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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Okay, those wishing to speak for or against the bill, please sign in. The first bill we're going to hear is SB 290. Representative Vaught, you're recognized to present your
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
0:20
bill. Please introduce yourself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dan Vaught, 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, 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
that are placed on watersheds in the state of Arkansas. All
right. Committee, any questions? Seeing none, Representative Jean. Oh, we have one here. Go ahead. Miles got
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:31
a question. Will this legislation help protect poultry producers in the beaver watershed? It would.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:38
That was one of the questions that a lot of poultry farmers asked, and some companies were like, how can you all protect us that already are in the watershed? This would protect them in the watershed, and it would also protect any other farmers in any other watersheds because it would come to us before a moratorium was put on. Thank you.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
2:05
Representative Shepard, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, you and I have talked about this some,
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
2:10
but I want to be clear in understanding, as to existing moratoriums, what would be the effect of this bill? So in 90 days, we would want
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:20
them to come before ALC and explain why the moratorium needs to stay there. Again, 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 legislature. Yes, you're recognized.
Speaker 28
2:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, are you saying that the current state of affairs is that ALC has no review authority over this? That's correct. And are you certain of that? Yes,
sir. Okay. All right, committee, any other questions? Seeing none,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:04
Representative Jean. Mr. Chairman, I've got a motion, and we've heard since January a lot of information mailed, the e-mails, everything on this. I think the committee pretty well understands the issue.
And I'm going to make a motion that we limit the debate to 15
minutes per side. All right. All right. Committee, you heard the motion. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Debate
will be limited to 15 minutes per side. All right. Who's
first up speaking against? Speaking against, Gordon Watson.
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
3:45
all right be sure in time yes introduce yourself and uh yes sir the record
yes sir thank you mr chairman and members my name is gordon watkins uh i live in newton county 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. So I kind of look at this from both sides. But I would like to point out one thing.
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 make it clear that our organization, we have encouraged our members to reach out to their representatives and be civil and we have provided talking points. And 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 hope you can see that passions run deep when it comes to the Buffalo National River. That's not to excuse
any uncivil language, name-calling, or anything like that, but so I just wanted to make that clear. Starting off, I'd like to somewhat disagree with Representative Vaught 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 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 authority that's already there. it's an onerous process, and it's obviously intended to make it difficult for moratoriums to get passed in the first place. To require moratoriums to now be reviewed again, and I don't know if this means it's got to be reviewed twice, once under the code and once under this regulation, and not only that, it's got to be reviewed every four 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 four years that's going to make it less worthy of production? So I know that there's a lot of people signed up. 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 four. So I'll cut my time short and give it to my other people that are speaking today. So thank you. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
6:26
Marcus Yes, sir, you said that you're a farmer up there I am 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
6:50
I have 125 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
we've had the oldest certified organic farm in the state of arkansas we've raised blueberries for 40 years we've raised cattle we've raised hogs we've raised chickens we've raised every sort of fruits and vegetables that you can name blueberries were our flagship product follow-up you're recognized and
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
7:15
do you raise cattle now and hogs now i do not i raise hay now Okay, thank you. All
right, committee, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
All right, we have Richard Mays speak for the
bill. No, you're on the wrong sheet there, brother. All right, Mark Lambert. You're recognized,
if you would, introduce yourself to the committee.
Speaker 58
8:11
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 longstanding history of advocating for Arkansas's agriculture industry, which is a 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 in the rulemaking process. Arkansas is made up of 57 major watersheds 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 are consistently top five for brawler and egg
production and top 10 in cattle production. Whether it's the farmer from Keogh, 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 isn't 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 approve or deny permits 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 would sincerely ask the committee to support Senate Bill 290. I'm happy to take any questions that the committee members may have. Committee,
any questions? Senator Nguyen, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Now,
Mr. Mays. Introduce yourself to the committee, and you're recognized to present your testimony.
Speaker 64
10:23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard H. Mays. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock. My practice includes environmental work, agricultural work, real estate, and that sort of thing. And I had the good fortune of representing the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance in a lawsuit against the C&H Hog Farm several years ago. That case lasted about three years and wound up with the state spending $6.4 million to acquire the hog farm and to retire it as a hog farm so it would no longer pollute the Buffalo River.
With all due respect to Representative Vaught, this bill would affect the Buffalo River moratorium and the Lake Maumelle moratorium. We drink water out of that lake, Maumelle. There's a reason for a moratorium being placed on hog farm operations and other things in that watershed. And there's a good reason for putting a moratorium on the use of hog farms on the Buffalo River.
We're talking about hog farms that have 6,000 hogs in them. 6,000 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 rivers and these lakes and so forth that this is discharged into.
These moratoriums, there's only two 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 hearings, And none of that would be required in the bill that is before you. There would be no scientific information given to you. They want to bring this to you because they think they'll get treated better before you
than they would before ADEQ and the Department of Agriculture. These are not political things. These have to do with the health and the safety of the public of Arkansas and the protection of our waters. 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 want to be the one to say, no, you can't put a moratorium on it. You've got to protect drinking water sources. Thank you. Bill, any questions? Yeah, are you willing to take questions?
Sorry. Yes. I was trying to get out of it. I was just going
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
13:36
to make a point of order. The 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 would just ask that we focus on the current bill moving forward. Okay. Committee, any
Speaker 71
13:48
other questions? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. All right. Megan Allen. All right, who's next?
would you introduce yourself for the committee
Megan Allen
Unverified
14:19
please yes mr chairman and members of the committee my name is megan allen and 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
a thousand acres at the foothills of the Ouachita 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. 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 bans, 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?
Unknown speaker
16:24
Seeing none, thank you. We have Beth. Arc Ethel
All right, he's letting the other guy go. Could you introduce yourself to the
Speaker 98
17:13
committee, please? Sure. Shane Coring, Secretary for the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment. If it's okay with you, then I think that I'm going to 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
Speaker 99
17:26
here? We have 10 minutes left. Okay. I'll try to go quickly then. Point of
Speaker 102
17:32
order. Sir? Are the questions part of the 15-minute time limit?
Speaker 98
17:35
They're not. Thank you. All right. So I think what we should do is start by talking about the three things that I think we all agree on here. 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 and is 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 and approval authority over all rules and regulations that go through 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 Maumelle. 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 you already have every rule, regulation, amendment to rule or regulation that is going to come out of a state Department is subject to your full review and approval. What we think this does, 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 would 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 also 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, this could jeopardize our
ability to put in any terms and any permit that is necessary to properly protect a watershed because the way a moratorium is defined in this particular rule. Also, this is Rule 6. NPDES program is a delegated authority that comes from EPA. When EPA reviews our existing statutes, we had a 180-day emergency moratorium. This bill limits that to 90. It also then starts an additional review every four 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. The one in the Buffalo River watershed is very limited as well. It doesn't apply to all agriculture. It only applies to certain size, larger size swine or CAFO operations in that area. We're not trying to limit any other agriculture activities on the river. We never had. This has been in place for 10 years, and it's working. We're afraid that if we start removing these authorities, then it's going to hurt the water quality. It's going to hurt
Arkansas as a whole. And the last thing I'll say is we can't expand. There's a lot of talk about we're going to expand this to a new watershed. We're going to 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 five and six 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 Arkansas.
Speaker 50
21:32
All right. Questions? Matthew? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
21:37
Chairman. So what is the current situation with regard to the Buffalo River and Lake Maumelle? If this bill is not passed, what is the status of those moratoriums that have been entered? So both Rules
Speaker 98
21:55
5 and 6 have a moratorium for the Buffalo River watershed, and then Rule 6 has a moratorium for Lake Maumelle.
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 rule
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
22:18
subcommittee. And so what are those amendments? And then the second question would be, are they in place indefinitely? So the
Speaker 98
22:28
amendments mainly dealing with ag, and I'll let Secretary Ward answer that question, but 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 perspective of Rule 6. But if you remember two 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 would say, the natural resources version of Rule 5 pending to properly adopt and transfer that permitting authority from DEQ to natural resources. So at the same time, we're cleaning up Rule 6.
Both versions, our version and Department of Ag's 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 Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
23:30
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. So just for clarity, I believe you did answer it. But if this bill is not passed, the existing moratoriums will continue indefinitely. Is that correct?
Speaker 98
23:42
At this point in time, they could continue indefinitely, yes. We could also do a rulemaking. We could address that in an administrative process. Both of these moratoriums were actually brought by a 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 there are existing processes in place that could
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
24:10
also bring that up for review. So just to follow up on that and clarify, did ALC or the legislative body approve the existing moratoriums?
Speaker 98
24:18
Yes. In 2014 or 2015, 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'll ask you a question. You don't have
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
24:43
to. It's okay. I understand that entirely better than you might think. But concerning back when the hog farm was there,
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? I
Speaker 98
25:04
wasn't around during the time, but yes, that is one of the potential concerns
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
25:08
and one of the potential issues. Whether it's Lake Maumelle or the Buffalo River, the big issue 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 Maumelle and the Buffalo River? No. Why
Speaker 98
25:37
not? Well, because 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 is karst topography around the Buffalo River watershed. And there have been indications that some of those operations, um, 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 karst topography, large amounts of liquid animal waste, 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 in this one area and contribute a huge, significant impact and further deteriorate the water quality standards? Okay. All right. Thank
Speaker 36
27:05
keep forgetting that. How many minutes does he go?
All right, sir. You're starting out with 12 and a half minutes.
Travis Payne
Unverified
27:17
I'll make it brief, sir. Chairman Lynch, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify in support of SB290. My name is Travis Payne. I raise cattle in Conway County. I am 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, SB290 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 unnecessary government interference. This right is enshrined in both federal and state constitutions, and SB 290 helps ensure that Arkansas landowners, not unelected agencies, retain control over their land. By requiring legislative oversight before imposing a major land use restriction, SB 290 prevents the agencies from making unilateral decisions that could limit how landowners use their property without legislative safeguards, and 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, unnecessary regulations that negatively impact farmers and ranchers statewide, not just the Buffalo River watershed.
SB 290 keeps these decisions in the hands of electric officials, ensuring transparency, fairness, and 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 the power in the hands of you the people elected by arkansans thank you again for this opportunity to testify and i appreciate your time
Speaker 129
29:28
and we'll be happy to answer any questions all right committee any questions marcus sir you
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
29:37
know i know you're a cattleman but say that uh you had a few extra
million that you wanted to invest into 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 longer a moratorium, would you invest that money? I would not because it's not my interest. Okay, let's make it a feedlot for cattle. Would you invest up there? I would. Okay. As long as it was protecting the watershed. I don't believe that it
Speaker 132
30:08
will have any effect on it. All right.
Speaker 134
30:12
Thank you. All right. Committee, any other questions? Thank you, sir. Secretary Ward. Secretary, you want to introduce yourself for the committee? Good afternoon. My name is Shea Lewis, Secretary of the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage
Shea Lewis
Unverified
30:43
and Tourism. I'm here today to speak in opposition of Bill 290. As you know, Arkansas is proudly known as the natural state. This isn't just a slogan, but it reflects who we are, how we live and what we value. Ultimately, this is directly related to the Buffalo National River. Senate Bill 290 opens the door to end protection provided through the moratorium 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 than 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. I 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
for preservation of the Buffalo National River as well as important watersheds against this bill. Within our state, tourism serves as our second 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 a key component of our economy. Senate Bill 290 would prohibit the ability to place 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 has placed a priority on the role ADPHT plays in the tourism economy and has set specific goals for the
department in 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 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 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 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, because I
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
34:50
don't know, it's been a long time since I've been on the 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 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
Shea Lewis
Unverified
35:18
defecate, how do they handle that? So I don't know if I know all the specific rules of the National Park Service on their properties, but they do have pit toilets for use. And I know if you follow leave no trace principles, you can also use the bathroom in the woods by following the trowel method,
Speaker 140
35:39
digging a small hole, burying your feces, and then covering those back up. In
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
35:45
order to protect the 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 canoe trips so that there would be less chance? I don't know if I have
Speaker 137
36:03
enough knowledge or information to answer that question. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you
Speaker 124
36:08
answering the question. I appreciate your testimony.
All right. Committee, any other questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Thank you.
All right. I've got Bob Shother. Shother. Would you introduce
Bob Schaffner
Unverified
36:41
yourself, sir? 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 of nephews, nieces, and cousins, we compromise almost 2,000 acres in this watershed. 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 CAFO in this water district was never cited for any violations and it was due to perception, not sound science. Also, I want you to also mention that the quorum courts in four of these counties
who are in this watershed of Boone, Madison, Newton, and Searcy have done county moratoriums in 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 we have very limited options to produce an income in this area. We also are local farmers who help 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'd like to talk about is, you know, there has been less animal agricultural in this watershed, particularly in the Buffalo watershed, since the 1970s. Cattle and poultry remain 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 river and they're so concerned about a CAFO who has 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 a 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 talk about is the ftn study the dr sharply big creek study there was never showing any kind of an issue there but yet we also know that there was open sewage from the marble falls area discharging into the river besides the cat holes and everything else going on i just concerned just where does this stop private property issues is sanctity of a lot of people and this K-fold during the Buffalo did not do anything wrong but yet they were forced to shut down and they talk about the six million dollars that was paid out well it was because there was
no violation it was perceived of an interest of that you know as I said earlier this is a natural state but I am in my mid-60s 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 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.
Thank you for my time, and I'll take any questions.
Committee, any questions? Seeing none, thank you, sir. Sorry, I got too passionate about knocking my golf. You
did good. Wes, you've got three minutes, brother. I'll stretch it
Speaker 155
40:53
three and a half if you need it. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Wes Ward from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture and certainly appreciate just the conversation about agriculture
and how important it is to our state. And certainly we would echo that from my role with the Department of Agriculture as well as from Governor Sanders and really all of her administration, just how important that is. A couple points I do want to make, just to not reemphasize all of the other points that have previously been made. We've talked about the importance of agriculture, 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 a moratorium would shift to other areas of the state on an arbitrary basis. I think there
are specific reasons of why the moratorium is in place, the ones that are there, for 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 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 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 Environment have all worked together to address needs within the watershed. We've had pretty frequent conversations and meetings within the watershed directly in that area 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 that area. Uh, that aside, I do, we, our concern is that, uh, the bill as, 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's, it's broader than just a moratorium on, on a production itself. You know, how far 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 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 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. We feel like that's appropriate for the legislature to have oversight on those rules before they're effective. And that's our talking points. Those are the things that we feel are important on this and, again, would be against the bill as it's currently written. Thank
Speaker 92
43:40
you. All right. You ready for questions? Marcus?
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
43:45
Your comment about the 10 years without this being expanded and everything, I agree that 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 Fish River is too nice and everything to allow these chicken houses, these cattle farms, and maybe even the hog farm, I'm not aware of any, or the cattle gap or cattle river or the Poto River or any of these
things. You can't guarantee that some group at some point will not decide to go after those rivers. Is that correct? Yes, sir. I agree.
That is true. Okay. Thank you. All right. Committee, any other questions for Secretary Ward? Thank
you. Sir, thank you. All right, committee, we've got one more witness speaking far, and then we'll be entertaining the motion.
Michelle Horton. Sir, if you would introduce yourself for the committee, make sure your microphone's
Speaker 161
45:09
on. How much time has he got? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Don Hubbell. I'm a beef cow-calf producer from Independence County.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I also serve as second 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. SB290 is a key step in continuing to protect those vital watersheds while also empowering the people in this process. Like all agriculturists, 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, 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. 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 it 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 agriculture 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?
None. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Representative Bob, Senator Blake, are you ready to close for your
bill? Would you introduce yourself for the committee, please? Senator Blake Johnson, District 21.
Speaker 167
47:57
Members, I'm a farmer, and there's many private landowners in this room. and we are conservationists first because we make a living off the land that we produce your food on. I think I've been called everything under the sun this past weekend.
Don't just protect one waterway or body of water. This protects all through our processes. In that first paragraph, it allows us to not agree with a bureaucracy implying a rule on this moratorium on the citizens of Arkansas and the production of agriculture in Arkansas.
Representative Vaught has asked me to close on this bill because I'll speak to it without a motion. Because we're protected, our law in Arkansas, our freedom of farm, is only if we don't encroach on our neighbors. That's only, that's the best protection you are guaranteed. Every permeate has mitigations in it, or you don't get the permeate.
That encroachment does not happen. This is protecting all of our waterways and all of our bodies of water, and it has to go through this body for a moratorium. This moratorium is a moratorium that don't allow an agriculture producer to apply for a permit. That can be expanded into all bodies of water and all streams in this state.
It's limited right now, but 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 do pass all those in favor say aye aye opposed no eyes have it
Speaker 176
50:40
representative gene yes representative gene yes representative shepherd Representative Shepard, no. Representative Cozart? Yes. Representative Cozart, yes. Representative McGee? No. Representative McGee, no. Representative Whitaker? No. Representative Whitaker, no. Representative McNair? Yes. Representative McNair, yes. Representative Vaught? Yes. Representative Vaught, yes. Representative Richmond? Yes. Representative Richmond, yes. Representative Wing? No. Representative Wing, no.
Representative Garner? No. Representative Garner, no. - Representative Cooper? - Yes. - Representative Cooper? - Yes. - Representative Brough? - Yes. - Representative Brough? - Yes. - Representative Walker? - Yes. - Representative Walker? - Yes. - Representative Brown? - Yes. - Representative Brown? - Yes. - Representative Moore? - Yes. - Representative Moore? - Yes. - Representative Kendra Moore? - Yes. - Representative Kendra Moore? - Yes. - Representative Puryear? - Yes. - Representative Puryear? - Yes.
Representative Unger? No. Representative Unger? No. Representative Steele? No. Representative Steele? No. I vote yes. Bill passes. All right.
Next up, HB 1900. Representative Beck, wait until
the room quietens a little bit, and then we'll start. We do have an amendment
Speaker 183
52:37
on this? Yes. I didn't hear what you said.
Speaker 127
52:44
Yes, 1900. It's the second time. No, after 1900. Whichever one you
Rep. Beck, would you introduce yourself and let's talk about your amendment.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
53:45
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rick Beck, House District 43. This bill is, wait a while, everybody get the amendment? I believe everybody's got it. Okay, good deal. It's a pretty simple amendment. What I did was this bill is basically exactly the bill that was passed out of this committee the first time. pardon, let me just back up again, I'm sorry.
This is just the reporting part of the previous legislation. And what we did on the Senate end was we pulled the reporting section out of the bill that passed out of here. And 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 was some concern on the Senate end that we were actually dealing with defining some of the reporting things in both 325 and 305.
And that will confuse the judge, and I was told that they'll just throw it out if it's actually trying to be defined in two different sections of the code. So what we actually did was we took the reporting, 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 tried to incorporate an existing statute that 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 needed to adopt an amendment. I went ahead and blabbered all the way through it.
So first I guess I'll need a motion to adopt an
amendment. So moves. All right. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. You're ready to
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
56:08
present your bill as amended. Just what I just said.
Are there any questions? I'm sorry. All right. Representative Beck has explained his bill. The amendment. Well, he's passed his amendment already.
As amended. Okay. So your bill has
amended, the amendment's been approved, and you ready for questions on
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
56:39
HB 1900? Yes, sir. Representative Jane? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking on the second page, and the $100,000 is gone, but it says the maximum penalty amount allowed for a delinquency described in 1574-709. What is that?
Did you strike that? Yes. Okay, so the maximum is out of there? No. Okay. Well, yeah,
Speaker 203
57:02
it says no more than $500. Does it return back to $500? Yes. Okay.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
57:17
All right. Committee, any other questions? Representative Shepard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this bill does not affect oil? It does not.
All right, committee, any other questions? All right, anyone in the audience signed up to speak far or
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
57:34
against this bill? Jim Rankin? Would you introduce yourself, please, sir? Thank you,
Jim Rankin
Unverified
57:53
Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, my name is 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 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 how that's going to do that. Thank you, Representative Steele. But I will say that the language that has not been amended, I believe, 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 it becomes curious as to what the purpose of that is. The proposed new language adds more words, but it still puts on the producer the obligation to report what the deductions are. And the current law requires that those be itemized by nature of the deduction. The proposed language would simply say that the deduction has to be 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 law would actually require of those operators. One of the concerns we voiced last time we were here was also that the proposed penalties, 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 Constitution, Article 2, Section 9, which mirrors the Federal Eighth Amendment.
So those were the concerns that my client had regarding the requirements under the new bill. I would simply remind the committee that all of the reasons that it was not passed in your most recent meeting still apply here, and for Flywheel and APRO, we would ask that the bill do not pass. All right. Committee, any questions? Seeing none, thank you,
sir. So, Richard Mays. Richard Mays. Richard Mays is not here. All right. Is that it? Anyone else
wish to speak for or against the bill in the audience? All right. Representative Beck,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
1:00:32
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The bill basically puts the exact language that was in the bill. The only difference is it moved it from 325 to 305. That's what it did. It's in 305. We put it in 305 because of the confusion about being in two different places. It's the exact language pulled over to 305. The concerns that the committee had was the $100,000 maximum penalty
that we incorporated off a standard procedure that was in the statute. But we've amended that now to $500. It's clear in there. And I hope that I address the concerns of everyone. And with that, I would, well, yeah, with that, I would appreciate a motion to do pass and a favorable vote. All
right. What are the wishes of the committee? We see a
motion do pass. All those in favor say aye.
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:01:37
Aye. Opposed? No. I believe the ayes have it.
Speaker 176
1:01:59
Got two hands. Roll call. Representative Jean? No. Representative Jean, no. Representative Shepard. Representative Shepard, no. Representative Cozart. Representative Cozart.
Representative McGee. Representative McGee, no. Representative Whitaker. Representative Whitaker, yes. Representative McNair. Representative McNair, no. Representative Vaught. Representative Vaught. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond, no. Representative Richmond, no. Representative Wing. Representative Wing, 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 purrier representative purrier no representative unger representative unger no representative steel yes representative steel yes Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes.
Speaker 218
1:03:09
Your bill's failed, brother. Thank you, committee. Okay, Senate Bill 550. Well, this is going to be exciting.
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:03:40
Mr. Chair, with your permission, I'd like to have Secretary West Ward from the Agriculture Department join me
at the table. And hopefully we don't have to recall this. Do the vote
count on this one. This is a pretty easy bill. Alright, Stetson Painter, District 3, Baxter County and Fulton Counties, 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 membership, it's going to be adding three vets on there.
One is going to be a poultry vet since it's its own unique area, a 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 Hill made
him do that in the Senate Ag Committee, I just wanted to follow suit and make sure that he agrees to that.
Speaker 155
1:04:42
Correct? Yes, sir. I completely agree. Nothing sneaky. You know, we have read and reread this to Representative Painter's point.
It does clean up a couple sections of the law that was not being used, but the primary function is to change the name, mostly to be in line with other states, but also to recognize the authority of that board, and especially for veterinarians, so that when they have a license on their wall, it says Board of Animal Health, as opposed to just specifically livestock and poultry for veterinarians who may have a small animal practice and otherwise. All right. I'd be glad to take
Speaker 194
1:05:15
any questions. All right. Committee, any questions? Representative Puryear? Representative Painter,
Speaker 225
1:05:19
is this going to impact the watersheds in any way?
Well, I think we've already had that debate, but no. Okay. All right, Committee, any other
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:05:32
questions? Are you ready to close for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chair, I appreciate a good
vote and no roll call. Yeah. Anyone in the audience signed up for
or against this bill? I don't want to leave you all out. Okay. And you're closed. Do I see a motion? What's the will of the committee? We say a motion, do pass. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
Speaker 92
1:05:53
No roll call? Thank you, committee. All right, who's next? Representative Cooper, you
Speaker 99
1:06:06
want to present your bill? It is SB 464. 464. Mr. Chair, if your permission,
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:16
I'd like a guest to join me at the end of the table. All right.
Speaker 127
1:06:26
Well, let's send him a text and see. Oh, I bet the end's got that. All right. You introduced
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:35
yourself yet? Not yet. All right. Representative Cameron Cooper, District 57. My name is Joy
Ballard. I'm a farmer in New Blaine, Arkansas. All right, Joy, pleased
Speaker 233
1:06:44
to meet you. You ready to present your bill? So, committee, I started
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:06:48
with a dairy bill. I'm going to end with a dairy bill. Hope you all will 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 Vaught, is she in the room, for getting the ball rolling on this bill. She had a lot of the language drafted. 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 four 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. A lot of raw dairy farmers are selling that max 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 opened up sales of raw milk to delivery. Producers said,
how are we going to carry a two-foot by four-foot sign with us when we deliver milk? And I said, that is a good point. So the sign that has the name of the producer and the address of the farm and the warning label, currently two feet by four feet, we're changing that to 18 inches by 24 inches, which would be much more conducive to delivering milk. 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 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 unprasteurized milk so the buyer fully understands what the product is and what they are 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 farmer's markets this spring instead of having to wait 90 days or about the 1st of August. This bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support.
It had 33 votes, and I know of no opposition to this bill. Ballard, do you have any comments? 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 married
Speaker 239
1:09:25
to my husband, a retired Army veteran, for 22 years. We have five 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 cheese-making 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 U.S. 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, 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. Bleach sanitation, proven since the 1920s and 30s, 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 boosts local food security, grows revenues for small farmers like me, and trusts 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? Mr.
Speaker 194
1:12:01
Senator Cooper, you ready to close for your bill?
Oh, hang on a minute. Anybody in the audience wish to speak par or against the bill? Oh, we do have one. All right. He keeps squeezing my arm. He's going to bruise me before it's over with.
All right. All right. You're recognized to present your information. What did you say? you're recognized. You didn't
introduce yourself, didn't you? You didn't have your mic on, so we didn't hear you.
Speaker 242
1:12:41
Okay. My name's Lily Ballard. Good. Okay. Hi, everyone. My name's Lily Ballard. I'm 18 years old, and I'm proud to be here today with my mom. I'm a dairy farmer, an
Speaker 245
1:12:52
FFA member, and a future vet tech. 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 two 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 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 Ag 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 ag 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 at discussion meet this year we talked about barriers to success for farmers big and small those barriers are land money and laws 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 ASU BB 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 Scranton 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 leaders and producers for the future
Speaker 246
1:14:57
of this state. Thank you for your support and for listening to me. All right. Committee, questions?
Good job. Good job. Representative Cooper, are you ready to close for your bill?
Joy Ballard
Unverified
1:15:14
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. We would appreciate a good vote, and I will make a motion due pass. All right.
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:15:45
Committee, we have a motion due pass. Any discussion? Those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Opposed? Congratulations. Passed your bill. all right all right we have one more bill to hear representative Maddox is headed this way yeah I know I
know we got till 8 30 though we're all right
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:16:10
oh that's right we got to be back in session at eight don't we come on
Speaker 83
1:16:29
representative Maddox let's go man We'll give him a couple of minutes. If he don't show up, we'll gavel out.
Speaker 210
1:17:10
sign that. He's got one minute's gone. He's got
Speaker 255
1:17:16
one minute left. They charge by the minute.
Speaker 256
1:17:25
I believe when that little clock hits
Speaker 253
1:17:33
that five mark, we're done. You want to run it? Okay. Okay.
Speaker 256
1:17:55
all right representative maddox introduce yourself first of all
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:18:06
this is my favorite committee in all seriousness you're my favorite group of people no i apologize i'm really sorry could 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, we passed legislation regarding tramways for mountain biking, which is the lift. And in that, we set the rules of liability. And it was later discovered that just to be safe and to clarify, we are not doing away with the immunities that our public subdivisions of the state have, our cities, et cetera. 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's all this bill does. And again, in all sincerity, I do apologize for being late, so thank you.
All right. Committee, any questions? Anybody in the audience signed up to speak for or against
the bill? None? Representative Max, you ready to close your
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:19:22
bill? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm closed for my bill and I'd appreciate a
good vote. All right. We have a due pass from Representative Whitaker. All right. Any discussion?
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:19:33
All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
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 98
Speaker 99
Speaker 102
Speaker 50
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 36
Travis Payne
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 134
Shea Lewis
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 137
Bob Schaffner
Unverified
Speaker 155
Speaker 92
Speaker 161
Speaker 167
Speaker 176
Speaker 183
Speaker 127
Speaker 186
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Speaker 203
Jim Rankin
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 218
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 256
Speaker 253
Speaker 170
Representative John Maddox
Unverified