Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (6)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB290
Act 921
· 25 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “…Y OPERATOR UNDER THE LAW CONCERNING RECREATIONAL TRAMWAYS". SB290 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB290 is now Act 921 |
|
HB1675
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…r Rep. Harlan Breaux REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1675 Womack TO AMEND THE INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS GRAD…”
|
TO AMEND THE INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS GRADE "A" MILK PROGRAM ACT OF 1981. | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1900
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1900 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ROY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ROYALTY OWNERS RELATED TO DEDUCTIONS; AND TO … | Beck | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1981
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…POULTRY COMMISSION TO THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH. HB1981 Maddox TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF "OUTDOOR RECREATION OPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF "OUTDOOR RECREATION OPERATOR" AND "TRAMWAY OPERATOR UNDER THE LAW CONCERNING … | Maddox | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB464
Act 698
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB464 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING SALES OF RAW MILK; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING SALES OF RAW MILK; TO ALLOW SALES OF RAW MILK … | A. Clark | Notification that SB464 is now Act 698 |
|
SB550
Act 703
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB550 Hill TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULT…”
|
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO THE ARKANSAS BOARD … | Hill | Notification that SB550 is now Act 703 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Sign in. The first bill we're gonna hear is SB 290. Representative Bolt, you recognize to present your bill. Please introduce yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. DeMott,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
0:25
District 87. Senate bill 290. Is just a policy. We're not
getting rid of any moratoriums. We're not trying to get rid of a moratorium. It's just setting up a policy. Whenever the moratorium began, it was supposed to have been temporary, um, and then it became a permanent moratorium and then all of our This is what I say, county judges and quorum courts, they're the first line that people can go to and we're the second line, and we should be able to represent our people back home and what they want, and that power was stripped from
us and this bill is just giving us back that power to review moratoriums, uh, that are placed, uh, on watersheds in the state of Arkansas. All right, committee, any
questions? Saying that Representative Chang. Uh, we have one here. We Mine's not a question. Uh, well, this, will this
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:37
legislation help protect poultry producers in the beaver watershed. It
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:41
would, um. That, that was one of the questions that a lot of poultry farmers ask, um, And some companies were like, are we, how can y'all protect us that already are in the watershed. Uh, this would protect them in the watershed, uh, and it would also protect any other farmers and any other watersheds because it would come to us before a moratorium was put on. Thank you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:08
Represent with Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, just you and I have talked about this some, but I just,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
2:16
I wanna be clear and understanding as to existing moratoriums, uh, what, what would this bill, uh, what would be the effect of this bill? So in 90 days we would want them to come before
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:25
ALC and explain why the moratorium needs to stay there. Again, no one, we're not looking to get rid of a moratorium in this bill, that's not what this bill would do. It just gives back the voice to the
Speaker 28
2:40
Legislature. Yes, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, are you saying that the current state of affairs is that ALC has no review authority over. That's correct. And are you certain of that? Yes, sir. OK. All right, committee,
any other questions? And nonrepresentative Jean. Mr. Chairman, I've got a motion,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:10
and we've heard since January a lot of information mailed through emails, everything on this. I think the committee pretty well understands the issue, and I'm gonna make a motion that we limit the debate to 15 minutes per side. All right. All right. To me, you heard the motion. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? All right. The back be limit to 15 minutes per side.
All right, who's first up speaking? Speaking against Gordon Watson.
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
4:00
Yes, introduce yourself and uh for the record. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members. Uh, my name is Gordon Watkins, uh, I live in Newton County, uh, uh, on the Little Buffalo River, and I'm the president of the Buffalo River Watershed
Alliance. I'm also a farmer for 50 years, farm Family of the Year in Newton County. Uh, so I kind of look at this from both sides, but I would, I would like to point out one thing. Well, let me start by this first if I could. I understand that some of you have received some emails and some messages that are not so nice, and I would like to, to make it clear that our organization, we have encouraged our members to reach out to their representatives and be civil and we provide talking points and uh the, the messages that I've seen were not from our organization, and I don't mean to make excuses
for anybody, but I can tell you that I, I hope you can. that passions run deep when it comes to the Buffalo National River. Uh, that's not to excuse any uncivil language name calling or anything like that, but so I just wanted to make that clear. Um Star starting off, I'd like to. Somewhat disagree with Representative Vogt and point out that Under current regulations, Arkansas Code 10-3-309 already requires that any changes in rules or regulations must be
reviewed by the legislature. That's already in the, in the books and I know there's a lot of talk about reducing the size of government by reducing regulations. This bill is redundant. It creates just another layer of uh of authority that's already there. Um, it makes it onerous, it's an onerous process and it's obviously intended to make it difficult uh to for moratoriums to get passed in the first place to require moratoriums to, to now be reviewed again, uh, and I don't know if this means it's
got to be reviewed twice, uh, once under the code and once under this regulation, uh, and not only that, it's got to be reviewed every 4 years. I wish somebody would explain to me why if the Buffalo National River, for example, is worthy of protection by moratorium now. What's going to change in 4 years that's going to make it less worthy of production. Um So I know that there's a lot of people signed up. I, I think it's kind of humorous that we've been given 15 minutes per side. I think if you look at that list, there's at least 18 people signed up against and I think
there's a handful of 4. So, uh, I'll cut my time short and give it to my other uh people that are speaking today. So thank you. I'll be glad to answer any questions. Market. Yes sir, you
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
6:36
said that you're a farmer up there, uh, just a couple of questions, just a little leeway, Mr. Chair, so I don't have to keep asking for, you know, Permission to ask a question. How many acres do you own? Where
is this proximity to the river and what kind of farm is it?
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
6:55
I have 15 acres. I'm on the Little Buffalo River, which is the largest tributary of the Buffalo National River. I live outside the town of Parthenon in Newton County. I've been there since 1973. I've raised, uh, we've had the oldest certified organic farm in the state of Arkansas. We raised blueberries for 40 years. We raised cattle. We've raised hogs, we've raised chickens, and we've raised every sort of fruits and vegetables that you can name, blueberries were our flagship product. Follow up, you're recognized.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
7:20
And do you raise cattle now and hogs now? I do not. I raise hay now.
Thank you Mitty, any other questions? Sanan, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. We have Richard Mays speak for the bill.
Now, you're, you're on the wrong sheet there, brother. All right, Mark Lambert.
You recognized if you would introduce yourself to the committee.
Speaker 58
8:16
Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I'm Mark Lambert. I'm director of state affairs for Arkansas Farm Bureau. Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Arkansas Farm Bureau has a long-standing history of advocating for Arkansas's agriculture industry, which is the lifeblood and number one industry in the state contributing more than $24 billion to the overall economy. Our policies are derived from grassroots input of our members who share a common goal,
supporting and promoting Arkansas agriculture. Arkansas Farm Bureau supports Senate Bill 290 regarding legislative oversight on moratoriums in Arkansas. The bill currently sets up an additional process in the approval. Process giving elected officials a voice, a voice in the rulemaking process. Arkansas is made up of 57 major watersheds encompass encompassing all 34 million acres. We believe, including discriminatory language against one industry within a watershed could have a chilling effect on
every farm in the state. Arkansas is home to the largest rice industry in the country. We're consistently top 5 for roller and egg production in top 10 in cattle production, whether it's a farmer from Keo, poultry grower from Centerton or the cattle rancher from Clinton singling out a single industry would put others in jeopardy that Arkansas prides itself in. We would argue that this is about a single watershed. This is about private property rights, private individuals' right to farm and being a good neighbor and citizen to the community. Farmers and ranchers strive to
be good environmental stewards of the land so they can pass it on to the next generation. Presently, the director can can approve or deny permits on the on the merits of scientific and engineering studies that does not impose harm to the environment. We would like to keep it that way and we sincerely ask the committee to support Senate Bill 290. I'm happy to take any questions that the committee members may have any questions? Sinan, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Now, Mr. Mays.
Introduce yourself to the committee and you recognized to present your testimony.
Speaker 64
10:28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard H. Mays. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock. I, uh, my practice includes environmental work, agricultural work, real estate, that sort of thing, and I had the good fortune of representing the Buffalo River watershed Alliance
in a lawsuit against the CNH hog farm several years ago that case lasted about 3 years and wound up with the the state spending $6.4 million to acquire the hog farm and to retire as a hog farm, so it would not longer pollute the Buffalo River. Um, uh, with all due respect to Representative Volt, uh, this bill would affect the Buffalo River Moratorium and the Lake
Mill moratorium. We drink water out of that, that lake, Balmill. There's a reason for a moratorium being placed on uh uh vege uh hog farm operations and other things in that in that watershed and there's a good reason for putting it a moratorium on the use of Uh, Hall Farms on the Buffalo River. We're talking about hog farms that have 6000 hogs in them. 6000 hogs produce the same
amount of waste products, urine, and feces that a city of 15,000 people do. This is not a minor thing. It's a serious matter and we drink water out of these uh rivers and these lakes and so forth that uh this. This is discharged in too. Uh, these moratoriums, there's only 2 in effect in the state of Arkansas right now. Both of them were put there under regulation 6 of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission,
Department of Environmental Quality. They were put there after a lot of scientific study, a lot of, uh, hearings and uh none of that would be required in the bill that is before you, there would be no scientific information given to you. It's just they want to. Bring this to you because they think you'll get, they'll get treated better before you than they would before ADEQ and the Department of Agriculture. Uh,
these are not, uh, political things. These are things have to do with the health and safety of the of the Republic of Arkansas and the protection of our waters. I don't, we don't have anything against farmers. The farmers have a right to farm, but that right ends at the boundary line. From there on, at that point, the public interest takes over and if it endangers a valuable resource or a source of drinking
water, then I would not be the one want to be the one to say, uh, no, you can't put in, uh, uh, a moratorium on it. You've got to protect drinking water sources. Thank you. You know, any questions? Yeah,
are you willing to take questions? Sorry. Yes. I was trying to I was just gonna
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
13:41
make a point of order, uh, this issue with the CNH hog barn has been resolved. These farmers had zero violations and zero data concerning their involvement with river pollution, and I
Speaker 71
13:52
would just ask that we focus on the current bill moving forward. OK Committee, any other questions? Thank you, sir. Yes sir. Megan Allen Would you introduce yourself for
Megan Allen
Unverified
14:22
the committee, please? Yes, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Megan Allen. And, um, I'm thankful for the
opportunity to speak to you today. I serve on the board of directors for the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation, and I'm here on behalf of our 180,000 members in support of Senate Bill 290. My husband Jeremy and I raise cattle. We have a feed operation in a retail store in Hot Spring County, and we own and manage
over 1000 acres at the foothills of the Wattop Mountains. With every acre in Arkansas, roughly 34 million acres being in a watershed. We wholeheartedly support this bill. This is about protecting Arkansas farmers and ranchers across our entire state, not just in one watershed. They are the authority to either approve or deny moratoriums should rest with you, the legislature, which is closer to the people and not the administrative branch of
government, specifically state agencies and commissions. Senate Bill 290 is about whether a state agency or commission should be able to impose a permanent moratorium anywhere in the state. We believe that should be left to the General Assembly. And as a point of clarification, this bill does not prevent moratoriums from being imposed, nor does it automatically open the Buffalo River watershed to concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs.
Permanent moratoriums or bands. And other actions of this magnitude that could restrict an entire economic sector. In this case, agriculture, our state's largest industry. Should be reserved for the General Assembly, not a state agency or commission. Again, Arkansas Farm Bureau strongly supports Senate Bill 290, and I would ask you to do the same. Thank you. Committee, any questions?
Speaker 90
16:32
Seeing none, thank you. We have Our Ethel I'd like to See. here. Shay Lewis.
Speaker 98
17:15
You introduce yourself to the committee, please? Sure, Shane Corry, secretary for the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment if it's OK with you, then I, I think that I'm gonna go first, but can you just for clarification, give us about how much time we have left so we can divide it up between our other state departments that are here. We have 10 minutes left. OK,
Speaker 99
17:31
I'll try to go quickly then, so. Point of order. Are the questions part of the 15 minute time
Speaker 102
17:37
limit. They're not. Thank you. All right, so I think what we should do is start by talking
Speaker 98
17:46
about the 3 things that I think we all agree on here. Um, we all know that Arkansas. Our number one industry is agriculture and we all need to support our agriculture. Second of all, we know that tourism is a huge economic driver and impact in this growing here in Arkansas. And third, we have a unique resource in our Buffalo River. I mean, it is the first national river it was recognized in 1972. It's also an extraordinary resource water and it deserves heightened protection. The reasons why that we urge you to oppose Senate
Bill 290 are kind of fairly simple. First of all, there is an existing. process already in place that gives legislature full review. An approval authority over all rules and regulations that go through, uh, any state department. Second of all, the language as written, we believe is overbroad and will create unintended consequences and third, the purpose we believe is to eliminate the current moratoriums on the Buffalo River watershed and Lake Lake Momel. There's kind of this false
narrative out there that this bill somehow gives review authority to the legislature it doesn't already have. And the truth is y'all already have every rule, regulation, amendment to rule or regulation that that's gonna come out of a state department is subject to your full review and approval. What we think this does is it would eliminate transparency because it creates a special process where we're going to repeal an existing rule without going through a rulemaking process. And in this scenario, this will be the only scenario where a
committee can not review a rule or a moratorium without stating the reason. The current process as it stands today, says that if a committee is not going to adopt a rule or regulation, they have to state why they're not adopting it in this case this would allow any committee that it has to go through to review it and not approve it without even stating why. So we believe it's a loss of transparency. I believe that the current wording is overbroad and will impose unintended consequences. The way moratorium is defined, it's not limited just to prohibition, but also includes
any other limitation, so from a DEQ perspective. Uh, this could jeopardize our ability to put in any terms and any permit that is necessary to properly protect the watershed because the way a moratorium is defined in this particular room. Also, this is rule 6 NPDS program is a delegated authority that comes from EPA when EBA EPA reviews our existing statutes. We had 180 day emergency moratorium. This bill limits that to 90 and also then starts an additional review, um, every
4 years. I think there's a lot of testimony already been said about the two existing moratoriums that have been in place. Both of these have been in place for a long period of time. Um, the one in the Buffalo River watershed is very limited as well. It does. apply to all agriculture. It only applies to certain size, larger size swine or KO operations in that area. We're not trying to limit any other agricultural activities on the river. We never had this has been in place for 10 years, um, and it's working. We're, we're
afraid that if we start removing these authorities, then, uh, then, then it's gonna hurt the water quality, it's gonna hurt. Arkansas as a whole and the last thing I'll say is we can't expand. There's a lot of talk about where to get expand this to a new watershed, we're gonna also worry about different farming operations on the Buffalo River. That's not true. None of that there's no intent to do that. And if we ever were, it still has to come to you for both review and approval as a legislature. I also say that I think there's an existing way to
address this rules 5 and 6 have been pending before the rules committee both in November and December. They deal with the same. subject matter and changing the process at this point in time would be harmful to
Speaker 50
21:37
Arkansas. Questions, Matthew? Thank Mr. Chairman. So what is
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
21:42
the current uh Situation with regard to the Buffalo River and Lake Malmel. Uh, if, if this, uh, bill is not passed.
What, uh, what is the status of those uh moratoriums that have been entered.
Speaker 98
22:00
So both rules 5 and 6 have a moratorium for the Buffalo River watershed and then 6 has a moratorium for Lake Mael. So without passing this bill, those two moratoriums remain in place. But they are both of those rules have amendments that are pending before the rural subcommittee. And so uh what are those
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
22:25
amendments and then the second question would be, um, are they in place indefinitely. So the
Speaker 98
22:33
amendments mainly dealing with ag and I'll let Secretary Ward answer that question, but, um, there are amendments proposing to continue the current moratorium for the Buffalo River watershed that are in those rules. There are also some cleanup things on our side from the federal uh perspective of Rule 6, but if you remember 2 years ago, the legislature transferred the permitting
process for Rule 5 from us, the Department of Energy and Environment DEQ to the Department of Natural Resources, so they have a, what we'd say the natural resources version of Rule 5 pending, um, to properly adopt and transfer that permitting authority from DEQ to natural resources at the same time we're cleaning up Rule 6, both versions, our version and Department of Ags version include a recommendation to continue the current moratorium that's limited in nature, that
only applies to these larger size swine operations in the Buffalo River watershed. All right. Representative Mo. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
23:35
Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. So just to for clarity, I believe you did answer it, um, but if this bill is not passed. The existing moratoriums will continue indefinitely, is that correct? At this point in time,
Speaker 98
23:48
they could continue indefinitely, yes, without, we could also do a rule making, we could address that in administrative process. Both of these moratoriums were actually
brought by third-party rulemaking request that process still exists. No one has brought a third party rulemaking to ask the police control and ecology commission to repeal or reduce or limit that moratorium in any way, that's how that process started. So I would say their existing process is in place that could also bring that up for review. So
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
24:15
just to follow up on that. clarify, did ALC or the legislative body approve. The existing moratoriums. Yes. In 2014 when the 2014 or 2015
Speaker 98
24:28
when the rule was adopted, it had to go through the review and approval process. All right, committee, any other questions? Marcus,
you look ready to jump. I But You don't have to. It's OK. I understand that entirely
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
24:48
better than you might think, but the concerning Back when the hog farm was there, I, I just rolled in here.
A long time ago when that was going on.
And the concern was, of course, potential pollution from the hog farm getting into the Buffalo River. Is that correct?
Speaker 98
25:09
I wasn't around during the time, but yes, that is one of the potential concerns
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
25:13
and one of the issues whether it's Lake Moelel or the Buffalo River, the big issue is, is trying to control pollution. One of the things that I've seen during all that hog farm thing was that there was considerable pollution that was man-made from
people on the river. So Would you support a moratorium on recreational use of both Lake Momel and the Buffalo River. No. Why not? Well, because
Speaker 98
25:42
I think what we know is that there are a combination of things that could contribute to. Water quality or the impairment. We also know that a lot of these things, and this is not a moratorium on everything, this is a moratorium only on large
swine operations that have and generate a huge amount of liquid animal waste. We also know that there's ars topography around the Buffalo River watershed. And there have been indications that some of those operations, um, or, or excuse me, some of the indications of why the Buffalo River and Big Creek are both impaired, are a combination of reasons, including potential operations from from hog farms, but in this case where you have cars topography, large amounts of liquid animal waste.
Uh, a scenic national, the first national river, and impairments from water that could be contributing to. There's also no active farming operations of this type in that area. So why would we want to allow something else to come in and this one area. And contribute a Huge significant impact and further deteriorate the water quality standards. OK. All right, thank you. I appreciate that.
All right, sir, you're starting out with 12.5 minutes. I'll make it brief,
Travis Payne
Unverified
27:22
sir. Uh, Chairman Lynch, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of SB 290. My name is Travis Payne. I raised cattle in Conway County. I'm also an avid hunter and fisherman. I'd like to remind the committee that this is more than just about the Buffalo River at its core SB 290 is about protecting one of our most sacred rights, private property.
The Arkansas Cattlemen's Association firmly believes that the landowners have the right to own and manage their property without unnecessarily unnecessary government interference. This is right. Excuse me, this right is enshrined in both federal and state constitutions and it's been 290 helps ensure that Arkansas landowners, not Unelected agencies retain control over their land. By requiring legislative oversight before imposing a major land land use restriction
SB 290 prevents the agencies from making unilateral decisions that could limit how landowners use their property without legislative safeguards in any landowner in Arkansas could face new restrictions that reduce their property's value and usability without just compensation. Farmers and ranchers have spent generations stewarding the land, and they, not government agencies are best suited to make decisions about its management by prevailing regulatory overreach SB 290 ensures that Arkansas landowners. Can continue using their land
for agricultural production without fear of arbitrary restrictions. Additionally, with 57 separate watersheds across the state, allowing agencies to impose moratoriums without legislative input could lead to broad, unnecessarily, excuse me, unnecessary regulations, they negatively impact farmers and ranchers statewide, not just the Buffalo River watershed. SB 290 keeps these decisions in the hands of elected officials, ensuring transparency, fairness,
in policymaking. I would also like to clarify that this bill does not immediately do away with any existing moratoriums. However, it creates a process which puts power in the hands of you, the people elected by our Arkansans. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and
Speaker 129
29:33
I appreciate your time. We'll be happy to answer any questions, any questions, Marcus? Sir, you know, I know
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
29:42
you're a cattleman, but say that uh you had a few extra million dollars that you wanted to invest into,
uh, something, would you invest it in a hog farm up there somewhere around the Buffalo River, even if the moratorium went away, there was no more, no longer a moratorium. Would you, would you invest that money? I would not because it's not my interest. OK, let's make it a feedlot for cattle. Would you invest up there? I would, OK, as long as it was protecting a watershed. I don't believe that it will have any effect
Speaker 132
30:13
on it. All right, thank you. committee. Any other questions?
Speaker 134
30:20
Thank you, sir. Secretary Ward Secretary, you introduce yourself for the committee. Good afternoon. My name is Shay Lewis, secretary of the Arkansas Department of Parks Heritage and Tourism.
Shea Lewis
Unverified
30:51
I'm here uh today to speak in opposition of Bill 290, as you know, Arkansas is proudly known as the natural state, uh, this isn't just a slogan but it reflects who we are, how we live, and what we value ultimately this direct ultimately this is directly related to the Buffalo National River Senate Bill 290 opens the door to end protection provided through the moratorium, uh, for the Buffalo National. river as well as other important
watersheds. There's no place in our state that is more iconic, more deserving of protection in the Buffalo National River. The Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism. is entrusted with the conservation, preservation, recreation, and promotion of Arkansas's natural historical and cultural resources often say that we're in the business of maintaining and building quality of life that we know and love in Arkansas. I've heard from many residents of our state urging the department to take a stance
uh for preservation of the Buffalo National River as well as important watersheds against this bill. Within our state, tourism serves as our 2nd largest industry with a $10 billion annual economic impact. Tourism brings 50.7 million visitors to our state annually and provides over 70,000 jobs in every corner of the state. Our tourism economy is built around the beauty and accessibility of our natural
resources. Our rivers, state and national parks, trails, lakes, and other national forests, state and national. Forest, threatening the health of these resources threatens the key component of our economy. Senate Bill 290 would prohibit the ability to play a moratorium on permits in watersheds and other sensitive bodies of water. This removes a key tool to protect fragile ecosystems and respond to threats to water quality and public health. Governor Sanders is placed a
priority on the role AD PhD plays in the tourism economy and has set specific goals, uh, for the department and her administration. We have the goal of being unapologetic and bold in the promotion of our state as a world-class destination for outdoor recreation. Two years ago, Governor Sanders created the natural state initiative led by the first gentleman, Brian Sanders, and has placed a priority on experiences in our state that revolve around those same resources, outdoor recreation and public private partnership.
This bill potential has potential to undermine the premise of what that initiative is trying to accomplish. Easily said the Buffalo National River is one of our most iconic natural resources in Arkansas and the entire country. It was the first natural river, uh, national river in the United States and part of a symbol that makes Arkansas unique. Over 1.5 million visitors visit the Buffalo annually, contributing millions to the regional economy
and supporting local jobs. The National Park Service and our National Park Service sites had over 4.3 million visitors to national park sites in Arkansas, uh, last year. This is a significant source of economic activity from lodging, restaurants, to outdoor outfitters and outfitting tour services as well. Federal and state partners work together to find a balance between the management of visitor experience and environmental protection. Arkansas stands out because of
its natural resources and the pristine rivers, accessibility to public lands. And unspoiled beauty. If we lose what makes the natural state, makes us the natural state, then we lose our identity and jeopardize a massive portion of our economy in this process. I urge you to vote against Senate bill 290. Thank you Yes, sir. Very quickly, uh. Cause I don't know, it's been a long time since I've been on the
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
34:59
Buffalo River. I'm hoping to get back on it before I get too old to enjoy it, which kind of that window's closing, but uh I know how it used to be. 40 years ago, maybe even 50 now, but If somebody is doing an overnight canoe trip on the Buffalo River and they have to defecate. How do they handle that? So I don't know if
Shea Lewis
Unverified
35:23
I know all the specific rules of the National Park Service on their properties, but, uh, they do
have, uh, pit toilets, uh, for. For use, um, and I know if you follow leave no trace, uh, principles, you can also Use the bathroom in the woods by following the trial method, digging a small hole.
Speaker 140
35:43
Burying your feces and then covering those back up. Would you, in order to protect the
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
35:50
Buffalo River, would you be willing to expand the moratorium. To cover feedlots. To prevent them from being built, as well as limiting
Canoe trips to just day day canoe trips so that there would be less chance. I don't know if I
Speaker 137
36:08
have enough knowledge or information to to answer that question effectively. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you answering the questions. I appreciate
Speaker 124
36:13
your testimony. All right, committee, any other questions? Say no thank you, sir.
Thank you. I got Bob Chater. S Would you introduce yourself, sir? How many minutes does he got?
Bob Schaffner
Unverified
36:38
Is this a microphone? There you go. Thank you committee for allowing me to testify today. My name is Bob Schaffner. My brother and I, we farm in northwest Arkansas in Washington, Benton, Newton, and Madison Counties. We have primary cow and hay operations and our extended families and nephews, nieces, and cousins. We compromise almost 2000 acres in this watershed. Uh, we live and work in this
watershed and we feel that Senate Bill 290, which I urge you to support. Provides you the due process provides us with private property rights and provides a farmer in this watershed, the right to be able to do our farms the way we need to. The rulemaking needs to be in your control. And also at the same time, having state agencies to do the moratorium when a KO in this water district was never cited for any violations, and it was
due to perception non not sound science. Also, I want you to also mention that. The quorum courts in 4 of these counties who are in this watershed of Boone, Madison, Newton, and Cersei have done County moratoriums, been the support of 290 and in support of agriculture in these counties, so please listen to your constituents if you're in these counties, that this is very important that the quorum Court has passed. Also, I'd like to say rural
economic area. This is a very economically depressed area. Yes, it's very beautiful, but you have very limited options to produce an income in this area. We also are local farmers who helped support the local school districts, the local communities. We live and work here 12 months out of the year. We're not special interest groups. We're not outside interest groups. You need to listen to your local constituents in your counties. The other thing that we, we'd like to talk about is, you know, there has been less animal agricultural in this watershed, particularly in the Buffalo
watersheds since the 1970s, cattle and poultry remained the same, obviously swine and hog are way down, but what is the one thing that has increased dramatically human interaction, human involvement on the river and as is pointed out earlier, defecation and urination in the river is causing a huge issue. If we're loving this river to death. If everybody is so concerned about the rear. and they're so concerned about a cave through who's not done any violations at all and followed the letter of the law the entire time. There needs to be limits
and restrictions on this river to protect it in the future if people want to do that. The red can policy, pack out all your bodily functions or fluids. There's other ways to do this because we are loving this river to death. The other thing that we talked about is the FTN study, the doctor sharply Big Creek study, there was never showing any kind of an issue there, but yet we also know that there was a open sewage from the marble falls area discharging into the river, besides the cat holes and everything else going on. I just con concerned is where does it
stop? Private property issues is sanctity of a lot of people, and this Kold during the buffalo did not do anything wrong, but yet they were forced to shut down and they talk about the $6 million that was paid out. Well, it was because there was no violation. It was perceived of an interest to that. You know, as I said earlier, this is a natural state, but I am in my mid-sixties for more years than. that, the land, the state was called the land of opportunity, and the opportunity to be able to write, to farm, and to manage our private property, the way we see fit and within the light of
the law is something we feel strongly about. So I urge you to strongly support this bill, and remember it's a private property rights and listen to your quorum courts in these counties that are in this watershed and not outside people that have just got an interest to play. This, uh thank you for my time and I'll take any questions. Any
questions? Thank you, sir. Sorry, I got too passionate about. off. You did good. Uh, Wes.
You got 3 minutes, brother. I'll stretch it 3.5 if you
Speaker 155
40:58
need it. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. West Ward from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture and uh certainly appreciate just the the conversation about agriculture and how important it is to our state and certainly we would echo that from from my role with the Department of Agriculture as well as from Governor Sanders and and really all of her administration just how important that is, uh, a couple points I do want to make, just,
just to not you know reemphasize all of the other points that have previously been made. Uh, we've talked about the importance of agriculture, you know, and the, the moratorium that's been there for 10 years. I know that there has been concern of what happens to the other watersheds. I think because that moratorium has been there for 10 years. Hopefully that alleviates the concern that that would a moratorium would shift to other areas of the state on an arbitrary basis, you know, I think there are specific reasons of why the moratorium is in is in place, uh, the ones that that are there, uh, for a very limited reasons, very specific purposes, and that's
why those are there. There's been no effort to expand those over the last 10. years, but even during the course of that 10 years, there's, there has been efforts to make sure that all of government is working together to help address pollution concerns, water quality concerns in that and it's not, it's not limited to a specific aspect. It's been a whole of government approach where Department of Agriculture, Department of Health, Parks Heritage and tourism, Energy and environment have all worked together to address needs within the watershed. We've had pretty frequent conversations and
meetings uh within the watershed directly and In that area to to work with the area and the constituents and needs the unpaved roads, water and wastewater systems, feral hogs, all of those things that we're doing to help address needs within, within that area, uh, that aside, I do, we are concerned is that the bill as it's currently written is is overly broad. If you look at some of the language where it talks about uh the issuance of permits or any other limitation on agriculture production. It didn't, it, it's, it's broader than just a moratorium on on a
production itself, you know, how Does that go to other permits that uh that that other producers within the state need to have to uh to be able to operate their uh their agricultural operations, so we feel like it is pretty broad. We would also argue that the current administrative procedures Act that exists in Arkansas, gives the legislature the authority. So when that when that law transferred. Rule 5 that transferred to the Department of Agriculture. We had to initiate rulemaking that has to go in front of the
legislature. We do not have current rules at the Department of Agriculture because they have not yet been reviewed by the Arkansas legislature. So we feel like that authority is there, uh, we feel like that that's appropriate for the legislature to have oversight on those rules before they're effective, and that's uh that's our, that's our talking points that those are the things that, that we feel are important on this and again would be against the bill as it's currently written. Thank you. All right, you
Speaker 92
43:45
ready for questions. Markets Your comment about the uh
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
43:52
10 years without this being expanded and everything, I agree that uh Best indicator of future behaviors, past behavior. However, you cannot guarantee. That some environmental group is not going to come down and say, you know what, the Push River is, is, is too nice and everything to allow these chicken houses, these cattle farms and maybe even a hog farm. I'm unaware of any or the cattle gap or or or cattle river or, you know, the Poto River or any of these things, you can't guarantee that some group will
at some point will not decide to go after those rivers, is that correct? Yes
sir, I agree that is true. OK, thank you. All right. Committee, any other questions for Secretary
Ward? Thank you sir. Thank you. our committee, we've got one more witness speaking far and then we'll be entertaining emotion, Michelle Horton.
Sorry if you would introduce yourself for the committee, make sure your microphones
Speaker 161
45:14
on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Don Hubble. I'm a, a beef cow calf producer from Independence County. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, uh. I also serve as 2nd vice president for the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association.
As cattle producers, one of our top priorities is to assure that our watersheds remain clean and healthy. SB 290 is a key step in continuing to protect those vital watersheds while also empowering the people in this process. Like all agriculturist cattle producers are committed to preserving the natural beauty of our state and we're taking active steps. to do so. On my own farm near the White River, I maintain a riparian buffer according to best
management practices around a creek that feeds through my place and spills directly into the White River. Uh, a distance of about a quarter of a mile, and I don't want anything on my property to affect or influence anybody around me or downstream from me. Uh, these practices which are common among many cattle producers are driven by our desire to care for the land and sustain our livelihoods and ensure our preservation for future generations. Additionally, the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association fully
supports SB 290 because of upholds the fundamental right to private property. A principle deeply embedded in our organization's policy and the Arkansas Constitution. In conclusion, SB 290 offers a balanced approach that supports environmental sustainability while protecting the rights of agricultural producers by placing land use policy decisions in the hands of elected officials. SB 290 encourages thoughtful, long-term environmental
stewardship that benefits both the land and the people who rely on it. Ensuring that Arkansas's agricultural practices remain both environmentally sustainable and protected for years to come. Thank you again for this opportunity. I would be glad to answer any questions. All right, committee, any questions? No. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Vol, Senator.
Blake, are you ready clothes for your bill? would you introduce
Speaker 163
47:56
yourself for the committee, please, Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. members, uh I'm a farmer and uh
Speaker 167
48:05
There's many private landowners in this, in this room.
And uh We are Conservationists first. Because we make a living off the land that we produce your food. I think I've been called everything under the sun this past weekend. This don't just protect one. Waterway Or
Body of water, it protects all. Through through our processes. In that first paragraph, it allows us to uh to not agree with the bureaucracy implying a rule. On this, this moratorium. On the citizens of Arkansas and the production of agriculture in Arkansas. Representative Vaut has asked me to uh to close on this bill.
Because I'll speak to it without emotion. Because We're protected Our law in Arkansas our freedom of, of farm. Is only if we don't encroach on our neighbors. That's only, that's the, that's protection you are guaranteed every permit has mitigations in it. Or you don't get the permit. that that encroachment does not happen.
This is, this is protecting all of our waterways and all of our bodies of water. And it has to go through this, this body. For a moratorium. This moratorium is is a moratorium that don't allow an agriculture producer to apply for a permit. That can be expanded in the all bodies of water and all streams in the state. It's limited right now, but
this, this bill will protect it for the future, and I would appreciate a good vote and a vote for the agriculture producers of Arkansas. What are the
wishes of the committee? Do I see a motion? All right, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? No, I have it. Representative Jean.
Speaker 176
50:46
Representative Jean, yes. Representative Shepard, Representative Shepherd, no. Representative Cozart. Representative Cozart, yes. Representative McGee. Representative McGee, no. Representative Whittaker. Representative Whittaker, no. Representative McNair. Representative McNair, yes. Representative. Representative, yes. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond, yes. Representative Wang. Representative Wing, no. Representative Garner,
Representative Garner, no. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper, yes. Representative Bro Representative bro, yes. Representative Walker. Representative Walker, yes. Representative Brown. Representative Brown, Representative Moore. Representative Moore, yes. Representative Kendramore. Representative Kendra Moore. Representative Perrier. Representative Perrier, yes, Representative Unger.
Representative Unger, no. Representative Steele, Representative Steele, no. About yes Bill passes. All right Next up
HB 1900. Uh, Representative Beck, wait till the room quiettens a little bit, and then we'll start.
Speaker 183
52:42
We do have an amendment on this. Yes I, I didn't hear what you said.
I Represent back, would you introduce yourself and let's talk about your amendment. Thank
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
53:51
you, Mr. Chair. Rick back, uh, district House district, uh, 43. This bill is, is Well, you wait a while everybody get the amendment.
I believe everybody's got it. OK, good deal. It's a pretty simple amendment based on what I did was Uh, this bill is basically exactly the bill that was passed out of this committee, the first time it's pardon. Nice's back up again. I'm sorry. This is just a reporting part of the previous legislation and what we did on the Senate end was we we pulled the reporting section out of the bill that passed out of here and I, I
attempted to come to this committee last time to put the reporting back in it. One of the things that we did, there were two things that we did in that bill. Number one is there were some concern on the Senate end that we were actually dealing with Um, defining some of the reporting things in about 325 and 305. And that will confuse the judge and I was told that they'll just throw it out if it's, it's actually trying to be defined in two different sections of the cot. So what we actually did was we took the,
the reporting, just all, this is all just about reporting. The reporting portions that was in 325 and we put those in 305, so we eliminated that problem. The other thing that we did was there was some concern about process as far as the penalties and all that. So we try to incorporate an existing statute that is is in law to do that, and there were some concerns by the committee. About the amount which that did bring a maximum of $100,000 amount in there. So all this
amendment does is it gets rid of the $100,000 amount, it puts it back to where it was exactly when it passed out of this committee and then it moves the stuff that was the reporting aspects that were in 325, it moves them to 305. All right, committee, any questions? Oh, I'm sorry, I probably, we needed to adopt the amendment. I, I went ahead and blabbered all the way through it, but, so first, I guess we'll need a motion to adopt the amendment. So, we have a motion to
adopt the amendment. Those in favor say aye. poses.
All right, you're ready to present your bill as amended.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
56:13
Just what I just said. Are there any questions?
I'm sorry. All right. Represent Beck has explained. This bill And Amendment. Well, he's passing out already. Ha. OK. So your bill as amended the amendment's been approved. And
You're ready for questions on HB 1900. Yes,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
56:44
sir. Representative Jane? thing, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking on the 2nd page and you have the 100,000 is gone, but he says the maximum penalty amount allowed for a delinquency described in 171574709. What is that? Did you strike that? Yes. OK, so the, the maximum is out of there. OK. Well, the, the,
Speaker 203
57:09
yeah, the, no more, it says no more than $500 to 500?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:22
Yes. OK. All right Committee, any other questions? Representative Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and This bill does not affect oil. It does not, any other questions? All
right. Anyone in the audience signed up to speak for or against this bill.
Jim Rankin
Unverified
57:42
Jim Rankin. You introduce yourself, please sir? Thank you, Mr. Chair Members of the committee, my name's Jim Rankin. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock. I practice oil and gas law. I had the privilege of representing Flywheel and our firm also does a lot of work for APro and uh my partner Alan Perkins, I believe you all have seen him here to talk about this bill.
And I have to Apologize from the get-go. I haven't seen the amendment. So I don't know exactly uh how that's going to do that. Thank you, Representative Steele. Um But I will say that uh the language that has not been amended, I believe. Uh, is the change between what the current law is and what the proposed law will cover. And I will propose to you that the new bill adds language but does nothing in effect to change what the obligations are, so
that it becomes curious as to what the purpose of that is, uh, the proposed new language adds more words, but it's still puts on the producer, the obligation to report what the deductions are in the current law requires that those be itemized. Um Aromized by nature of the deduction. The proposed language would simply say that The deduction has to be, uh, set out by nature, purpose, and the amount of each deduction. So you'll see that there's really
no change as to what the new uh law would actually require those, uh, operators. Uh, one of the concerns we, uh, voiced last time we were here was also that the, uh, proposed penalties, uh, even though it is reduced to $500 on the amendment. Our concerns were that these excessive fines could violate the excessive fines clause of the United States Constitution. In the Eighth Amendment, and also in the Arkansas amendment, uh, or the Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, Section 9, which mirrors the Federal Eighth Amendment.
So those were the concerns that, uh, my client had regarding the requirements under the new bill, um. Uh, I would simply remind the committee that all of the reasons that it was not passed in your most recent meeting, uh, still apply here and and for flywheel in April, we would, uh, ask that the bill do not pass. Committee, any questions? Seeing none. Thank you, sir. So Richard Mays.
Richard Mays. Richard Mays is not here. Anyone else wish to
speak for or against the bill? No, right. Representative Beck, you're ready
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:00:38
Mr. Chairman, uh, the bill. Basically, Puts the exact language that was
in the the bill. The only difference is it moved it from 325 to 305. That's what it did. It's it's N35 still in uh we put in 305 because of the confusion about being in two different places. It's exact language pulled over to 305. The concerns that the committee had was $100,000 maximum penalty that we incorporated off a standard procedure that was in the the statute. but we've amended that now to
$500. It's, it's clear in there and I hope that I address the concerns. everyone. And with that, I would Well, yeah, with that, I'll. We appreciate a motion do pass and a favorable vote. What are the
wishes of the committee? See a motion do pass. All those in favor say aye, opposed?
Speaker 176
1:01:57
I believe the eyes have it. Got two hands, roll call. Representative Jean. Representative Jean, no. Representative Shepherd, Representative Shepard, no. Representative Cozart. Representative Cozart. Representative McGee Representative McGee, no. Representative Whittaker. Representative Whittaker, yes, Representative McNair. Representative McNair, no. Representative. Representative Representative Richmond, Representative Richmond
Representative Richmond, no. Representative Wang. Representative Wayne, yes. Representative Garner, Representative Garner, yes. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper, yes. Representative Bro. Representative bro, yes. Representative Walker. Representative Walker Representative Brown, Representative Brown Representative Kendra Moore. Representative Kendra Moore. Representative Perrier, Representative Perrier, no. Representative Unger. Representative Unger, no.
Representative Steele. Representative Steele, yes. Representative Moore. Representative Moore, yes. Your bill's failed, brother. Thank you committee.
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:03:32
OK, Senate Bill 550. Well this could be exciting. Uh, Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to have Secretary West Ward, uh, from the agriculture department join me at the table and uh. Hopefully,
we don't have to recall this, uh, uh, do the vote count on this one. It's pretty easy bill. All right.
Stetson Painter District 3, Baxter County and Fulton Counties. Uh, members of the committee, SB 550 is just renaming the livestock and poultry commission to the Arkansas Board of Animal Health, and it's also in that uh membership, it's gonna be adding 3 vets on there. One is going to be a poultry vet. It's, it's it's own unique. Area uh large animal vet and then a general practice vet, secretary, I also want to state
for the record have the secretary there is nothing sneaky being put into this bill since Senator Hale made him do
that in the Senate A committee. I just wanted to follow suit and make sure that he agrees to that, correct? Yes sir, completely agree. Nothing, nothing
Speaker 155
1:04:47
sneaky, you know, we, we, we have read reread this, uh, to represent Painter's point, uh, it does clean up a couple sections of of the of the law that was not being used by the primary function is to change the name, uh, mostly to be in line with other states but also to recognize the authority of of of
that board and and especially for, for veterinarians so that when they have a license on their wall, it says board of and way as opposed to just specifically livestock and poultry for for veterinarians who may have a small animal practice and otherwise you're glad to.
Speaker 194
1:05:20
Any questions, any questions? Representative Representative Painters, it's gonna impact the
Speaker 225
1:05:24
watersheds in any way. I think we've already had that debate. Uh, but no. All right, any other questions? You're really close for your
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:05:36
bill? Yes, Mr. Chair, I appreciate a good vote and uh no roll call in
the all signed up for or against this bill. I don't want to
leave you all out. OK, and you're closed. Do I see a motion? What's the world to me. We see a motion do pass. All right, all those in favor say aye. Oppose Eyes have it. No roll call. Uh, Representative Cooper. You want to present your bill?
Speaker 99
1:06:12
It is SB 464. 464. Mr. Chair, with your permission I'd like
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:21
a guest to join me at the end of the table. All right,
Speaker 127
1:06:32
let's go there. All right. You introduced yourself yet? Not yet. Representative Cameron Cooper, District 57.
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:45
My name is Joy Ballard. I'm a farmer in New Blaine, Arkansas. All right,
Speaker 233
1:06:49
Joy, pleased to meet you. You ready to present your bill? So committee, I,
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:53
I started. With a dairy bill, I'm gonna end with a dairy bill. Hope you all will uh be as supportive of this one as you were on the first one. SP 464 is a simple bill with the potential to make a big impact for small farmers. I want to thank Representative Vo. Is she in the room for getting the ball rolling on this bill. She had a lot of the language drafted. And I want to thank my friend
Joy Ballard here for her contributions to this bill as well. We want to build on the success of our first raw dairy bill and address some ideas that were brought to us by small farmers after passage of that first bill. So this bill does 4 simple things. It removes the 500 gallon a month cap on raw milk sales. That cap was put in place years ago. I don't see a reason for it anymore. I don't know why that cap was put in place to begin with, but the demand is there, uh, a lot of raw dairy farmers
were selling that max 50 500 gallons a month and so they've asked for that cap to be lifted. It also adjusts the size of the signage that's required at the point of sale. This is something that I missed on my original bill when we uh opened up sales of raw milk to delivery. Uh, producers said, how are we gonna carry a 2 ft by 4 ft sign with us when we deliver milk, and I said, that is a good, a good point, so. The, uh, the sign that has the name of the producer and the address of the farm and the warning label.
Currently 2 ft by 4 ft, we're changing that to 18 inches by 24 inches, which would be much more conducive to delivering milk. Uh, you could get a magnet, put it on the side of the truck to take care of that. This bill also opens up sales for products made from raw milk including butter, cheese, and, and similar products. Safety protocols are included in the bill requiring these products to be refrigerated and for the producer to provide a statement to the buyer that the product is made with unpasteurized milk. So the bar fully understands
what the product is and what they're buying. The bill also includes an emergency clause so that this bill should be signed into law. It will go into effect immediately so that farmers can start selling at farmers' markets this spring. Instead of having to wait 90 days or about the 1st of August. This bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support to add 33 votes. And I know of no opposition to this bill. Valerie, do you have any
I am delighted to have an opportunity to address you all today. I'm a registered nurse with a degree in biology and nursing. I've been
Speaker 239
1:09:30
married to my husband, a retired Army veteran, for 22 years. We have 5 children and we now live on a small dairy farm in New Blaine, Arkansas. For the last 15 years, I have made raw milk products like cheese, from our own farm animals. My cheesemaking skill was born from necessity. Access to local dairy beyond fluid milk has been illegal in
Arkansas. Yet my raw milk customers crave it. While I craft these labor intensive goods for my family. I am not selling them publicly now as the law forbids it. But the demand is very clear. I am asked weekly for more cheese. That's why I support Senate bill. 464 This bill reflects a modern shift to a 21st century understanding of microbiology and sanitization practices. In the late 1800s as cities
swelled, milk traveled unrefrigerated, far from rural farms lacking modern understanding of sanitation. Often spoiling before reaching consumers. Pasteurization pioneered by Louis Pasteur in the 1860s and finally applied to milk 30 years later in the 1890s became a fix. Killing germs with heat. By the 1920s, most US milk was pasteurized, mandated in places like Chicago by 1908 to cut illness, but sanitation and refrigeration lagged bleach, a
disinfectant used for wounds was only normalized in food production by 1930. Chlora after Clorox debuted in 1913. Early dairies leaned on pasteurization because bleach and microbiology trailed. Outpaced by sprawling supply chains, refrigeration, lagged as well. It only arrived in homes in the 1940s. Post pasteurizations rise, but today that's flipped. Bleached sanitation proven since
the 1920s and 1930s and modern refrigeration standard since the 1940s makes raw milk and raw milk products viable. Pasteurization's old necessity fades when farms like mine work to bridge that urban rural gap. SB 464 boost local food security, gross revenues for small farmers like me and trust your consumers who are already free to choose risky oysters, raw sushi. Carcinogenic
Cigarettes and alcohol, all known, all sold with known risks and liability on the consumer. Thank you. All right, committee, questions? Any questions? For Senator Cooper, you ready
Speaker 194
1:12:06
clothes for your bill? Oh, hang on a minute.
Anybody in the office wish to speak for or against the bill. Oh, we do have one. All right. He keeps squeezing my arm, he's gonna bruise me before it's over with.
All right. All right, you're recognized to present your Information What'd you say? You recognize you introduce yourself, didn't you? You
didn't have your mic on, so we didn't hear you. OK, my name is Lily Ballard.
Speaker 242
1:12:46
Good. OK. Hi everyone, my name is Lily Ballard. I'm 18 years old and I'm proud to be here today with my mom. I'm a dairy farmer and FFA member, and a future vet tech.
Speaker 245
1:12:59
I've loved agriculture my whole life. At 16, I bought my first dairy cow, and now I own 10. Last year I was Arkansas State's dairy cattle evaluation champion, and I've been my school's FFA chapter reporter for the past 2 years. This month I will compete in FFA discussion meet where the group will discuss how to connect FFA members, the state's future farmers with leaders like you. I helped craft this bill so I wanted to be here today to explain why the bill is
important to me. It supports small homesteaders like me, starting out with big dreams but small acres. It's tough for new farmers. Land is expensive. But with small scale dairies, I can make it work with just 10 to 20 acres, not hundreds. This bill lets us sell value added products like raw cheese with clear labels and meet consumer demands and helps to keep my farm make a living. In FFA, I've met with kids from all across the country. We compete and we talk and we all see the same thing. Big ga gets a lot of support, but what about
small farms? Not so much. This bill starts to fix that. We're not here to replace Big gag, we just want a fair shot and laws that make sense in today's modern scale farms with 21st century sanitization practices, but old rules are hurting us, are holding us back and make it hard to earn enough money. A discussion meet this year, we talked about barriers to success for farmers big and small. Those barriers are land, money, and loss. This bill breaks down some of those barriers for small scale dairy farmers. FFA has also taught me that young voices
matter. Policy isn't just for grown-ups, it shapes our future. My dream is to become a large animal vet tech. I'll study at ASUBB this fall. I want to help keep small farms alive and help small homesteads thrive. I'd like to thank my principal, Mr. Watkins, from Granton High School for supporting me, hearing my voice today. In closing, I'd like to ask you to support this bill, and I would also like to invite you to the Arkansas FFA State Convention April 21st and April 23rd. We would love to have you attend and for you to have the opportunity to meet agriculture
Speaker 246
1:15:02
leaders and producers for the future of this state. Thank you for your support and for listening to
me. All right, questions? Good job. Good job. Representative Cooper, you're ready to close for your
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:15:19
bill? Yes sir, so just as with our previous dairy bill, this is a food freedom and food security issue. This is about neighbors helping neighbors and doing business with neighbors. It's about promoting locally grown products and connecting Arkansas farmers with customers who not only want to support their local economy,
but also want to be connected to the food they eat and to know where that food comes from. As mentioned, this bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support. It had 33 votes. Let's not let them beat us on this. I know of no known opposition would appreciate a good vote and I will make a motion to pass. All right, committee, we
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:15:50
have a motion to pass. Any discussion? Those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, passed your bill. All right. All right, we have one more bill
here, Representative Maddox is headed this. Yeah, I know, I know. We got till 8:30 though, we're all right. Oh, that's right, we gotta be
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:16:18
back in session at 8, don't we? you Come on Representative Maddox, let's go, man.
Speaker 83
1:16:34
We'll give him a couple of minutes if he don't show up, we'll, we'll gavel out.
Speaker 210
1:17:02
I feel like a doctor every time I sign. Got one minute's
Speaker 255
1:17:21
gone. She's got one minute left. They charge by the minute. but
Speaker 253
1:17:36
I When that little clock hits that 5
Speaker 256
1:17:55
mark, we're. You want to run it? OK. no. to All right I Representative Maddox,
Speaker 170
1:18:06
introduce yourself. First of all, I want to
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:18:11
say that looking at my, this is my favorite committee. In all seriousness. You're my favorite group of people. No, I apologize. I'm really sorry. Can I have someone join me at the table, please? Absolutely. I'm here to present HB. 1981. That's the same number I've got. Thank you, sir. So very simply, um, we, we prepare, we passed legislation
regarding tramways, um, for mountain biking, which was kind of the, which is the lift, and in that we set the rules of liability, um, and it was later discovered that just to be safe and to clarify, we are not doing away with, um, the immunities that our public sub subdivisions of the state have our cities, etc. so I don't really, we don't know that that was an issue, but it was brought to us, so we're just trying to clarify that so there's not a question. Is that That, that's all this bill does.
And again, in all sincerity, I do apologize for being late. So thank you. Committee, any questions? Anybody in the audience
signed up to speak for or against the bill. None. Representative Max, you ready to close
your bill? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:19:27
closed for my bill, and I'd appreciate a good vote. All right. We have a new
pass and Representative Whitaker. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed
Unknown speaker
1:19:42
Thank you committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1675 Womack TO AMEND THE INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS GRADE "A" MILK PROGRAM ACT OF 1981.
HB1900 Beck TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ROYALTY OWNERS RELATED TO DEDUCTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SANCTIONS FOR NONCOMPLIANCE RELATED TO INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ROYALTY OWNERS.
SB464 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING SALES OF RAW MILK; TO ALLOW SALES OF RAW MILK AND RAW MILK PRODUCTS AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN THE FARM WHERE THE RAW MILK OR RAW MILK PRODUCT WAS PRODUCED; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB550 Hill TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH.
HB1981 Maddox TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS OF "OUTDOOR RECREATION OPERATOR" AND "TRAMWAY OPERATOR UNDER THE LAW CONCERNING RECREATIONAL TRAMWAYS".
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 1 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Roger D. Lynch Chair
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Speaker 28
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 58
Speaker 64
Speaker 71
Megan Allen
Unverified
Speaker 90
Speaker 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Speaker 50
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Travis Payne
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 134
Shea Lewis
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 137
Speaker 124
Bob Schaffner
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 92
Speaker 161
Speaker 163
Speaker 167
Speaker 176
Speaker 183
Speaker 127
Speaker 186
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 203
Jim Rankin
Unverified
Speaker 21
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 194
Speaker 225
Joy Ballard
Unverified
Speaker 233
Speaker 239
Speaker 242
Speaker 245
Speaker 246
Speaker 83
Speaker 210
Speaker 255
Speaker 253
Speaker 256
Speaker 170
Representative John Maddox
Unverified