition of a qualified prescribed burner. They have the training in place. I've talked to Mr. Fox, and he certainly believes that we can address that hurdle
and deal with the prescribed burning training and what is qualified prescribed burning training and those issues as well. So with that, I'll yield the floor to any other questions that you all may have. Thank you. Committee, is there any questions? seeing none i thank you
Speaker 9
41:29
for your testimony thank you mr allen you actually signed up to speak you good he's good okay all right
Speaker 11
41:39
uh are you ready for a close for your bill i am
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
41:46
first let me address the private landowner in no way shape form or fashion is this piece of legislation an intent to infringe upon the rights of private Arkansans and what they can and can't do with their property. I think it's been stated, you know, by most of the parties that have been at the table, prescribed burning is necessary and it's good. It's what we need for healthy forest,
healthy habitat for our wildlife, and that was the intent. The other intent is to address the assumption of guilt regarding prescribed burning and the fact that if something happens after your burn or during your burn, that you're immediately considered guilty of negligence. So the bill tries to address those issues, provide protections to the prescribed burners in the
state, provide some protections to the private landowners. I'll say again, there's nothing in this bill as far as intent to infringe on the rights of the private landowner. The other thing that I would say is I spoke with Mr. Baldrige before committee meeting. I think he's got some valid points. And had we had some of that ahead of time, I think we could have addressed that with legislation on the 100 acres and the ambiguity there as a limit. I think in committee
the other day, it was stated that most of these burns from private landowners are 20, 40, maybe 80 acre burns so they're not large acreage burns that are taking place the concerns they had regarding training i'll state on the record the training programs and and and requirements will be addressed in rules and i guarantee and i'll state on the record that they that will be addressed some of the concerns were if you had 700 folks sign up for the training
that you'd have to limit, and some folks wouldn't get the training. We'll make certain that the training is accessible and open to all that want that training. That will be included in the rules. We'll make certain of that, and we'll try to address as many of those concerns in the rulemaking process as possible. The other thing I would say is most of the concerns and issues that Mr. Baldrige had with this bill exist right now today, along with the liability that private landowners will have if they burn
without this legislation. It provides some good protections to Arkansans for prescribed burning, and it's beneficial. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote and offer a motion to do pass.
Okay, we have a motion. Okay, is there any discussion? Representative Cozart? Committee members, I
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
44:52
talked, texted my little friend that has a lot of land and he burns this, but he just told me that he did take the class, said it was very valuable to do that,
and he also, he burns every year or every two years on his property. He owns, like I said, about 2,000 acres, but he also did this year a prescribed burn with USDA program. I believe it's an equipment program that they come and helped him do that and said he recommends anybody that can apply for that program to do that. But he said he's private land, and it really has been very essential to him to what he's done. But he says you've got to do all the things they said,
watch the forecast, maintain a road area, those things right there, and do it right. But being that he is good with it, and I don't have anybody else in my area that really has to do that other than some of the land we have
Speaker 103
45:46
down south, but I will be voting for this bill.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
45:50
Thank you. Representative Vaught. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I totally agree. We
do a lot of burning. So I agree with prescribed burning. But I hope that we'll do these courses across the state of Arkansas, not one centralized location that everybody has to come to. I hope we'll consider doing these courses throughout the state.
so different farmers that may want to become prescribed farmers could actually go to these courses. And if they have to drive a long ways, I don't foresee that happening for my rural area. And I hope that we'll look at rural fire departments and how they can be used to help with these burns also. And with that, I'll be voting yes. All right. Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 106
46:33
Chair. Representative Beatty, sorry, I'm a little slow to the process here. I probably should have put this in the form of a question, but I'll use discussion.
I have a constituent that's a little bit of an anomaly that has around 1,800 acres that he's using as conservation, trying to encourage the quail population to come back. So, again, a little bit of an anomaly because he uses a lot of retired Arkansas Game and Fish Commission gentlemen to come out and do his prescribed burns. And I'm sure that they go through this process because they are retired from the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. But, you know, they're definitely burning more than 100 acres at a time on this 1,800-acre property.
But anyway, I just want to make sure, you know, that this would not slow that process down for them, that they wouldn't be able to continue that because, as stated earlier, their intent is definitely for conservation and to continue to encourage the quail population. So, again, I do appreciate you bringing this. Any other discussion?
Speaker 9
47:43
Okay, we have a motion due pass. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No.
Chair
Unverified
47:49
Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Okay, we are going to move on
Speaker 107
48:01
down to Senate Bill 433. I'm running that bill, Mr. Chair, with
Chair
Unverified
48:04
your permission. I've been asked to run it. Representative Marcus, identify yourself, and you're authorized to run the bill. Senate Bill 433.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
48:19
Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask if the Department of Secretary could join me
Speaker 9
48:24
here at the table. Certainly. Introduce yourself for the
Speaker 110
48:28
record and welcome. Thank you. I'm Shane Corey, Secretary for the Arkansas
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
48:35
Department of Energy and Environment. First of all, I'd like to just say that I think this is probably the best-looking committee that I have visited so far this year. And, Mr. Chair, you as a fellow brother in arms, you know, just wonderful, wonderful to be able to see you operate on this.
Thank you, Maureen. And I found out, you know, just a few minutes ago I was asked to run this bill, so I'm sorry I have limited knowledge on this. So, again, that's probably a good thing because so far all the bills that I really didn't know anything about that I've run have been successful, so I'm very hopeful for this one, too. Again, this particular bill, Senate Bill 433, is an act to abolish the Arkansas Geographical Survey to create the Office of State Geologists to transfer the authority and duties of the Arkansas Geological Survey to the Office of the State Geologists,
and they will be put underneath the Oil and Gas Commission. I have exhausted my knowledge of the bill and would be happy to, if it's possible, let Mr. Secretary to go ahead and do the further addressing of the bill. You're authorized.
Speaker 110
49:49
that was a great explanation. These entities are all within the Department of Energy and Environment now. The Arkansas Geological Survey is an entity that is funded right now by general revenue.
It consists of the staff and a seven-member advisory commission. What we're attempting to do is to rename it from the Arkansas Geological Survey to the Office of the State Geologist, which is the term used in the current version of the Arkansas Constitution, and then do away with that seven-member advisory board and then put the Office of State Geologists within the Oil and Gas Commission for funding purposes. All right. Are there any questions, committee?
Speaker 9
50:34
Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? We have a motion. Do pass. All
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
50:44
in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill is passed. Thank you.
Speaker 63
50:49
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee, for that incredibly enthusiastic vote on this.
Chair
Unverified
51:01
As always. All right. committee, we're going to move down to House Bill 1808. Representative Unger, identify
yourself and then present your bill. Good
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
51:20
morning, Mr. Chair, committee. Representative Steve Unger, District 19. Ask Director Booth to join me at the end
of the table. Would you introduce yourself for the
Chair
Unverified
51:31
record, please? Yes, sir. Austin Booth, director
Speaker 120
51:34
of the Arkansas Game Fish Commission. Go ahead. All right. I
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
51:39
visited with Director Booth early on in the session just to meet him and say hi,
and we had a conversation. I asked the question, is there anything I could do to help you? He said, funny you should ask. I am a hunter. It's something I learned from my dad. It's something I still enjoy, and ethical hunting is one of the hallmarks of our state. But it turns out there are some bad actors out there, frankly, slaughtering wildlife with semi-automatic rifles with thermal scopes and whatnot shooting from cars at night and the story I got from a director here if I can recount it correctly
they stopped a guy shooting deer from a car fancy scope thermal scope had a little computer chip in it that recorded the kills, and if I remember correctly, he had recorded 21, and I thought we just got to put a stop to that. And so Bill 1808 puts a stop to that. All right.
Speaker 120
52:47
Do you have anything to add, Director? Yes, sir. What I
Speaker 121
52:54
would add to that is the instance that Representative Unger is referencing. One of the penalties that our current code authorized is that we suspended that
Speaker 120
53:07
gentleman's hunting license. The problem with it was he didn't have a hunting license, but we suspended it anyways. And so the goal of this bill is to do what several other states have done in our region,
Speaker 121
53:25
and that's to recognize the importance of wildlife, our way of life, our outdoor economy, to recognize the resources that private landowners put towards wildlife management, and also to increase the deterrence. So this is something that we've not only seen from other states, but heard loud and clear from our constituents on, and I appreciate your support. Thank you.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
53:56
Representative Hawk, you're authorized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, this doesn't affect, like, hog hunting, does it? Absolutely not. Because that's not considered a wild... I just want to make sure because... No one. Okay. Nope. This
Speaker 120
54:07
only pertains to wildlife violations, and as you all know, feral hogs are
Speaker 121
54:11
not considered wildlife. Thank you, sir. Representative Cozart, your recognition. Wow, I can't believe you all are going to do
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
54:20
this to me. No, I'm just kidding. No, I think it's a great bill.
I love what you're doing. I think that's a very big problem in every area, even around where I locally live. That's a big problem and has been in the past. I don't think you're going to do away with it with the bill, but you are sure going to give it some good teeth to put those people where they need to be, and I appreciate what you're doing. Representative Cooper, you're
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
54:50
recognized. Thank you, Director, for being here. So a few years ago, back home in White County, there was an individual that had a food truck, and he was selling tamales, and he was using deer meat in the tamales.
And I believe the people buying the tamales understood it was deer meat. He wasn't keeping any secrets there. So I read in this bill that selling wildlife would be a felony if it's over $500. So if in this instance, of course, this person was shut down by the Green and Fish Commission, ticketed and all of that. But in an instance like that, if he had sold $501 worth of tamales, would he have been guilty of a felony?
Speaker 9
55:37
Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, committee? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee? I have a due pass. All in favor?
Chair
Unverified
56:04
All opposed? No. Your bill is passed. Thank you, committee. Okay, we're going to move on to House Bill 1813
Speaker 47
56:10
Representative Pierce If you'll introduce yourselves for
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
56:18
the record please Thank you Mr. Chair Shad Pierce District 40 and what I have before you today is another game and fish bill to the law enforcement division but all we're simply wanting to do is to amend the law to amend the law to substitute game warden for wildlife officers We, for years, since 1989, have been not really referred to as wildlife officers.
We've been referred to as game wardens that never quit. But in our paper, in our language, to my knowledge, it's all wildlife officer. And we just
Speaker 120
56:54
simply want to change that back. Okay. Director, would you like to address that? Yes, sir. We ran a survey within Enforcement Division asking our game wardens, our wildlife officers, and 97% of them said we want to be called game wardens
Speaker 121
57:08
because that's what they joined the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to do.
I'm not familiar with the intent of why we changed it officially from game warden to wildlife officer, but that's what they see themselves as. That's what the public sees them, and I think it's probably the easiest bill this morning. Okay. All right. You've heard the bill. Is
Speaker 9
57:33
there any discussion? Any questions? Seeing none, what's the will of the committee?
Chair
Unverified
57:39
You do pass. All in favor? Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill has passed.
Okay, we're going to move on now to House Bill 1827, Representative Milligan. If you'll come and recognize yourself, or introduce yourself, you probably know who you are.
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
58:03
representative john milligan district 33 mr chair if you don't care i'd like to ask secretary ward and uh mr childers to come to end the
Speaker 136
58:10
table with me please come go down and introduce yourself
Speaker 139
58:29
yes sir west ward from the arkansas department
Speaker 140
58:32
of agriculture i'm marvin children with the poultry
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
58:37
federation committee house bill 1827 that you'll see on the first page there it moves the arkansas natural resource commission to the department of agriculture and you can read there but it does not affect the rules does not affect anything just moves them over now i will say this morning on the way down here i had some phone calls If you will go to page 4 of the bill, line 12, it talks about a $10 fee that this bill does away with,
and it will be established by a rule by the Ag Department. Now, I'm going to have Mr. Childress explain about that $10 and where that goes, because us three would not come down to the table and do any damage to a farmer or try to hurt a farmer. So I'm going to let him explain about this $10. I'm sorry Mr. Childress is going to explain about the $10 in this bill if that's okay with you
Speaker 40
59:37
I would love to hear that explanation Thank
Speaker 140
59:43
you Mr. Chairman First I want to go back just to give you a little history this is the Poultry Feeding Operations Registration Act and it was established in 2003 That fee has been $10 since 2003, and that fee goes to currently to the conservation districts that are delegated, as authorized by the current law, delegated to the conservation districts to run the program.
program. The total fee is about $60,000 a year. That fee does not even pay for the one person that works at Natural Resources. So there was some confusion this morning. I got some calls from members, I know the secretary did as well, about that money was going to NRCS and was used for water pipes for farmers. That's just not the case. So we just wanted to clear that up. And what the current draft says is that the fee would be set by the rules
of the Ag Department. So, you know, in the event that fee changes from $10, it would require to be done by rules by the Department. Thank
Speaker 9
1:01:01
you for that clarification. Secretary Ward, did you
Speaker 139
1:01:09
have anything to add? Well, not really, other than just would echo the points by Representative Milligan and Mr. Childers. The poultry industry is such an incredibly big part of Arkansas agriculture, and so this is intended to help streamline our programs that exist to support the industry
and then also make sure that they're in compliance with other items that may be out there that would cause them to be able to report this. All right. Excellent.
Speaker 9
1:01:34
Committee, is there any questions? Well, I see the power
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
1:01:37
of the chair. I asked him, he said no, and you asked, and he had a whole paragraph to say.
Speaker 9
1:01:45
I see none. What's the will of the committee? I have a due pass. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill is passed.
Chair
Unverified
1:01:57
All right. We're going to move on to our final bill for the day, House Bill 1800. Representative Watson, you're recognized. to introduce yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. State Representative
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
1:02:13
Danny Watson, District 88. If it's okay, I'd like to have a farmer right next to me, Jason McGee, to be present with me also. Certainly. Introduce yourself for the record, sir.
Jason Mcgee
Unverified
1:02:26
My name's Jason McGee. I farm in Carlson Poinsett County, Northeast Arkansas.
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
1:02:31
Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Representative Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Since 2017, the Arkansas State Plant Board has received hundreds of complaints per year regarding dicamba drift and volatility, causing $100,000 in economic losses, despite tweaks to the cutoff date by the plant board of when the last day someone can spray the product over the top of dicamba-tolerant soybeans.
in cotton, off-target damage continues to occur. Independent and academic research has demonstrated a correlation between ambient temperature and dicamba volatility, showing that dicamba volatility increases once the ambient temperature reaches 85 degrees. Other states across the country have relied on 85 degree temperature as they adopted their dicamba rules and cutoff dates. The state of Arkansas has a diversity of crops and natural environments that need to be protected,
and farmers need certainty and confidence that the Arkansas State Plant Board rules are based on science and data. The Arkansas State Plant Board has a responsibility to promote agriculture while ensuring farmers and the general public are protected from harmful intrusions that cause damage to property and economic loss. the problem of dicamba movement and off-target damage to sensitive plants is widespread as of july 19 2021 arkansas democrat gazette has reported on the problem with the headline
650 acres of soybeans damaged by dicamba this summer that's what the state estimates and nationwide the federal the epa received nearly 3 500 incident reports for the 2021 growing season damage to a wide variety of non-target plants. Incidents were also reported for non-crop areas in Arkansas such as state parks and wildlife refuges. This is important right here. The bill calls for the Arkansas State Plant Board to utilize science to identify a date before average temperature exceed 85
degrees and then establish that as a cutoff spray date. This will help minimize the issues associated with the dicamba movement and dicamba because of volatilization greatly increases but at a greater rate with temperatures above 80 85 degrees this will solve many issues dicamba application will be finished before the time when extensive off-target damage usually occurs due to warmer temperatures farmers can still choose to use dicamba if it's right for
their farm, but with less risk of harming sensitive crops or plants later in summer. Gardens, vegetable crops, vineyards, flowers, and ornamental plants will be better protected from potential damage. Farmers who choose not to use dicamba will have more choice about managing their farm. They will not feel pressured to plant dicamba-tolerant crops out of a need to protect their farm and livelihood instead. So instead, they can make choices based on how they want to farm. Old growth trees and native plant and animal
habitats will face less threat from off-target dicamba damage. This helps preserve the natural areas Arkansas loves. My last closing here, the EPA has responded to concerns about dicamba damage by revising product labeling multiple times in recent years, but it hasn't solved the issues occurring in arkansas arkansas's unique environment the epa did propose the earlier cutoff date for arkansas unfortunately the epa's proposal was rejected by the arkansas state plant board on february 6
of 2023 this decision failed to address the damage complaints in arkansas and this rejection underscores the need to continue working to address this issue utilizing science research weather information. I remember three springs ago in Legislative Council here in the Big Mac building, the first time I had ever heard the word dicamba and man was I somewhat infatuated after learning all the things going on. This has been
around for a while and what hurts me on the outside looking in is we don't have a safe resolve yet. That's what this piece of legislation is seeking. At this time I'm going to ask Mr. Jason McGee if he has any comments to follow up on his take on this. Thank you.
Jason Mcgee
Unverified
1:07:26
My name is Jason McGee. I do farm in
Speaker 148
1:07:30
Carlsson Poinsett County and I'm a first-generation farmer and I'm a non-GMO
soybean and corn grower. I've been doing that for around 12 years. And when I say that, I don't take that as I'm not pro-technology. I'm very much for advancing technology. Growers need that. But with that comes responsibility. And I've been very familiar with the plant board through a number of issues over the years. I live and farm in two of the most highly regulated counties in the state, Carlson Poinsett County, with regard to 2-4-D and to facet both, and they had created
issues for certain people, and the plant board responded accordingly. For many, many years, the Arkansas State Plant Board was looked at as the model for the nation. They did it right. They followed the science. They did everything with regard to protecting all Arkansans, not just a particular farmer, but a gardener, a forester, whoever they may be. They took all those things into account, but something changed with dicamba,
and a lot of the growers, they'll argue they have to have it, blah, blah, blah, but the facts are they don't. There's lots of options there. I don't want to see dicamba necessarily taken away 100%, but the data since the 70s has supported what's happening in the field. They cannot contain dicamba in Arkansas high-heat environments. It volatilizes off. The problem's not at the spray rig. It happens in the field, and it happens for several days.
So there's a mass air loading that's occurring. You can go to Crowley's Ridge in June and July, and you can't find a sycamore tree anywhere that doesn't show dicamba, a rose bush, a garden. Many people don't realize exactly what's happening, but the growers today have options. New technologies have come about. They have Enlist. They have Liberty. Those are herbicides that do a good job of staying where they're put. Any herbicide, you can have a mishap, but the volatility that occurs with dicamba, it's unprecedented.
We've never dealt with anything quite like that. And the spraying is going on past the cutoff date, so there's been a lack of enforcement, too, if you will. And non-dicamba soybeans are very susceptible, particularly in the reproductive phases, so the economic losses are severe, and there's nowhere to turn. If you read, there's three companies mainly responsible for the manufacture of the dicamba formulations that are used today.
The labels are written in gray ink. If you call them when you have a problem, they'll say it's the farmer who did it. They didn't follow the label to the T. The farmer says, well, you can't prove it came from me. And then there's been a lack of enforcement from the plant board's standpoint. And so we do need some help greatly. You know, I support diversity. I support technology, but I also support responsibility. And this bill is a step in the right direction towards that responsibility. Thank you. Thank you, men.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:52
Committee, are there any questions? Okay, seeing none, there is an individual signed up to speak against. I believe it's Andrew Grobmeyer. I hope I got your name closer than I did the
Speaker 150
1:11:19
last fellow. Identify yourself for the record. Good morning. Andrew Grubmeyer with the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, and we're an industry trade organization that represents row
Speaker 151
1:11:26
crop farmers and landowners and ag businesses that provide goods and services to the industry.
You're recognized to speak. Go ahead. Thank you. I'll be very brief. I know we're at the tail end of this meeting today, but I did want to say that our organization is opposed to this bill. We feel that it sets a bad precedence, in our view, related to any crop protection product, whether that's a herbicide or an insecticide or a fungicide. We feel that those decisions in regulating those matters should be left to the plant board and the EPA rather than decided at this table or in the House or Senate.
The plant board was created by the legislature to handle these things, and we think it should continue to be handled at that level. um we also feel that it is a an overreach legislative overreach uh that that would interfere with a process that's already available to the public uh when it comes to uh challenging any rule that's out there there's a petition process anybody can file a petition any individual or organization can file a petition to trigger uh the plant board to uh consider a rule making and
And so that's our primary concern with this, and we think it's better left at the plan board and encourage anybody that has an issue with a rule that's in place to file a petition and take that route rather than a legislative route. That's our stance. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
1:12:52
All right, thank you. Representative Vaught, did
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:12:55
you have a question? I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Andrew, wouldn't you agree, though, that we constantly
are always telling different entities what they can and can't do?
I mean, I understand you're wanting it to stay with the plant board, but we direct boards and agencies from the end of that table at
Speaker 151
1:13:16
all times. Wouldn't you agree with that? I've seen examples of that. In this case, we have concern not related to any particular. To us, it's a precedence that would be established that would be applicable to any product that our industry depends on, and we have concerns about this becoming a regular process. We prefer that y'all delegate that responsibility to the plant board.
There's 19 people on the plant board with a broad range of expertise. They understand the chemistries. They understand the uses, and that's what initially this body, the General Assembly, created them to handle these things. And so it's our preference that it continue to be handled that way. But, again, we do this quite often. And I'm just trying to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:14:00
get you to answer that part of the question. I've seen it before. Thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:14:11
Thank you for coming. Were you aware of the Democratic Gazette article talking about all the instances of DeCamba and how it's affected other farmers that don't use this product? Is this toward
Speaker 151
1:14:24
me? Yeah, I'm asking. Yes, I'm very aware. We have members in row crop production, all commodities across the state. So this is something I'm very familiar with and have had among my members. Follow up. Go ahead.
Speaker 80
1:14:37
So with that being said, you know, if we have a massive amount of people that are being affected by this,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:14:46
we're not saying with this legislation that we're banning it. We're just putting a stricter time frame on when it can be used. um i i don't i guess what i'm my question would be is what's what's wrong with just saying you know i mean there's we were just talking about burning you know i mean making it to where what what's wrong with making it to where there's just a certain period of time when you can use it so it doesn't affect so many so many people what would what would be wrong with that and there's
Speaker 151
1:15:18
nothing wrong with it there it's already being done and it's been done in a variety of different ways over the history of this particular product. Today the date is June 30th.
Chair
Unverified
1:15:35
All right, any other questions? Dan, Representative Vaught.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:15:39
Thank you. The cutoff date is June 30th right now. What is by, I know it's 85 degrees, right? and we say after 85 degrees, it can pick up and move to somewhere else.
So why would we pick June 30th in the state of Arkansas when we know probably by the end of April, beginning of May, end of May, we're going to be probably past that 85 degrees? What made June 30th the date? I'm
Speaker 150
1:16:12
not a plant board member. The only thing I would say to that is that the federal regulation has a
Speaker 151
1:16:18
June 30th date for soybeans, a July 30th date for cotton,
and the state decided June 30th for all use. So
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:16:27
in reality, that's probably not around a science data information that picked June 30th for the state of Arkansas. Would you agree with that? I will say that the
Speaker 151
1:16:42
state plant board made their decision And based on a lot of different data and information and science, the EPA did the same. Arkansas is more restricted than the EPA currently.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:16:54
Okay. I mean, I'm not saying one way or the other. That just doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me when I know in June it can be really hot here in
Speaker 9
1:17:03
the state of Arkansas. So thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. We have one more individual signed up to speak for it. Terry Fuller. Mr. Chairman, in
Speaker 129
1:17:12
the essence of time, I'll pass. Thank you for the opportunity to thank
Speaker 9
1:17:18
y'all for your service. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fuller. Are there any other questions for the committee? Are you ready to close?
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
1:17:26
Mr. Chair, I am ready to close, and I appreciate a favorable vote to end this nightmare. Let's get working on
Speaker 9
1:17:34
it. Okay. We have a motion do pass. All in favor? Aye.
Chair
Unverified
1:17:40
Any opposed? Congratulations, your bill is passed And members, thank you so much for your patience This has been a long one, but we got a lot done I appreciate everybody being here
Unknown speaker
1:18:09
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
You
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Sponsor Subtitle
SB339 Caldwell TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION; AND TO PROVIDE FOR WORKING ANIMAL PROTECTION IN COUNTIES.
HB1746 Lundstrum TO ALLOW CERTAIN SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL BUSINESSES TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES UNDER THE ARKANSAS BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY ACCELERATOR ACT AND THE CONSOLIDATED INCENTIVE ACT OF 2003.
HB1763 Wardlaw TO ESTABLISH MAXIMUM FEES FOR A YOUTH LIFETIME HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSE FOR RESIDENTS TEN (10) YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; AND TO AUTHORIZE A TRANSACTION FEE FOR CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS FOR HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES.
SB407 M. McKee TO REQUIRE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN SOURCES BE CONSIDERED CARBON NEUTRAL; AND TO REQUIRE ENERGY PRODUCED FROM CERTAIN SOURCES IN CONJUNCTION WITH CARBON CAPTURE TECHNOLOGIES BE CONSIDERED CARBON NEGATIVE.
HB1788 Lynch TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING EGG MARKETING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS EGG MARKETING ACT OF 1969.
SB415 Stone TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS PRESCRIBED BURNING ACT.
SB433 Irvin TO ABOLISH THE ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST AND TRANSFER THE AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF THE ARKANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TO THE OFFICE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB476 Hill TO CREATE THE RURAL VETERINARY STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM; TO CREATE THE AGRI SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND TO CREATE THE AGRI SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FUND WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
HB1808 Unger TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING REGULATIONS; AND TO MAKE VARIOUS VIOLATIONS OF WILDLIFE REGULATIONS CRIMINAL AND PUNISHABLE AS FELONIES.
HB1813 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW TO SUBSTITUTE "GAME WARDEN" FOR "WILDLIFE OFFICER".
SB403 B. Johnson TO CONSOLIDATE AGRICULTURE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; TO ABOLISH CERTAIN BOARDS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; TO TRANSFER THE DUTIES OF CERTAIN BOARDS WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB534 Crowell TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS ROCKS! MINING AND MINERAL TRAIL".
HB1827 Milligan TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS POULTRY FEEDING OPERATIONS REGISTRATION ACT; AND TO TRANSFER DUTIES FROM THE ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
HB1800 Watson TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PLANT ACT OF 1917; TO REQUIRE THE STATE PLANT BOARD TO CONSIDER CERTAIN DATA RELATED TO DICAMBA AND TO SET A CUTOFF DATE FOR THE USE OF DICAMBA WITHIN A SPECIFIC DATE RANGE.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 Vaught REGARDING HUNTING LICENSES AND FISHING LICENSES FOR RESIDENTS; AND TO AUTHORIZE A MINOR WHO IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A HUNTING LICENSE OR FISHING LICENSE TO PAY THE RESIDENT FEE WHEN VISITING A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN.
HB1549 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE ALLOCATION OF PRODUCTION AND COST FOLLOWING AN INTEGRATION ORDER; AND TO DEFINE "PROCEEDS".
HB1645 McCullough TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS HEALTHY FOOD RETAIL ACT OF 2023; AND TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES.
HB1673 McCollum TO AMEND THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR LICENSURE FOR VETERINARY TECHNICIANS AND VETERINARY TECHNOLOGISTS.
Page 2 of 2
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Apr 3, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 9
Speaker 11
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Speaker 33
Speaker 34
Justin Allen
Unverified
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 73
Speaker 84
Speaker 88
Speaker 63
Richard Stitch
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 44
Speaker 103
Speaker 106
Speaker 107
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 10
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 120
Speaker 121
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 47
Representative Shad Pearce
Unverified
Representative Jon Milligan
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 139
Speaker 140
Speaker 40
Representative Danny Watson
Unverified
Jason Mcgee
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 150
Speaker 151
Speaker 80
Speaker 129