Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (14)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1045
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1045 Cavenaugh TO PLACE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PL…”
|
TO PLACE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PLANNING A CROP RESIDUE BURN; AND TO ADDRESS … | Cavenaugh | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
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. |
|
HB1680
Act 811
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS GRADE "A" MILK PROGRAM ACT OF 1981. HB1680 Vaught TO PREVENT A FOREIGN-PARTY-CONTROLLED BUSINESS FROM…”
|
TO PREVENT A FOREIGN-PARTY-CONTROLLED BUSINESS FROM LEASING LAND; AND TO PROHIBIT A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY … | Vaught | Notification that HB1680 is now Act 811 |
|
HB1827
Act 817
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE ARKANSAS CATFISH PROCESSOR FAIR PRACTICES ACT OF 1987. HB1827 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUNTING HERITAGE PROTECTION A…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUNTING HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT. | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1827 is now Act 817 |
|
HB1855
Act 818
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1855 Ennett TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING THE POWERS AND DUTIES O…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND … | Ennett | Notification that HB1855 is now Act 818 |
|
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. |
|
HB1923
Act 838
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1923 Maddox TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING NATURAL STATE … | Maddox | Notification that HB1923 is now Act 838 |
|
HB1928
Act 820
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1928 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOIL NUTRIENT APPLICATION AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOIL NUTRIENT APPLICATION AND POULTRY LITTER UTILIZATION ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1928 is now Act 820 |
|
HB1937
Act 821
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1937 Jean TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR MINERAL RIGHTS UN…”
|
TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § … | Jean | Notification that HB1937 is now Act 821 |
|
SB361
Act 576
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EAL PROPERTY OR AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB361 Dees TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPAN…”
|
TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF … | Dees | Notification that SB361 is now Act 576 |
|
SB407
Act 577
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECURE AND DEVELOP INDUSTRY AND FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. SB407 Gilmore TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CATFISH PROCESSOR FAIR PRACT…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CATFISH PROCESSOR FAIR PRACTICES ACT OF 1987. | Gilmore | Notification that SB407 is now Act 577 |
|
SB421
Act 578
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB421 Hester TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSI…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT … | Hester | Notification that SB421 is now Act 578 |
|
SB464
Act 698
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/02/25 @ 7:11 AM) Added SB464 House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Economic Deve…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING SALES OF RAW MILK; TO ALLOW SALES OF RAW MILK … | A. Clark | Notification that SB464 is now Act 698 |
|
HB1852
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1852 J. Moore TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO REPAIR FOR CERTAIN AGRICUL…”
|
TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO REPAIR FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT. | J. Moore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
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
A meeting that will last as long as we can make it go this morning, so y'all are gonna get tired of listening to me. All right. Those wishing to speak for or against the bill, please make sure
that you sign in. All right. Are we done? All right. Representative Beck, you're recognized to present your bill.
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
0:55
You introduce yourself to the committee. District, uh, 43. That must have been an easy question. Uh thank you committee. I, I'm gonna give
you just a little bit of a background of what we're doing here today and what what we're doing then there's really not a lot of changes here, but When we took the bill that you guys passed over to the Senate side, uh, there's a couple of things that came up and that.
Probably needed some clearing up. The first thing was this, we had worked on the reporting aspects which we, we call them transparency, but we'd worked on the reporting aspects of the bill, and we, we, we identified it in two sections. It was one was in 305 and then also in the 325 section that we added. Well, one of the things that happened that the lawyers noticed this and said if you have it, if you're working on a definition in two different sections of code that the judge will
usually just throw both sections out because it's, it's conflicting, so what we did, the first thing that we did is we took the exact language. That Uh, we had in 325 and we just married it up with the 305. So now it's all in one section, so we, we eliminated that problem. The other thing that we did was there's, we had had a $500. Uh
Maximum in there and we changed it to 100,000 and we a lot of you guys have heard that's a lot that's a big race that we did a lot of that, well, actually, what the reason we did that was that aligns with a section of code that already exists in the oil and gas that has to do with delinquencies in royalty payments that the actual statute is the default or delinquency by leasers or others responsible for the payment of royalties, and that's maximum that has been in that
code forever, so we just pulled that into here and we didn't pull the actual the 100,000. We actually pulled it out of the code so that if the code ever gets changes, they will always be in alignment with each other. Um The, the other changes that you will see is where we've we've just Basically took the language as I mentioned earlier, exactly that we had in 325 and we just pulled it into 305. So now all that is nicely tucked together. This
bill only covers the reporting, some people call it reporting. We call it the transparency part of this. This is exactly the same thing that you guys voted on with the only and and vote out this committee with the only difference being the $100,000 and that was done to align it with the existing codes and But
that, um Take any questions. All committee questions. See that Uh Yeah
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
3:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I have a couple, I think, I think if, uh, you said the penalty is the same. But it does say 500 on here. That you marked out the
500 and you're adding it to be. 100,000. That's correct, yeah, I'm sorry I
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
4:20
didn't make myself clear. What we did is we pulled, we actually listed that code that 709. If you go to the, I
have a copy of that right here, but the, the number that's listed in that existing code is 100,000. So what we said is you'll do the maximum, the maximum penalty, it can be less than 100,000. It's whatever the oil and gas commission determines, but it could be up to the max. that is listed already listed in the statute
and that and that maximum is 100,000. Is somebody here from the commission that can answer that for me?
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
4:54
I have another question for whoever's, if there's somebody
here that represents this commission. All I don't, I didn't,
is there anyone here from the? Oil and gas commission. No. OK, then
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
5:12
I have another question for you, I guess, and I don't know that you'll be able to, to actually answer it, but how many have been out of compliance. I,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
5:24
I, I wouldn't know over the last, this has been, this has been, this is not just
Fayetteville's shell. This is all the, all the oil and gas, I do not know how many that
the oil and gas commission has has entertained. I, I, I have no idea. OK, and
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
5:41
then I have one more and I'll, I'll be finished, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your leniency. If you go to line 30 on the first page. Through that line 33, it seems like we're adding a lot of things to be added to. What they have
to disclose, so it's no longer just a few things
that it used to be that they have to disclose on a payment. Now then we're asking them to include several more things. Do we know if they're set up where they can easily add those things. Or is this gonna
mess up what they already have in their computers where they print these off. Uh, so
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
6:21
I'll I, I'll just kind of the first, your first concern first. We're not adding anything. It, it already says all the deductions. That's what's being
what we're doing is listing those those areas, so we're not necessarily adding anything where we're, we're just listing those those deductions, uh, and we, the only change should be, uh, uh, maybe the purpose and amount, but if you, if you think about this, you're a royalty owner, right? You're having deductions.
from your check. Don't don't, don't you think that a farmer. I totally understand what it looks like to have deductions taken
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
7:03
out of your check. That's not my question. My question is, are we not making them list out more of what they're taking the money from, I'm sorry I didn't understand what you're saying. So
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
7:13
we are making them list those deductions, but
those deductions are already being taken out. OK, I might come back in a second, sir. Thank you.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
7:22
Shepherd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh Representative Beck, and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
7:26
I think you touched on this earlier, but I, I just wanna make sure I know
that when your previous bill went to the Senate in. Uh, you look to try to maybe um. Have it only apply to the fateable shell. This bill applies to all oil and gas production, is that correct?
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
7:48
Now, I think it only applies to the gas, but it doesn't eliminate the, you know, the, the, the oil is is eliminated in this section by, by the rule that says that it's uh it At the end of 305, the rule that
was already there that says it doesn't apply to liquid hydrocarbons, but
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
8:09
it does apply your, your belief is this does apply though to all gas production in both in the uh Arcoma Basin and the Fable shell. Yes sir. And it's
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
8:20
worth noting that The drafter of this actually was one of the producers in that play. So they were, they were, they were fine with it. Right
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
8:37
Representative Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beck, uh, He used basically your justification for increasing from 5000 to 100,000 is to use the same. Penalty In, in, in different code in code that already exists. My question is, is the severity of the violations. For that code and what you're trying to cover here, are they similar? I mean, or, or is one more severe than the other, and, and
the reason I ask that is that If one's more severe than the other, because I, I apologize for not being familiar with the code, but if one's more severe than the other, then I can see $100,000 but if what you're trying to Deal with here is not as severe, then maybe That is extreme. I,
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
9:28
I, I understand the confusion there and I, I didn't make myself clear there, but what this is is
a maximum. the actually the oil and gas commission would determine they
would review and they would get the the the complaints for lack of a better term, and then they would review and they would charge the appropriate amount, but the maximum that they could charge is 100,000. So before we had a maximum of 500 and then in the actual code where they, the oil and gas commission interprets it is 100,000, so we just align those two up. We didn't actually list 100,000 in this section, so what what we listed the, the section
that deals with delinquency as far as royalty payments, the maximum out of there, so that these are just two will stay aligned now. If that thing, that maximum got deducted, got reduced or got. increased,
then it would just automatically increase. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry about that. Committee, any
other questions? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to speak against the bill.
Speaker 66
10:44
Come to the table, introduce yourself. Mr. Chairman. I'm Rodney Baker. I'm uh executive director of the Arkansas Independent Producer, uh. Uh, producers organization, APR and with me I have um Alan Perkins, uh, attorney, oil and gas attorney notable here in the state. Uh, we come here. To oppose the bill
Two reasons. First of all, it's gonna cause a lot of additional paperwork. And a lot of paperwork. Um, we're all used to having bills where you have something that it categorizes. Uh, a cost. It may be applied by the energy provider or whatever 2 or 3 times in that month, but it's categorized so as one category to break that out, like Mr. Beck explained. Uh, would take Not only a lot of work.
But also a lot of paper to the individuals receiving that we don't think that's really necessary. We also are concerned about why We want to go from $500 penalty at the most, 2 at most $100,000. Uh, I had a conversation yesterday with uh Lawrence Bingle, who is director of the Oil and Gas Commission and ask him how many times this has come up, and he said, I don't recall it ever coming up. Later in the day, we had a chance to talk to Secretary
Cordy, Cody, uh. He used to be the attorney for the oil and gas commission before it became secretary. He did not recall that ever having come up. We don't see why now we need to go from up to 500 up to $100,000 if there hasn't been a problem with compliance. Everyone's complying. This, uh, very honestly seems to be a punitive measure. If, as I look at it and uh I'll
stop there. I'd like to ask Mr. Perkins to talk about specifics. Perkins, introduce yourself, please.
Alan Perkins
Unverified
12:54
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name's Alan Perkins. I'm an oil and gas attorney here in Little Rock at PPGMR. I represent APro.
Uh, first, uh, I want to try to give you a little bit more context of the statute where this is pulled from so that you, you really get a better picture of how this works. So the current statute.
has this process and um it after it describes the, the blending in the 1st 1/8 royalty payment and all that you've heard a lot of discussion about before we won't go into today, then it has a section that that indicates what the operator is supposed to what information they're supposed to provide to a royalty owner, and there is a laundry list. It says with respect to each such distribution by uh of the 1/8 royalty. The operator shall provide the following to the royalty owner
in paper form or make accessible in electronic form and then it's followed by a laundry list of, of information. Right now, the language that, that he wants to change says any and all deductions from the payment which shall be itemized as to the nature of the deduction. That would seem to cover pretty much the same thing, um, in different words that he's putting in there now. Each deduction and associated amount deducted from the payment which shall be
itemized as to the nature, purpose, and amount of each deduction from the payment to the royalty owner uses more words to essentially say the same thing, but you've already heard. Um, that in Mr. Beck's opinion, this would require a lot more information. That's not really clear from what they have written here, uh, but that, that just brings up the specter of, of sort of a lot of litigation over what does this mean? But what happens today in the statute, what is the procedure
if a royalty owner feels they've been wronged, if they haven't received that information, um, the statute has a process for them to obtain it. It contains a section that outlines a procedure for the royalty owner to formally request the information. And quoting from 305A5C, it says if a royalty interest owner requests information or answers to questions concerning a payment made pursuant to this subdivision. And the request is made by
certified mail with return receipt requested, the party making payment must respond to the request by certified mail return receipt requested not later than 45 days after the request is received. So then the, the, I, I won't quote all the rest of the process. I'll just summarize it for you. If, if after that time period runs, the royalty owner either doesn't receive an answer or is not satisfied with the answer, then it states that the
royalty owner can file a complaint with the oil and gas commission on a form that the commission provides and then the commission will again contact the operator and say you need to give this. Information to them or explain to us why you can't. And if they still fail to do it, the commission can summon them to a hearing. At that hearing, the commission would determine whether or not um they have complied, can order them to comply with providing
the information and can assess a fine up to $500 a civil penalty. That's the way it is today. So what the, the second piece of this, the penalty piece. Uh, Representative Beck's bill, um, crosses out the $500 and then references a different code section, that code section. has to do with deficient or delinquent payments to the royalty owner, and what it says if, if you have not paid everything to the royalty owner that you're required to pay, you
can be summoned to a hearing and the commission can order you to make that payment, and they can assess a civil penalty in the same amount as the dollar value that you have underpaid or not or failed to pay. Not to exceed $100,000. So there is, there is a connection there now between what the harm is to the royalty owner, the deficient or unpaid payment and the ultimate civil penalty here there's no connection
whatsoever. You're talking about the potential for a um an administrative agency to assess $100,000 penalty because someone failed to answer a question. It has nothing to do with money, there wouldn't be um any financial harm to the royalty owner. I understand um that, that they could be upset about that and so forth and so on, um, there this, this creates a couple of problems, and I know you get tired of hearing about constitutional issues, but both
the US and the Arkansas Constitutions have what we call the excessive fines clause and uh in order for a fine, a civil penalty to be, to not be. excessive, um, it can't be grossly disproportionate to the harm to the victim. Um, that's, that's one part. And the legislature must provide sufficient standards or guidelines for assessing such a penalty. Here there are none. It's simply completely up to the
commission's discretion if someone doesn't answer a question properly to assess up to $100,000 penalty, um, even though this is a process that to the knowledge of the director and the Secretary of Energy and Environment has never been used once in their tenure there. That's all I have. I'll be glad to answer any questions,
Mr. Chairman. Maybe any question. Well, thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh,
Rick Pullman speaking far. Uh, Mr. Pullman, introduce yourself to the committee, and I hope you're not going to read every sheet that's in that folder.
Speaker 77
19:20
Rick Paloma, I'm representing the royalty owners of the Fyvie Shell. Um, let me start by saying. We tried to split these bills up because we're getting a lot of feedback.
And a lot of unconstitutionality. Uh, language. From different folks, so we try to make this as simple as possible. We didn't take out all the requirements in 305 that Mr. Perkins just talked about, you still have to send in the certified letter. They still, we still have to go through all the steps before we ever get to the process with the oil and gas commission. And when you get to the oil and gas commission. The code That was referenced. I don't
know if y'all got a copy of it, but paragraph one says the oil and gas commission is hereby authorized to receive and investigate complaints of oil and gas royalty owners that their leases or other responsible for the payment of royalty are in default of their lease agreements, orders of the commission, or the requirements of law with respects there too and to conduct hearings there on pursuit to Arkansas administrative Procedure Act 25-15-201 after such hearing, the commission may order the parties found
responsible for the default that has resulted in nonpayment or untimely insufficient payment of royalty herein called delinquency to pay such honor within such time as the commission deems just and equitable, the amount of the delinquency together with the amount of interest to which such owners found by the commission to be entitled under 1574601 plus as a penalty an additional amount equal to the sum of those amount, but which penalty shall not exceed $100,000. So They're gonna have to do a whole
lot of wrong things, including nonpayment of royalties before we ever get to $100,000 fine. We just put that in there to align it up so if they're not showing us our deducts and it's not gonna create any more paper because they don't send out paper statements, they send out electronic statements. So I think that was a little bit misleading. You get a check stub, you have to go online and look at your payment. If After we send certified letters and we do all this and we find out that those deductions were incorrect.
And the amounts are excessive and they've. Say they've taken 50 or $75,000 that they shouldn't have, then the commission may find them up to $100,000. Nobody in here thinks that they're gonna get fined $100,000 for not showing Adidas. I mean, that's, there's never been one case that's went to the commission that Mr. Bingle knows of because you got a jump through so many hoops to get to the commission. We just put that language in there to line it up with the royalty payments, that's all it is, and I appreciate your time. Any questions by the committee?
Thank you, sir. Thank you very brief. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill, and Representative Beck, you're ready to close for your bill? All right, that was actually went a
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
22:38
little quicker than I thought it would go, but, but I
wrote down a couple notes. You, you're being charged. The payment that's made to you, there's been charges put against it. You should know what they are. So the question is like why do you want this, this additional? Why can't we just categorize it and it and that would, that would be OK. Well, the reason this actually came up was because royalty owners, as you heard in the previous meeting that we had with this, with all this language was in there. The royalty were telling you, we Our leases are not being
followed, but we don't really know what our leases are not being filed because we don't have the detail that we want. That's what, that's what brought this transparency aspect of it. That's, that's the reason for this, this question. The other question was, and about the oil and gas commission and and that. Who better than the oil and gas commission. Who has handled this for years now, years, it's been a statute. We're just aligned it with them, with that with that existing code that's in there. We just
align that, that stuff up to make sure that these people, you know, If You've heard that we're, they're doing a great job that everybody is, is, is doing what they should be. If everybody's doing what they should be, no one's gonna get fined a penny. Uh, if you're afraid that you might not be doing that, well then maybe you could, but all this is there's a a complete procedure, uh, Rick read it to us, you know, is exactly how this goes step by step by step
by step as far as what the what happened before the oil and gas commission at that point they would decide, hey, you know, you shorted this or you need to pay this and all that. So the, the oil and gas commission, I have complete faith that they could do that because they've done. in the past for many years successfully and with that, uh, I'm closed and I would appreciate a motion to pass in a favorable vote. Thank you. Members, do I see a motion motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Uh,
those oppose. That's pretty close. All right, let's do a
Speaker 84
25:01
roll. Representative Jean Representative Jean, no. Representative Shepard, Representative Shepard, no. Representative Cozart. Representative Cozart, no. Representative McGee. Representative McGee, no.
Representative Whittaker. Representative Whittaker. Representative McNair. Representative McNair, no. Representative. Representative, no. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond, no. Representative Wing. Representative Way. Representative Garner. Representative Garner, yes. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper, yes. Representative Rowe. Representative bro, yes.
Representative Walker. Representative Walker. Representative Brown. Representative Brown, no. Representative Kendra Moore. Representative Kendra Moore, yes. Representative Perrier. Representative Perrier, no. Representative Unger. Represented Unger, no. Representative Steele. Representative Steele, yes. Representative More Representative Moore, yes.
Sorry Mr. Beck there bill did not pass. Thank you committee. I appreciate it. Representative Jane, you're ready to produce your bill?
Unknown speaker
26:54
Must remember. This bill has an amendment we'll be passing that out quickly.
Speaker 106
28:07
Representative Jean, you're recognized.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
28:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Representative Lane Jean from, uh, District 99. And I have an amendment today on the House bill. 1937 and uh when we filed this bill, Uh, the air is all on me. We had a, a, a, uh, Uh, retroactive date of, of January 1 of 22. All this amendment does is make the, uh, effective date, January 1 of
2025, which there'll be no clawback, there'll be no, uh, uh, Taxes due back to companies, this, this makes it clear, as you know, property tax is always a year and it, and, uh, delayed, so the property that you're paying today is, uh, this year, in 2025 was 2024. So this, this property tax will not be calculated for this year and be payable on in 2026. So that cleared it up. My understanding
with the, uh, associates of Arkansas Counties after this amendment. They've dropped, uh, their, uh, uh Objection to this bill. So that's what the amendment does, and I appreciate a good vote on the amendment. All right, committee, any questions?
Speaker 64
29:38
I see a motion? See a motion do pass. All those in favor say aye, opposed? Your
amendments adopted. You're ready to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 108
29:50
Members, what this does is mirror a bill that I passed 4 years ago.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
29:59
Uh, that since, uh, evaluation for oil wells. This is just all this bill does is ask gas wells and to evaluation for a warm taxes that are paid by, uh, gas companies. Um, the Association of Arkansas County said after this, Amendment on there, there was no substantial decrease, and if you don't have gas wells in your county, doesn't, it doesn't affect you one bit. It does not affect royalty owners one bit. This is an industry-driven to
help them to simplify the assessment of these gas wells, the same thing, and all we did was take the oil bill from 2022 and adopted gas language, and that's all we did. And like I said, it got 92 to 0 vote out of the house four years ago and 34 to 0 vote out of the Senate. I'll entertain any questions on it right now. Pretty simple bill. Any questions? Saying no, is anyone in the
audience signed up to speak against the bill.
He would come to the end of the
Speaker 115
31:10
table, introduce yourself. I'm Sherry Hicks. I'm the um assessor for Yale County. I did not know about the amendment and that is a great thing because, um, I'm from a large landmass county but a very poor one. Um, most of the oil and gas or the gas that I have is in my smallest school district and they rely on this money and I did not know how we were going
to claw back that money to repay for the change in the recourse back. um, it's, it's, you know, that's one thing we have no business. I mean, two small towns if you blink, you miss them. Small 138 square feet. A lot of our, I mean square miles in our school district, it depends on. The gas royalty, so that's what I just want to say. I, I signed up but I did not know about the amendment. I thank you for that. Well, thank you. Any questions? No.
Representative January close for your bill? Yes sir. Was there anyone else in the audience wish to
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
32:21
speak for or against? OK Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee, uh, I just appreciate a good vote and I'll make a motion to pass as amended. All
right, you've heard the motion. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee, Representative Jeremiah Moore.
Unknown speaker
32:42
We have an amendment that we're gonna pass out.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
33:32
Jeremiah Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the
committee. This is a simple amendment. It essentially. takes uh construction equipment out of, out of the bill. All right, committee, any questions? I make a motion
Speaker 129
33:48
do pass the amendment. We heard the amendment have it
do pass, all those in favor say aye. Those opposed. All right, Representative, you're ready to
present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
34:04
committee. Right to repair is a very unique issue. It's a very American issue, um. Some of you may not be familiar with the nuts and bolts or the idea of what the right to repair is, but let me put it to you in layman's terms, um. We've all had a check engine light come on in our vehicle. When that check engine light comes on. You, as the owner of that vehicle can take it to the dealer. And they can read the code that was thrown. You can take it to
O'Reilly Auto parts. You can take it to AutoZone. You can even buy a code reader. And check it at your own home to see what codes were thrown. You have the right to repair your vehicle and to understand exactly what's wrong with it. All this does, it gives farmers an independent mechanics, the right to access that software and those specialty tools at a fair and reasonable rate from the manufacturers. That's all this bill does, um. This has been a pretty
pretty big issue over the past decade or two, not just here in Arkansas but nationwide. In fact, it's so big that in 2023, American Farm Bureau, uh, got the 6th largest manufacturers, John Deere, KIH Klaas, um, New Holland, etc. to sign a memorandum of understanding, saying, They will provide this software and the specialty tools at a fair and reasonable rate to these independent mechanics and these farmers. So what I did,
The problem with that MOU is that it's essentially non-binding. These companies can exit that MOU at any time. What I did is I plucked that language from the MOU, inserted it into this bill. And that's what I have before you today. I have made amendments regarding ATVs and UTVs and now the the amendment we just passed regarding construction equipment to make sure it doesn't apply to them. It's a very narrow tailored bill, um. I ask for your vote on this bill
because it's an American ideal that you have the right to repair your own property. And we're talking about not just the little farmers, but the big farmers, the little utility tractors to the million dollar cotton pickers. Some of these pieces of equipment cost more than the average American's home ever will. With that, I'll be open for questions. All right, questions? Representative Cozar. Probably gonna be one of those,
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
36:41
wouldn't you agree, but uh, you know, being a farmer, I'm not a farmer, but I'm a rancher, but having equipment sitting there waiting to be used and you can't use it and then you would have to haul it to a dealer, time factors kind of come in play. So when you agree it's a whole lot easier to be able to fix that on site, uh, with your own people than having to take that all the way to Stuttgart, which we did about 6 months ago, uh, to have something done to it. I would agree entirely. Thank
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
37:12
you. Representative. Um, I want to know, do you know if they're gonna charge us the same thing that they
charged the dealer or as a farmer or as my price gonna be
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
37:26
higher than what it would be at the dealership. Thank you, Representative. This does not mention specific prices. Uh, if I were to get to mentioning specific prices or specific percentage points above the actual cost, we might get into a little trouble, um, this
just says they must provide a fair and reasonable. All right, committee, any
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
37:51
other questions? Yes Representative Garner, I've got a quick question and I like what you're doing, but um I
just have a quick question about the software. It, and I don't know enough about the machinery to know is the software patented or do you have any issues with patents
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
38:05
or Thank you, Representative Garner. Um, yes, all of this software is patented it's proprietary information. Uh, this is not making them give it away for free. This is not
making them just put it on the internet for anyone to access all this simply does, it says. You have the right to repair your vehicle and you will not be held hostage by a dealership to have to take, right. Any other questions? You're recognized. Ripped
Speaker 149
38:37
read the whole bill. Uh, is there anywhere in stipulation of in or out of warranty.
This is not mentioned warranty at all. So a piece of equipment that's still under factory warranty.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
39:00
The farmer can repair it itself. Yes, if, if I'm understanding you correctly so
Speaker 149
39:03
would that. And the warranty when An automotive in the automotive field. Um, you make any alterations or you do anything different, you can void. I mean, I don't know,
Speaker 155
39:17
but and and I'll have some of those equipment farmer, yes, and, and that is
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
39:23
an individual policy that those manufacturers may have, um, that if you decide to work on it yourself, you may void your warranty. This bill does not specifically touch that. This bill does not mention warranty. This bill just says you have the right to repair your equipment. I completely agree with, but like I
Speaker 149
39:38
said, I, I think they should know that. You know, uh, if, if it's not, and I might be something in here I didn't I'll say this, if there's
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
39:48
warranty work to be done on your equipment, you have the right to take that to the dealership and have them, uh, do it and pay for it under warranty. And if you want to do it and pay for it yourself, that's, that's
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
40:03
your prerogative. Representative. I am trying to make sure that I understand, so if. Uh, if I decide to take my tractor and I fix it and it still has warranty. Does that not
Void out the rest of the the uh warranty that I have. So you'd have
Speaker 160
40:22
to deal on a uh. I believe in some cases, yes. OK, thank you. All right, any
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
40:42
other questions? Would you agree these warranty questions are gonna be specific to each individual. Dealer and and basically a contract between the individual
Speaker 165
40:49
person and the dealer, and it's not gonna, this has no bearing on
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
40:53
your bill, is that correct? That is correct. In fact, the word warranty isn't even mentioned in. All right, any other
questions, committee? Seen that other? Is anyone in the audience signed up to speak against the bill. Scott Waller Are you here? Yes.
You're recognized or go down and introduce yourself. See the
Scott Waller
Unverified
41:34
Morning. My name is Scott Waller. I'm with United Ag and Turf. Uh, we have 48 locations. Uh Three of those are located in Arkansas to Queen Hope and uh Magnolia. Uh, John Deere dealer.
Um, um, my title is regionalal Service Manager field operations, so do a lot of work, been in the service field for a long time. Um Just wanted to come here and uh state our concerns about the bill, opposed the bill for just some uh safety concerns that we have, those concerns, uh. Go down the list here is, um, We are concerned about tampering and any, uh, of our embedded software and or removal or alteration of manufacture install components.
We're also uh concerned about modifications can lead to compromise safety concerns, uh, of our tractors, units, uh. And also our emission regulations, knowing that uh we are starting to see quite a few. Units are tractors, machines, equipment coming in deleted now, uh, because of modifications that are. Uh, embedded through some of our software or maybe not our software, but people are finding
ways to change John Deere software. Be able to get rid of those. We've also, um, Concerned about the uh customers that would buy something that has been modified later on by possibly not done through a dealership, and it's maybe a concern later down the road in this tractor may have more horsepower than it's supposed to. And then this new customer that buys it has a huge piece of equipment, then has an engine
that blows up later on because of. Uh, these altercations. Uh, furthermore, the language in the bill, uh, gives customers an independent repair shops ability to purchase parts that, uh, dealer costs and that is very concerning to us as dealers along with the fact that we have 1200 employees. We are trying to make sure that we, uh, take care of our employees and make a partnership with our customers. We support our customers by investing in them and on recent
customer visits, uh, the most common feedback we received was that we want, uh, our dealers to have the parts there for us and then doing that we need to be able to, we are a profit center, uh. Company and we will need, you know, to have roughly uh with 48 locations we have over $67 million in parts, inventory on hand. So we are concerned about, you know, Pricing and other things that can come from this bill. Um
So again, when our customers break down, we'd like to make sure that we have parts, uh. There and ready for them and we need to be able to hold that that amount of inventory on hand. Uh, our customers are our passion, and we want to provide them with uh. What they need we are there for them and we don't, we don't sustain ourselves or we're not there if they're not there, so we both rely on each other. Um One of our customers recently
told us we need the John Deere store to succeed and we know that and we need them to succeed too. We want to be partners with our customers. Uh, we support right to repair. We, but we do not support the right to modify. Or tamper with software, uh, we also at United A and Turf, you can visit uh United AET.com and you can, uh, scroll down to our website on there do it yourself repair, and we have all the links and all the.
The ability for someone to, uh, obtain uh customer service advisors through us or through Deer and we are there to support that. But we, we do oppose the right to modify. All right.
Speaker 182
45:41
Are you ready for questions? Not really. Maybe do you have any questions? Yes, Representative Steele. Just, uh, thank
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
45:50
you, Mr. Chairman, just a little further information about uh the modification.
Speaker 185
45:55
Issue in the bill that you have a problem with just we're
Scott Waller
Unverified
46:01
concerned that if we, if the software at this current time software is not the only thing that, uh, John Deere customer service advisor does not release his software and we don't want it to be able to be released and Uh, then, uh, at that time take uh say death, emissions and turn those things off and then delete machines. Or at the uh other side of it actually turned horsepower up, and if, say you had a tractor that can only run 15 miles an
hour and the brakes are only good to slow it, to stop it at 15 miles an hour. Let's say it runs 25 miles an hour. If it starts running 25 miles an hour, kind of brakes, then hold up. So we were worried about
Speaker 149
46:51
that Representative McNair. Uh, we're, we're in the, did you say something in the bill that it says that they that you have to. Sell parts. At your cost What, what did you say about
that, sir. Where's that at in the bill? I would have to go back and review it again. I don't, I don't know that anybody would request. Being, being in business, you can't really sell stuff for the same price you for it. I guess maybe I missed something. Yeah.
Committee, any other questions? Thank you, sir. Alright, Nathan Reed speaking for the bill. Introduce yourself for the committee. My name is Nathan Reed. I'm a I'm
Speaker 197
47:59
a farmer in uh Lee Saint Francis and Crittenden Counties. I'm here today just representing myself. You'll hear from me
later on behalf of organizations, uh, um former chairman of Arkansas Ad Council and still very involved on the executive committee, uh, overall we, we have favored right to repair laws, but, but I'm not speaking on their behalf, um. I guess I would start off by saying major equipment manufacturers, uh, generally 33 X to 6 X more their profit comes from parts of service versus uh versus selling actual equipment, uh, overall that's 20 to 30% of the revenue, but up to 60% of
their operating profit, uh, we've, we've come to a place in the American equipment industry where it feels like they're selling tractors and equipment to, to, to be able to, to do the parts and service, sell that to you, um. And obviously, you would want to protect that if that's what your business model is based on, uh, over the years I've seen it where they've turned it into a major profit center, um, where that puts me and how that affects me, so I am, uh, I like to say my farm is vertically integrated. We have a machine shop, we actually build equipment. Uh, we were very
hands on, uh, try to do everything ourselves. Many of you are familiar right now in the room of how difficult agriculture is, especially row crop agriculture. Uh, we are in a bind. I mean, it is, it is. People are going out of business every day, um, I've made the decision on my farm to do all of our own mechanic work and, and we've been successful at it. Um, I do run some, uh, I guess we had John Deere, uh, salesman here, John Deere, uh, dealer here. I do run some John Deere equipment. I would say, just
because they're probably the, the local dealer we, we've had some difficulty in getting uh Being able to work on that ourselves. I'll, I'll throw out an example, uh, a couple of years ago, I guess it would have been 23. I needed to put some injectors in a cotton picker, uh, you know, we're more than capable of doing that. I have very, very good mechanics, um. was able to find injectors, I guess outside of the John Deere parts chain, uh, but I go to put them in, you need a specialty tool. Well, I take the, the, uh, part number for the specialty
tool to my local dealer and say, hey, I want to buy this tool. Nope, we don't sell those to the public. And so I had to get on the internet and order a tool from a shady internet site. These are the hard tools, not the software, just the, the tools that are needed to install these injectors. Well, once I get them installed, what do I do? Well, you have to go into the computer and enter in, they call him an injector trim code. It's basically a calibration number for each injector. Well, how do you do that? Oh, you call it deeper. That's the only way that you can do it, um, I was able to hire an independent mechanic. I don't know where that software came
from, but he was able to put the injector codes in for me for a couple $100. I mean, my experience has been before, and this is any deal we're not picking on any, but before any work is actually done just to show up at your farm is well over $1000 up to $2000 before any work is performed. That's just the fees for the service truck and the call-out fee. Um. And so it is becoming almost cost prohibitive. At times, especially on older equipment. I run all odor and out of, out of, uh,
Out of warranty equipment and, you know, if you have a tractor that's worth $50,000 that needs what I would consider some minor work that I could maybe fix for 5 to 10, it's generally going to be 10 to 20 or, or plus and so you get into where the, the economic value to repair it is not worth even fixing it. Um, so I, I just, it would on the software side, generally my experience with dealer software is you can't delete delete emissions equipment with the dealer software. I mean, they can't do.
it. Uh, and, and generally most of the software is tailored towards the mechanic fixing it, uh, there may be examples of where you can change some stuff that doesn't need to be changed, but I would say my experience with it is it's very similar to a code reader on a car and being able to, to read the codes and maybe put in calibration for sensors, but you're not able to go in and at least my experience changed the horsepower ratings and and do stuff that would just like you can't do that in your own vehicle for your, for your truck you're driving, uh. On the, on a That has been my experience,
but. Um, I guess that is, uh, my testimony if there's any questions, I'd love to any questions? Uh, CNN. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience wishing to speak
for or against the bill, and that. Representative Moore. Are you ready to close for your bill?
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
52:44
Members, colleagues, I'll, I'll just end with this. It is a fundamental To the ethos of the American farmer to be able to repair your own equipment. And with that I would appreciate a
Speaker 168
52:56
good vote and I make a motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. All those in
favor say aye. Oppose. I have Congratulations. Representative Ball.
Speaker 140
53:16
Introduce yourself and Present your bill. Thank you, Mr.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
53:23
Chair, DM, District 87. Uh, this is the bill that we ran the other day. I did make the modifications. It's on page 5 and it's on line 10, you'll see the modification that was made, uh, for the A constituent who come down and had an issue with that, that line. So with that, I would appreciate a good vote. All right. We have a motion Oh, hang on.
Oh, questions. You did. Russell. All right, we have someone that always signed up to speak part
Russell Thomas
Unverified
54:11
of the bill. Russell Thomas. you introduce yourself? Thank you, Mr. Chairman Russell Thomas from Hot Springs. I just wanna real quickly, 30 seconds, give you a thanks for all the leeway you gave me and
explaining my my family situation, uh, I appreciate all the representatives that asked me questions and um you know, you're working in getting this thing where it protects Americans just like it does foreigners who are here on a visa, so, you know, I hope you do vote for the amendment and especially Representative Shepherd, I mean, he really, I think, turned the tide of understanding that It it really was an issue. So thank you very much. Committee any questions? Huh, well, thank you, sir. Anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against
the bill? None. I have a motion. We have a
motion Motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. I opposed. Congratulations.
Speaker 215
55:15
Thank you. Thank you. Representative Kavanaugh. Thank you. Introduce yourself.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
55:23
Representative Fran Kavanaugh, District 30. All right, you're reckon to present your bill. Thank you, members. I'm sure everybody's familiar with this bill. It's one that's probably been talked out quite a bit. If you live in northeast Arkansas in particular in my district. We're the epicenter of an issue that's been going on for some time, um. We have crop residue burning, which Anybody that's in the Aro business understands it needs to be done. There's a reason for it, and farmers need to be able to continue to do so.
But we have some unfortunate, uh, farmers who are giving all the good farmers bad. Eyes. They're, they're black in their eyes because they're not following good procedures. Um, by far most farmers are good citizens and they do the crop burning the proper way. But in an area where you've got large farms and you can have one or two bad farmers that are doing the burning not properly and not under the proper guidelines. It
creates a real issue for, uh, quality of life and even safety. Um, we've had issues with crop burning from businesses having to close because of it, to soccer games having to be canceled. because they couldn't perform because of the smoke. We're not talking about out in the rural areas. We're talking about out into the middle of Jonesboro, Arkansas. Um, we've even, as everyone's familiar with, we've had a tragedy on 67 from a crop residue burn where there was a multi-car park up pile up and multiple deaths that occurred
from that. Um, prior to that, I was working with farmers on a way that we could try to do some self-regulation on crop residue burning, and I believe 56 years ago, they came up with a self-regulation where they would work with the Department of Agriculture and they would call in, report these burns and try to get some guidance. This was a self-regulation. And unfortunately, not many
farmers took the ability to do that, um, on the day of the Issue on 67. I believe when I talked to represented, and when I talk to secretary Ward, I called that day and said, how many people reported burning that day. My response was, I think it was 2 or 3. None of them in that area. They were around Poinsett County or something. So no one up in any of the area had reported they were going to be the Bernie, and that is really what the catalyst of this problem is
this bill originally started out that there would be a, um, I've made several amendments on it for the farmers because I want the farmers that are doing it properly still to be able to continue to do it because it is important to them. And it's, it's a practice that they need to be able to do, but we have to weigh both sides of the situation because if you're a legislator in northeast Arkansas. This is the biggest call we get. Um, when we had all the big wins last week. We had farmers burning. What happened? We had
lots of phone calls because we had farmers that are actually burning during burn band, high winds, and so were they following guidelines? No, but they're unfortunately as legislators, we know they're the ones we always have to legislate for those that don't follow common sense or or the guidelines, um, I will say I've worked with Farm Bureau, rice Federation on amendments, um, they're still not comfortable with my. Bill and I'll tell you the one thing they're not comfortable with my bill on is because they say they shall report to the
Department of Agriculture when they have a burn. They would like it to say May report. Well, here's the reason I'm not saying May is because we already have that. So I'm not changing anything. So all I'm asking is that they report their burn, follow the guidelines that they're going to be a part of to set so that we have proper smoke management. And then when they do that, they get liability protection, just like we did for the forestry industry and still that's really what this is based upon. Now, are they comfortable with
the bill? No. But at some point in this conversation, we have to realize in a particularly in Northeast Arkansas. We're at a catalyst moment for these farmers up there, that if we don't find a way to regulate it so that the general population who don't understand why farmers do it and why they need to do it. They're gonna outweigh the voice of the farmers, and I'm very much
afraid that this tool that they need to be able to use if We don't properly regulate it, it's gonna be taken away from them. And that's really what my goal is, is because I'm from a real crop farm family. I understand why we do it and I understand the need to do it, but I also understand and have a great fear that if we don't address it now. Because my district is the epicenter. That it's gonna get out of control and there won't be any burning and that's not what we need for farmers, as we all understand it is so hard to be a farmer.
And we've all said this before, how many people buy retail and so so and sell wholesale. It's a business model. It's hard to make profitable to begin with. And it just gets harder, so we don't need to take opportunities away from those that do it properly. You know, I've had suggestions from Ag council. Let's do it as an incentive to incentivize them to do crop burning. I am all wonderful with that. I asked them to bring me a bill and I would run that bill along with this. They did not bring me a bill.
All they did was say, we want this to say May. We want this, we want that, but there was nothing that said. That we're going to work to address these issues beyond saying we want this to say mate. And I'm a, I guess. I'm a little frustrated. Because I did make multiple amendments, took out the fines, gave them the FOIA exemption that they wanted, all in a way to try to get this so that we can balance both sides of the, of the problem. It is not Happened
But I do feel my district, if I don't run this bill and we don't address it, I have failed two parts of my district, the ag. Because I'm afraid this tool that they need is going away, and the general population that is suffering from the bad players and all the smoke that we get. And with that I'd take any questions. All right, any questions? Representative
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:02:02
Steele, one quick question. Representative Kavanaugh, how close does uh burning come to the ASU campus. A miles probably so significant
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:02:11
it's close. Yes, sir. represent Poer. And Representative Kavanaugh, what, what is the penalty if they don't follow this? And I, I didn't see it in there
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:02:25
as the penalty because they felt that they getting the liability protection was going to be enough opportunity for them to want to be able to follow the guidelines. OK, so there
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:02:33
is no there is no penalty at all. OK, thank you, thank you. Representative Younger.
Speaker 225
1:02:42
Representative Kavanaugh, I'm, I'm on the other side of the
Speaker 226
1:02:45
state. I If they are burning during a burn ban. They've broken the law. They haven't. Farmers are exempt from burn bans.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:02:55
Crop residue burns are exempt from burn bans. Thank you. All right, Representative Ball. I
Speaker 228
1:03:01
would say not all farmers are banned during that time because we can't
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:03:05
burn if. Just your cattle farmers and stuff can't burn. There's a burn ban, but crop is correct.
Would you agree? I representative Perrier said was asking about the fine, but the fine
is, they don't have the liability, so there was that farmer responsible for the barn getting out. Correct. That would be his, that's the fine is he would have to pay or she would have
to pay because they no longer have the liability. Correct. Uh, I'll, I'll give some context to that. So I'm
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:03:41
thinking, I, I'm not from, you know, your side of
the world, uh, my way, these farmers utilize this sometimes 2 to 5 years, you know, how do we, you know, let these guys know. I, I didn't want to make sure we didn't put them in a situation to get a fine where they, so that, that's the context of that. It's a different world where I'm
Speaker 234
1:04:03
from the Eastern and this is crop residue burning only, we
Speaker 237
1:04:07
got a few flat places up there. I Not
many. All right, any other questions, committee? Represented my
Speaker 238
1:04:16
So, thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm not, I, I don't do any
Speaker 228
1:04:21
crap residue burning, but, but we do control burning. What kind of, what Rule and regulation where these people have followers. This they just called and reported that we're going to have a burn today or, or they have to follow all the other stuff like the certified burners and I didn't go
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:04:36
down the route to make them be certified burners. I didn't want to create another level of lozenger that they were going to have to do. So what it says is they'll basically follow the um smoke guidelines, voluntary
guidelines, and those, and you notice in the bill, it gives us about a year or more to come up with those guidelines and will be administered through the Department of Ag. And then all that gives us time for all the stakeholders to come in and look at those guidelines and make sure, number one, they work for the farmers that we're not putting guidelines in that they just cannot meet. That's one thing. Currently the guidelines that we have don't work and so we know that, so that's why I wanted to give us ample time to work with the Department and the farmers to make sure that the guidelines that we have are going to work, and that's what that's for.
Speaker 238
1:05:18
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Wayne, just a quick question. So with regards
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:05:22
to those guidelines. Those include, um, So if they call in and and say, hey, I'm going to do a burn today and then let's say 5 neighboring farmers are all going to do the same with the Department of Ag be able to say, well, hey, we need to stagger you. Is that going to be part of the rules? What they currently have is an app that you
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:05:40
can actually go on and be honest with, it's not a real friendly app, um, so the department is willing to make changes to that app as we go through so that it
can be seamlessly so they don't have to call so they could pull up an app to do it. In that discussions with the Department of Ag, we've asked if they can take in to how many farmers around. They have to look at, I think it's carbon in the air and different things, but also we've asked, can they start looking at meteorology and can they look at the winds and stuff that will be more apt so they can know. Currently, the guidelines are so restrictive that they don't work for crop residue burning. So, um, with this and with new guidelines coming from the feds, we're hoping that will, if, if
actually free them up more so they can actually burn more. So that's why the current guidelines don't work. They work wonderful for the forestry item, but they don't work for crop residue and that's why we've got to work on that. So it will look at many different things. All right, thank you. All right, committee, any
other question? Marcus I'm sorry, but just Help me out here. How is this
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:06:45
going to help? prevent Like the accidents that were on the highway and the canceling of
soccer games and things, just to clarify that just a little bit for me.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:06:55
With the smoke guidelines that will be developing, they'll help us, you know, they can burn if it goes up, there's no problem, but if it's not going up and it's going out into whether it's populated area or over a highway, that's the problem. And so if we can get the guidelines that they'll follow, so instead of burning when it's gonna go across a highway, or it's going to go into a city where there's a field and it can go up. So There's different guidelines they can do and be honest with you, most farmers already look
at those things, but I'll say again, unfortunately, we have some that have not that have caused a creation created this problem for all farmers. All right, any other
questions? Saying none, we have 2 signed up to.
Speak against the bill. Now Brantly, Are you here? Introduce yourself for the
Speaker 250
1:07:51
committee. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thanks for having me today. My name is Da Brantley. I farm with my father and our
Speaker 251
1:08:04
partner Matthew Marsh in England, uh, just 25, 30 miles from here. In addition, I'm here today representing um the uh rice industry. I chair the Arkansas Rice Federation, so glad to be here and thank you for everything that you guys do for us. Uh But today I'm here as I said, as
chair of the Arkansas Rice, and we do not support, cannot support. Uh, this bill, uh, as it is presented here today. I have just a few concerns be very quick and would love to answer any questions that you all have. Burning is a valuable tool for us. It helps sets us up for the next year's crop. It's very cheap, uh, for us to do, prepares us for the next season. Yes, it is very dangerous. We work very hard to do it and do it the right way as Representative Kavanaugh said,
we have always have a few bad apples and oh there's that have caused lots of problems. Let's not let those bad apples hurt the rest of our industry. The cost of burning that we could talk about today, uh, again, it's just my opinion, but it would vary from $30 to $100 an acre depending upon the season. Um I'll give you some real world examples of what not being able to burn means, uh, in 2019 and
2021, extremely wet falls. We were unable to burn our crop. That spring. That continued to stay wet. On our farm and many of other farms in our communities, we didn't plant half of our crop that year simply over the straw on the ground and not being able to get into the fields timely. If we are not able to burn, we will have those real world examples year after year. Uh, and that will affect not only the state but our local communities by not being able to have a crop. And when I do give
you those two examples. My father, who's been in the business over 50 years has only ever missed two crops, 19 and 21, as I mentioned. Earlier Um The other issue that we're reason we're opposed to this is our current situation that we live in today. 24 this past year, we had record yielding crops. We should have been putting money in our back pockets to Prepare for the next storm. Today we have record losses. We have a record number of farm
sales in this state going on today, highest it's been since the 80s. We cannot control our cost. We cannot control the weather. We do not need any more mandates or regulations that increase the cost of our production. We will work and I will promise you we will work to promote these voluntary guidelines that we have just been using for a few years. I want to make them better. I think everyone in the industry wants to make them better, and I would vow to improve that.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and give you my thought and
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:11:05
opinion, you have a question. Thank you, sir. Um, I don't see anywhere in this bill, uh, where
she's getting rid of burn, burning residue. Can you show me where you think that's at in this current bill
Speaker 254
1:11:17
right here where it where it's stopping it, it doesn't. It it it she mentioned
Speaker 251
1:11:22
earlier, it says that we. Um, shall
we don't want another mandatory regulation that requires us to do something that will have a higher expense at the end of the day. OK. This, in my opinion, and you didn't ask me. This is a problem in a very small area. No, I know. I agree. Let's don't let this carry off for the rest of the state and the rest of this industry, right, and I agree that it's a small part
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:11:49
of the state, um, but when we have part of the state, but when we have people die due
to the fact that we have farmers that are not
in compliance with the voluntary. They're obviously not following the voluntary rules right now, and they won't, even if we leave it voluntary, and we actually should be,
and I'm a big farmer. My, we've got right at 2000 acres. We farm lots of different things. We did this for trees last time, um, and had no trouble with, um, Setting the guidelines.
For the trees. I think that this bill not only protects The consumers who were driving on the road, but it also protects farmers who are next to. Maybe next to a bad actor. Who could actually catch their crop on fire because they didn't take any type of protocols or look at anything to decide. So this not only protects a consumer. It's also protecting a farmer who might actually live close to say your, your place
and say you started the fire and that fire jumped over into, which is what happened. And it jumps and it gets into your land. Then that farmer that caught your land on fire and, and, uh, destroyed your crop is now responsible for what he did to you also. So I don't see how. That's a bad thing. I really don't. I mean, I'm, we're
livestock farmers, we have to follow lots of guidelines. We have lots and lots of red tape that we have to do uh for our
hog farm, um, to make sure that we keep people safe. Uh, we did for the dairy too. There's lots of guidelines that you have to follow to have a dairy up and running. And it's for the safety of the consumer, um. And I, I see this as something that. is for safety. And not being mean or malicious to anybody, but trying to protect, uh, not only. The people who are around it, but also the farmers around that, and I'd like to know. Wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 250
1:14:06
How about I'll do it that way. Sure, I'll agree if you'll allow me to elaborate in my community, we work very hard every year as
Speaker 251
1:14:18
we're burning. We, we, uh, have a text chain from a local buyer that works with us to make sure we all remember the Thursday night, Friday night football games. We have a prevailing south wind, don't burn if you're south of town. We work very hard to do that. Um But what happens when we make
this mandatory is in, in the app and Representative Kavanaugh mentioned the carbon and some of this stuff that gets over my head. We're all going to learn that we can't burn all this straw at the same time, the same day. In in if we can't burn it, what does that mean? 234 years from now. In my biggest fear and all this that I didn't say earlier and I think it was representative Unger that asked the question. We grow 1.5 million acres plus or minus of rice every year. You leave that straw laying out there, ma'am, and we have the lightning strike. We have a damn
big problem part my language, I agree that that concerns me more than uh my ability and people in my community to burn and do it safely. It is very sad and unfortunate that someone was killed. But that should be the responsibility of that individual farmer that started that, but it's not because it was a voluntary, it's a voluntary
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:15:29
program. So we would mandatory. Mhm It makes him they wouldn't allow that
Speaker 250
1:15:42
accident to stop that accident. And I'm not here to talk about an accident that is sad situation and one of our
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:15:51
biggest fears. So can I ask a question of Secretary Ward if he's here. Secretary
Ward You come to the table. You introduce yourself for the committee.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:16:12
Yes, sir. West War Department of Agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I know we did this with trees. And has it stopped anybody from being able to burn. When they needed to burn. For the trees. No, ma'am, not to my knowledge. I,
I think they're all so his um. remark was, if there's several in his area that want to burn. Is there something in the bill that would keep them from being
able to for you to for you. Cause it's you, right? Y'all's department. Is there something that keeps y'all from ing. If, if everything is right for the burn to happen. So we don't have a lightning strike
and because I don't want, I mean. Obviously I don't want that and I believe in burning, that's why I talked her off the ledge to not do a complete ban of burning because I know how important it is. Yes, ma'am, and uh, You'll give me a little bit of leeway, so I, I think this kind
Speaker 262
1:17:15
of goes back to uh representative Kavanaugh's point about uh updating the app and the guidelines, so I, I think. I think there's some work that has to be done there, uh, and as the, as the bill reads it says in compliance, so, so if, if there were multiple producers who were trying to burn in a specific area at at at the same time you would overload that air shed and, and the dispatch or the app currently would have to say. They would have to tell a producer, you, you cannot burn right now. And a producer would have to make that decision. Do I?
Do I burn because I've got a limited window with limited availability or what or what and be out of compliance with those current guidelines so that that would be the, the catch is that there's there's gotta be some work done to update the guidelines in the app to make sure that it is accurate for producers to be able to use to help make that decision. Right Committee, any
other questions? Representative Wayne? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I wanted to
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:18:11
reiterate just a little bit, I don't think anybody's asking to not have burning. I, you know, at least here on this, um.
Uh, within this bill. Oftentimes the legislature has to get involved whenever groups or individuals don't police themselves and so that's I think why we've got the bill here before us today because we've got a problem that needs a solution, and it's great when people can handle this themselves, but when it doesn't, then they reach out to the representatives. That's what we do. This is the process. So do you have any kind of self-policing that you can offer that would, uh, strengthen things from where they are right now so that we don't have those. situations like what we've had
both the tragedies and at the low end, the severe inconveniences. The only self-policing
Speaker 251
1:18:56
we have was the idea of the app working with the State Department, making this voluntary. Our biggest issue is money. And uh funding uh education would be the biggest, the best thing I think we could do from Arkansas ice is making sure farmers know that hey, we have a voluntary system. You need to use it. But we have been very limited in our funds and what we've, but there's no teeth for anybody who
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:19:23
breaks that and then ends up with a very tragic situation that we've brought up here. No, sir, OK, not from our side, not from
Speaker 253
1:19:28
our industry. OK. All right, thank you. All right, committee, any other questions? Thank
you. Thank you. We have one other person signed up to speak against the bill.
Speaker 197
1:19:54
Nathan, hello again. Thank you for the opportunity. Again, I'm Nathan Reed, uh, from Marianna, Arkansas, a farming League, Crittenden and Saint Francis Counties, uh, I am here now representing Arkansas Ag Council, um, it is a row crop agricultural organization. I'm sure most of you are familiar with, uh, we represent all commodities in the delta, um, first off, I'd like to state by try not to repeat what Dou said too much, but, uh, crop residue burning is a, a, uh.
Much-needed ag practice, uh, in addition to what he stated, uh, We have a lot of farmers are signed up with NRCS and with different conservation programs and when you have this uh crop residue you gotta get rid of it somehow and usually that's either through tillage or burning. Well, the problem is, is, is we're contractually obliged in a lot of cases to not do tillage, uh, and so really the only option we have to get rid of this residue to clear off for the next crop would be to, to burn it. So it is a very important and it has become a
more important um um agricultural practice. this push towards minimum tillage, no till, uh, things such as that. Um. While we appreciate the bill was, was amended to eliminate, uh, the penalties for enforcement, um, it still is another regulation that we're subject to and the, the mere amount of regulations in, in different regulatory actions that we're subject to as farmers. I mean, it's almost like, like, uh. You feel at times kind of like
when the game warden stops you hunting, he can find some while you're breaking and we feel like we're, we're kind of to that point in Ag now, uh, between state and federal regulations. Um, I guess another duty of mine is I volunteered, I'm, I'm on the Arkansas plant board, um, you know, the, the no funding for this concerns me. uh, where do we get the money to, to implement this, uh, you know, we've, we've had issues in the past, passing restrictive laws on farmers at the plant board was supposed to enforce and it, it's not that they, they didn't try, but they just don't have the
manpower, um, you know, certain chemicals were, were banned from being sprayed at certain times and, and what the plant board found out is, is if a farmer doesn't really want to be regulated, it's very hard to regulate them. And, and I don't know if that speaks well in our industry or not, but this, this does place uh I would say an undue burden on the Department of FA. Uh, so, um, And 3, we do recognize that, that there is an issue, um, but, but. Where I farm, I've got farms
that are 10 miles from a paved road, no, no house within 5 miles. And I feel like this is a band-aid patch for the whole state. It's that, that makes me subject to regulations that generally don't apply to me. And, and so I, I feel like we're trying to take a regional issue and, and Make that across the whole state. So that, that is a major concern, um. We would prefer for this to be a voluntary program. Uh, I don't feel like the app has gotten a
fair shake. It's, it's very new, um, there still is a massive education effort. Uh, we do appreciate the liability protection and to me and, and, and our organization, we feel that we kept this voluntary but provided that liability protection, you would see massive adaptation of the app and, and could, could accomplish what we're trying to accomplish, uh, without additional regulations would be my. Um, my take on it, so thank you very much. I'm willing to take any questions, any questions? Yes sir Marcus.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:23:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you said, Refer to this as a band-aid application and, and. And right now, I understand, you know, that you have a few bad actors and it's kind of like gun laws, you're trying to fix bad actors and you're bringing in all the good actors too while you're trying to take care of a specific individual that may not be able to be taken care of. The concern Is that This is a soft glove approach, in my opinion, of trying to
correct the problem. And that if, if this doesn't get corrected and it doesn't seem like you're able to self-police successfully. Then there's going to be another accident. There's going to be another situation that's going to happen and instead of a scratch, you're going to have a sucking chest wound, and we're going to come in here. And we're going to load you down with some really serious regulations, so again, I just think that you're gonna have to look at this very carefully. And decide how you're going to
approach it because something else bad will happen in the future, and you guys are going to be the ones, the good actors. will be the ones that pay the heaviest price for it. Do you agree? I would say that
Speaker 197
1:24:50
I guess burning has become probably more prevalent in the northeast part of the state with the massive adaptation of rice. It's never been an issue in my area and I wouldn't say band-aid, but I'm saying I feel like we're trying to regulate a
a problem in a specific area and make the whole state subject to it where there may be, I guess my concern is, is that I don't feel like this app and some other things have gotten some fair shake, a fair shake. I feel that an incentive-based approach, which is, is essentially what she's what what this bill offers with the protection for liability, if that could just be made an incentive instead of a a requirement, I think you would see. massive adaptation of the app. Um, people are still subject. If I go out and burn next to a
highway and have issues, I mean, that, that. I think that I would still be subject to the liability of any problems, correct? Am I correct on that? If I mean if, if there's a wreck because I'm obscuring the highway, I still think it's a farmer, I would still be liable right now. I mean, so, so there is that aspect of it that, that I don't think that they're just all of a sudden off the hook undercurrent. Laws. So, but I do agree something needs to be done. We would, we would much prefer an
incentives based approach rather than more regulations because once regulations happen, it's very hard to dial those back. And there's not a lot of teeth to this anyway to, to. The regulations there, but the, the, there's no funding and there's no uh there's really not a lot other than you're liable for it, uh, if we don't. If we don't comply. But I would, I would encourage more education and more uh try
to do more voluntary adaptation of the, the app.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:26:44
Follow And what is your organization, what have you and some of the other organizations done. To identify the bad players. And maybe have conversations with those bad players. Well, we're not an enforcement organization. I'm not asking to enforce. I'm asking you, you know, you're saying voluntary, we want to be voluntary, but what have you done, I would think that because you don't
want more regulations that you would be proactive. In trying to identify the people who just don't want to do it and say, hey, listen, you're putting this all at risk. I mean, that's just. Common sense.
Speaker 197
1:27:25
That's not asking for enforcement we've had Andrew Grubmeyer is here, our, our executive director, and we have had lots of educational outreach as much as we can, which we're a small organization. We have one staff member. I mean, we're totally voluntary. Feels like it's a job at times, but it's, uh, so, so we have, we
have done what we can do on the educational front. Try to, try to push this out. But again, like in my area, it, it, I've never had an issue. Nobody's, I mean, it's not anything that came up. So if I'm not a proactive farmer that's going to meetings and active in organizations, I really wouldn't know about this. You know, that there was even a problem because we're so rural and so that's where I think and I, and I agree with this liability protection. I think if it was, if the app was optional, but if you, if you signed up and did everything right, you had this liability protection. I
think you would see massive adaptation of this without a regulation. On the backside requiring it. It Yeah, any other questions? Cooper. Thank
Speaker 192
1:28:24
you for being here. Thank you for your testimony.
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
1:28:30
If, uh, if we were to identify zones of the state where we wanted to focus on maybe tightening some regulation on this instead of it being a statewide blanket approach. Do you think that
would be more acceptable. I might have to defer
Speaker 278
1:28:46
to Andrew Grubmeyer as far as our organizations,
Speaker 197
1:28:48
uh, but I can speak personally that, that I think that would be a good idea to, to wear the, take care of where the problem areas are maybe versus just applying something to the whole state. All right. Committee, any other questions? See you man. Thank you, sir. Thank you.
You did real well. All right, is there anyone else in
the audience that wishes to speak for or against the bill?
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:29:19
CNN Representative Kavanaugh, you're ready to close for your bill? Mhm Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Just to clarify, this is not a bill to burn ban. To ban burning. Yeah a long session, as we all know, and this isn't a requirement that they get approval from the Department of Ag to burn. All it says is that you will report to the Department of Agriculture when you burn.
And if you follow these guidelines that the farming industry and the ag industry is going to be a part of developing, if you follow those, you'll get liability protection. And oh by the way, the information's not fullyable, so that you've got protection. That's all this bill does. As representative Richmond said, it is the soft hand approach. I'm not Finding the bad players.
When that bill was first approached, the fines freaked everybody out. Which I understand. I'm not big on regulation, but I'm also not big on self-regulating when you've had 6 to 7 years, and it's not been successful, and it has called death. It has caused health issues and instead of getting better, it's getting worse. And so I think.
As someone who understands the importance of why they have to burn. I'll say again, if we don't do something. This practice that they need desperately to farm, is going to go away because the outcry from the citizens are going to be so great. And we have to find a way to balance both of those, and that's what this bill is trying to do. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. All right. Committee, you've heard
testimony. Do I see a motion? Do The motion do pass. All those in favor say aye opposed. Eyes have it. Uh, Representative Maddox.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:31:53
I Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I have some people come to the table with me. Would
Speaker 40
1:32:02
that be OK? That'd be fine. They're already here, I
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:32:08
know. John, John Maddox's State Representative District 86. Katherine Andrews, director of the
Speaker 293
1:32:12
Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation. Becky Flynn, deputy director of the Arkansas Office
Speaker 294
1:32:18
of Outdoor Recreation. OK, I'll start and I'll be extremely brief, and I think
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:32:24
this is gonna be a very brief presentation, but I always like to have someone
here to answer other questions if there are any. So in 2023, we did the natural state initiative and we created what was called the Opportunity zones, um, and it's a, it's a great concept and we've had, we've had numerous, um, interest from business in that, but no one has actually pulled the trigger yet. So what we're doing is we're modifying the opportunities zone legislation and we're decreasing. the threshold, we're decreasing both the investment threshold
and we decreasing the area around the Opportunity zone to qualify for that. So just trying to get a little more investment, um, or get some investment, frankly, we haven't had any yet. This will help, um, all of our areas but specifically will hopefully help the high unemployment areas and this bill, um, the Act, the original act and this also uh makes special accommodation for high unemployment areas. So with that, I'd let, let, um, these others speak on it if they'd like.
Speaker 293
1:33:30
All right. Thank you. Yes, um, so. Right now, the requirement in a high unemployment area is $250,000 minimum investment, um, we've gotten a lot of feedback from small business owners across the state who've said we want to invest in these areas around the state parks where these natural uh NSI opportunity zones exist, um, but right now the, the barriers is really high. And so by, by lowering the investment amount that that
helps them financially, uh, able to attain the incentive and then by increasing the area, um, that also gives more opportunity for those small businesses to take advantage of properties near those parks. All right. I'll just add
Speaker 301
1:34:26
to places in eastern Arkansas and the Delta and Southwest Arkansas in the River Valley where these
opportunities exist. We continue to get feedback from local folks, potential entrepreneurs that really want to take advantage of this and um see some economic growth for themselves and their families, and so we've, we've received feedback that there's high interest, um, but it's just not yet attainable at the current level. You're ready for questions? Yes, sir. All right, committee, any questions? Yeah, Representative Garner, I just
have a quick question about how port opportunity zones work. So,
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
1:35:07
Once you get that area developed, then that's not an opportunity zone anymore, or does it always stay inopport opportunity zone and, and how do you make sure that after that happens, the projects are quality projects if for lack of a
Speaker 293
1:35:21
better term, is completely different than the federal opportunity zones, so this was something that was created 2 years ago, um, it's called a natural state initiative opportunity zone. It's a little misleading. It's not the federal one. So those rules do not apply, um, what. this is is it's 4 different
state parks, Pinnacle Mountain, Queen Wilhelmina, Delta Heritage Trail, and Petty Jean. And right now as it exists, it's 1/8 of a mile around those state parks, including the state park area, um, It's just that area of that zone, so if you are a, a bike shop and you want to go put your bike shop at the Delta Heritage Trail somewhere, um, you have to locate within one of those areas in order to receive the sales tax, um, incentive and the income tax credit.
Speaker 303
1:36:10
So It's, it's just that zone for right now, and, and I get that, but
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
1:36:17
If the Once, once you get all of these folks moving into that one opportunity zone, then you can decide that a different place needs to have those incentives. I mean, you've got limited funds, I assume. You're, we're not gonna overdevelop one and leave out the others so there's just a way to, it's, it's a, it's a way to to
Speaker 293
1:36:41
increase um economic development in those areas and those four zones were were created because there's significant investment, um, from the state and public private partnerships, um, within those four areas. And so we hope that each 4 of those will receive lots of attention, um, and then if we see great growth from those, then we could increase to other parts of the state. That's our hope is that, and we haven't seen any investment to this
point. And so if we do, we hope we can make more. OK, any other questions? Seeing
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
1:37:24
none is anyone else? We, we went, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So we went from, you know, the A crop burning to this, so I was trying to get my bearing, so there is 4 places you're looking at now. And did I hear that you're wanting to expand? Our hope is in the future
Speaker 293
1:37:39
if we see that these are successful that one day we could, yes.
Speaker 168
1:37:47
So I have, well, I've probably got a separate
ran on that so thank you. All right. Committee, any other question? Seeing none?
Is anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill? Representative Maddox, you're ready
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
1:38:05
to close for your bill? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So committee, I was actually in this committee and presented in 2023. This was the governor's what was called the Natural State initiative. Um, again, there has been interest, but unfortunately, there has actually been, no one has actually taken us up on it. So
it's an exciting project, but we're, we're certainly like to see um some interest and see if we can
make this successful, so, um, with that I'd close and appreciate a good vote. See a motion. All right, see a
motion do pass. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Congratulations, your bill passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative Brown.
Speaker 167
1:38:58
Right Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I have Garrett
Speaker 168
1:39:10
join me at the table, please. All right, you introduce yourself. Jay Garrett, Arkansas Farm
Speaker 314
1:39:18
Bureau, uh, director of commodity activities and economics for poultry, swan and small remnants. All right. Uh, Mr. Chair, Matt Brown, District 55. House Bill 1928 is
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:39:28
a bill that's been brought to us by a Farm Bureau to help out our poultry farmers, uh, back in 2003, the legislature passed act, uh. I think it's 2003 number. Sorry about that, but essentially it created this system to help control nutrient runoff from poultry farms and certain protected watersheds. Essentially, if a poultry farm is located in a designated nutrient surplus area. Uh, the poultry farm is required to comply with a nutrient management plan as approved by the local conservation district and the Resources commission.
Uh, this bill provides that if you are complying with the nutrient management plan which you by law are required to comply with, then you have a you have immunity from being sued by a third party for complying with your plan. Um, the issue that has arisen is that in some other states that neighbor us, uh, some trial lawyers, not that I want to talk about about lawyers, but some trial lawyers are making an industry out of suing farmers for nutrient runoff and things of that nature, even though they are complying with the law and within their their specs. This bill simply provides that if you
are doing that, you're OK, uh Bill also provides that if, for example, you should not be in compliance, like maybe your plan says you have 100 units of phosphorus or nitrogen or something and oops, it was 102. Then the remedy is for the Natural Resources commission to go in and take care of it on the administrative side through corrective action or possibly a fine, not for plaintiff's lawyers going into federal court and seeing you in federal court. Uh, and with that, I would be glad to answer any questions and by that I mean have my witness
Speaker 316
1:40:55
answer the questions. We're quite honest to ourselves. All right, any questions?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:41:00
Representatives So let me see if I heard you correctly. So if you're, you have a poultry farm and you just high in nutrient in that area, so you have to neutralize that back or do something to bring that back to where it's not over, um. And don't know the proper word, but too much of it in that area, is that
Speaker 137
1:41:22
what you're saying? Ah yes, essentially right now the nutrient surplus area
Speaker 314
1:41:26
in the state of Arkansas is um limited like north, northwest part of
the state, kind of western central area of the state. I believe it encompasses about 10 counties, um, and, and essentially what the state has done is identified that that is a nutrient surplus area. Um, what this, what this bill would do, like when you're implementing uh a nutrient management plan. Um, it essentially looks at what's, what's available. Uh, it also identified f ies what you're trying to put on the field and it compensates uh to bring that back to to normal production levels. OK, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:42:03
Representative Richmond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the, the real issue that you're trying to address here is these predatory lawyers from out of state that are actually coming after our farmers because again, they're looking at an opportunity to make a considerable amount of money, possibly, and that You're trying to administratively create a situation that could alleviate this problem. First of all, such as if you do have a test that is higher than it's supposed to be,
maybe a fine. But the real intent is to fix the problem, correct? OK, thank you. All right. Committee, any other questions? See then, do we have anyone
that y'all ain't wishing to speak for or against the bill. Seeing nonpresentative Rose, you're ready to close
Speaker 316
1:42:53
for rebuild. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm closed and make a motion to do pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:43:04
Congratulations, your bill's passed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also have 1827. I was covering for Representative Wardlaw. Can I
Nathan Reed
Unverified
1:43:17
run that real quick? It's a good bill. I tell you, I tell you what, would you just step aside for just a moment. I promised representatives, she could write our bill. Let's not everybody leave now.
We've got till 12:30 today. Represented, you're
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:43:41
recognized to present your bills. I'm Representative Denise Sennett. I represent District 80 here downtown Little Rock and parts of Pulaski County, um, I like to call it my two witnesses. I have, um, Pulaski County attorney Adam Fogerman and he's my neighbor as well and um attorney Richard Madison.
I present to you House Bill 1855 legislation aimed to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of fire protection services across Arkansas. This bill empowers the Department of Agriculture to recommend adjustments to fire protection districts, district boundaries in case of overlapping jurisdictions, areas lacking fire protection and contiguous districts by streamlining this process, we can ensure optimum coverage,
reduce redundancies and approved emergency response time for our communities. HB 1855 addresses the Department of Agriculture to recommend adjustments for fire protection districts with overlapping boundaries, ensuring clear jurisdictional, sorry, lies in reducing service duplication. This bill enables the department to propose boundary adjustments
for districts adjacent to areas without fire protection facilitating the extension of vital services to currently unprotected regions. For
For K for Katiguous fire protection district, the
districts, the department can recommend. Boundary modifications to promote better resources resource allocation and coordination among neighboring districts.
HB 1855 established a clear procedure for districts to request boundary recommendations requiring written submissions and for contiguous districts either manual or sorry mutual agreements are demonstration of. Good Demonstration of good cause. Upon receiving a recommendation from the department of agriculture, they're requesting district must petition the county court, which will hold a hearing considering public input.
And decide on the proposed boundary adjustments. Furthermore, the bill defines districts broadly to include various fire protection entities such as nonprofit fire corporations, volunteer fire departments and county created fire service districts, ensuring inclusive. OK. I'm I'm sorry. That was a lot.
Speaker 327
1:46:44
I'm open for questions, sorry. Question Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
1:46:46
Chair. uh. The Department of Agri, are they OK with this bill? Yes. All right, thank you. All right. Maybe, any
Speaker 228
1:46:54
other questions? Representative Steele? Mr. Chairman, I have a motion at the proper time. All
right. Maybe, any other questions? Representative Steele. Oh, anybody in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill, saying that?
Speaker 47
1:47:14
Uh, represented in your clothes, you Yeah,
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
1:47:18
thank you for the motion, Representative Steele. um, I'm closed, um, this is a good bill, um, me and these two gentlemen, we've been working on this for quite a while, right? I mean, since what last year, last session, uh, we did interim study and so we don't have any oppositions for this, and I think this will help Arkansas define these districts
so we could better serve our constituents and I'm closed. Thank you. OK, you're recognized for motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Motion to pass. All right, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Opposed Congratulations. The bill's passed. Representative Brown, would you like to reintroduce yourself? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry for trying to jump the queue. Uh,
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:48:06
Matt Brown District 55, uh. Members representative Wardlaw couldn't be here today, so he asked me if I'd run 1827 for him, so please don't hold that against me.
Um, this was a bill that was brought to Representative Wardlaw by the agency as well as the sportsman's caucus. There is no known opposition. It's a good bill. The Arkansas Hunting Heritage Act, which was passed back in '05, provides that essentially to the greatest extent possible, uh, game and fish commission decisions regarding land should not decrease the amount of acreage out there available for the citizens of Arkansas to hunt on as of the acreage that was there in August of 2005. So what has happened in the 20 years since then, we've gotten a lot more land either purchased or under lea. that's available now for the
citizens to hunt on this bill simply resets that floor to the amount of acreage as of today, as of 2025. Um The other thing this bill does is it does give the game and fish a little bit of, uh, I guess, protection for lack of a better word. It does provide in there, it clarifies that if the game and fish loses acreage, uh, like let's say they have uh some land under lease and it gets to a point that the lease is too expensive to continue. They can go ahead and not continue that lease and that doesn't count against them as if they've done something wrong and decreased the lane because that's outside
their control and I think that's fair. Uh, the final thing the bill does is it does provide also that, uh, to the extent some land is lost. That the gaming fish should try at its best to replace it with like land in a reasonably close proximity to land that was lost. So for example, if they lose, you know, 1000 acres of duck hunting land down around Stuttgart. Try it to the extent you can, try to get 1000 acres of duck hunting land somewhere around Stuttgart. Don't replace it with a, you know, 1000 acres of deer hunting land up in the mountains or something. Uh, and with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions. All right, question?
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:49:48
Representative Reson Brown does uh represent War law have a good excuse for not being here today. Honestly, I was so stunned. He asked me to
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:49:59
run the bill. I didn't actually ask him why I wouldn't be here today. Well, he needs
Speaker 137
1:50:04
to excuses absence next time. I'm sure it was a very good reason
though. any other questions? Anyone in the audience wished to speak
for or against the bill. San, you a clothes for you. I'm closed. Make a motion you pass, Mr. Chair. We have a motion to
pass. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Representative
Beatty, would you like to present your bill? The alternative is
reconvened this afternoon. I think we'd like to get done. All right, let's get after it.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:51:28
Representative Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. We'll start with Senate Bill 361. And with your permission, I'd invite um Clen O'Neill to join me at the table. All right. All
Speaker 106
1:51:51
right, you're recognized to present your bill.
Speaker 342
1:52:00
Flint O'Neill, executive director, AUDC. Thank you. Mr. Chairman,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:52:06
members of the committee, I'm here to present Senate Bill 361 is to create the industrial Development Authority expansion Act. Basically, if you look through the bill, we have the Metropolitan Port Authorities, uh, that was established by legislation. This bill basically mimics um that create an industrial development authority to secure economic development. Key parts of the bill that actually creates the formation of industrial
development authorities, um, and says that it provides creation by one or more local governments to secure and develop industry, foster economic development, increased job creation and capital investment, uh, the powers and responsibilities are identified in the bill that they're authorized to establish acquire, develop, improve or maintain industrial and commercial facilities, uh, for job training, uh, rail lines, other economic development projects and, uh, they can cooperate with various governmental entities and act as an agent for the United States government.
Uh, each IDA would be governed by a board of directors with members appointed by the local governmental entities that um that create them. The board would select their officers and the operating procedures for the IDAs. As far as financial operations, they would have the uh the power to borrow funds to issue bonds, enter agreements and payment of Liu of property tax, uh, with lessees or purchasers of industrial facilities. Uh, there would be some tax exemptions, bonds issued under this act would be exempt from state, county, municipal taxes,
uh, they could enter into agreements, uh, like we said before in pilot projects for payment in lieu of taxes. Um, the bill allows for a transfer of surplus property or rail or rail track material, uh, with intermodal facilities, Metropolitan Port Authorities and Planning Development districts for rail purposes. Overall, the purpose of this bill is to provide a framework for the establishment and operation of industrial development authorities to promote industrial development, development industrial development, economic development in Arkansas
facilitate job creation and leverage the investments of the state's infrastructures and facilities. We've been very uh successful with our metropolitan Port Authorities. This just adds on to that, uh, and we'll, we'll model that language with that, we'll entertain any questions. All right, committee, any questions? Yeah, Representative Garner, you're recognized. Thank you. I just have a
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
1:54:26
quick question about eminent domain. Who does the organization answer to? Or how, how does that determined eminent domain was in, I think,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:54:35
do we take this out? There are a couple of bills I have where we deal with them that domain that we, we, we remove basically feminine domain is in this bill. I, I can't recall because I, I struck it from another bill that we were working on with, with Senator Dima. If eminent domains in this bill, it's going to be eminent domain from the, the organizations and entities that have eminent domain now, your county and your, your cities, uh, that would utilize that this would not create any special authority for, for these folks, for this. Industrial Development Authority. Right Maybe, any other questions?
Saying not anyone you always wish to speak for or against the bill. Bay you're ready to
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:55:17
close your bill? I'm closed for my bill. I'd appreciate a motion do pass and a good vote of
the committee and thank you all for, for listening see a motion, have a motion to pass all
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:55:28
those in favor say aye, opposed? Congratulations. Next, next one's a real easy one. Again, representative Howard Beatty District 95, uh, to present Senate Bill 407, uh, Senate Bill
407 is to repeal the Arkansas catfish processor Fair Practices Act of 1987. And basically it does just that, it repeals that piece of legislation, uh, you know, just a few points why we don't need this legislation. There have only been 3 companies licensed under the Act since it was passed in 1987. There's one company that was licensed in 2016 and two companies in 2019, so it's very uh limited use, uh, since then, uh, there hasn't been an application since 2019. Uh, the
nature of the catfish processing industry has changed dramatically in Arkansas since its passage. And this is a bill that is supported by the industry. It is recommended by the Department of Ag. This is an AG, an agency bill and they recommend that, um, the processing act of '87 be repealed. I entertaining questions Committee, any questions? Seeing 911 in the audience was to speak for or against the
bill. Represent you close your bill, Mr. Chairman, I'm closed for the bill again. Appreciate your
motion, uh, do pass and motion do pass all of our committee, we have a motion to pass. All those in favor say aye. Pod. Congratulations. Next.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:56:53
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, uh, Senate Bill 421, and with your permission, I would invite Secretary West Ward to the table, sir. All right,
Secretary, are you still here? Yes, you are. Mr. Westmore, Department of Agriculture. All right. You're recognized to present your bill. Members, uh, Senate Bill 421, uh, just the, the subtitles basically to authorize the Arkansas's Natural Resource Commission to issue general obligation bonds for the development of water, wastewater and pollution abatement projects in the state. Um
had all my stuff organized here, but I think I dropped some, um. packet. Basically 421, uh, Would allow the issuance of uh general obligation bonds up to 500 million, uh, and also I think it allows a portion not to exceed 165 million that would uh be designated for irrigation, uh, facilities and usage. A key provision of the bill is that, uh, these bond issues would be subject to the approval by a majority of the qualified electors in the state that would get to vote on this proposition
at the 2026 general election are special elections called for that purpose. setting out the terms and characteristics of the bonds, it incor issuance in series material for the 35 years after the issue, um. We'll move over. He brought some of the good talking points. Uh, since January 2021, um, Oh yeah. The, um, the state department's approved 477 water
and wastewater projects for about $2.5 billion that are in all of our counties, all 75 of the counties throughout the state. Right now, the, the estimate on, on water projects as we all know, we hear that it's $13 billion over the next 20 years. Uh, general obligation bond authority for water and wastewater. It's existed since 1981. Uh, it was granted by the General Assembly in '81, 87, 97, 2007, and then it was a state. wide vote back in '82, uh 88,
98, 2008, uh, so 850 million in bond authority. Uh, the remaining bond authority will be exhausted at the end of summer of 20027. So again, I said it would seek to authorize 500 million in general obligation authority, um, and then that would allow that uh through the biennium to be 60 million ensuring that this program would continue through 2043. Uh, debt service would be financed through the existing $14.8 million that we have in general revenue and current um
And future loan payments, the additional bond authority, uh, would not require any increase in general revenue. Um Uh, upon the passage of 421 signature of the governor, uh, issue a general obligation bonds will be placed on the statewide general election, as I said in November 26th, a vote of the people, uh, in, in additional if additional authorities approved by the state of Arkansas Department of Act would prepare work plans every 2 years it
would be be presented to natural resources Commission Chief Fiscal Officer and the legislature and governor for approval prior to the utilization of any of these bond authorities, um. We all know that this is a very important uh aspect of what we need in the state, um, and, um, basically this just kind of outlines um the framework and established framework for uh taking care of financing the critical projects that are needed by all of our counties and with that we'll entertain
any questions, any questions? Saying none. Anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the bill. Representing you're ready to
Speaker 342
2:01:02
close for your bill? Mr. Chairman, I am closed, and I appreciate a good motion and uh and a good moves the will of the committee?
I see a motion. I see a motion do pass Representative Cozart. All those in favor say aye. pose? Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those 3 should
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:01:16
be the last time you guys have to look at me in committee. So thank y'all.
All right, well All right, Representative Womack had a bill, HB 1675. Anyone here to present his bill?
Now And SB 464. Anyone here to present that bill? Now With that Thank y'all for your patience.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1675 Womack TO AMEND THE INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE ARKANSAS GRADE "A" MILK PROGRAM ACT OF 1981.
HB1680 Vaught TO PREVENT A FOREIGN-PARTY-CONTROLLED BUSINESS FROM LEASING LAND; AND TO PROHIBIT A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY FROM HOLDING AN INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY OR AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Vaught
SB361 Dees TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES TO SECURE AND DEVELOP INDUSTRY AND FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
Beaty
SB407 Gilmore TO REPEAL THE ARKANSAS CATFISH PROCESSOR FAIR PRACTICES ACT OF 1987.
Beaty
HB1827 Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS HUNTING HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT.
M. Brown
HB1852 J. Moore TO ESTABLISH A RIGHT TO REPAIR FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT.
J. Moore
HB1855 Ennett TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE ARKANSAS FORESTRY COMMISSION; AND TO AMEND THE LAWS RELATING TO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.
Ennett
SB421 Hester TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WATER, WASTE DISPOSAL, AND POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECTS.
Beaty
HB1045 Cavenaugh TO PLACE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PLANNING A CROP RESIDUE BURN; AND TO ADDRESS LIABILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS FOLLOWED CROP RESIDUE BURN REQUIREMENTS.
Cavenaugh
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.
Beck
HB1923 Maddox TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ACT; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING NATURAL STATE INITIATIVE OPPORTUNITY ZONES.
Maddox
HB1928 M. Brown TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SOIL NUTRIENT APPLICATION AND POULTRY LITTER UTILIZATION ACT.
M. Brown
HB1937 Jean TO AMEND THE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR MINERAL RIGHTS UNDER ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 16, § 5; AND TO CLARIFY THE METHOD OF VALUATION FOR OIL AND GAS WELL PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT.
Jean
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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Roger D. Lynch Chair
Unverified
Representative Rick Beck
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 66
Alan Perkins
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 84
Speaker 89
Speaker 106
Chair
Unverified
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 64
Speaker 108
Speaker 115
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 129
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
Speaker 132
Speaker 149
Speaker 155
Speaker 160
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Speaker 165
Scott Waller
Unverified
Speaker 182
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Speaker 185
Speaker 197
Speaker 168
Speaker 140
Russell Thomas
Unverified
Speaker 215
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 225
Speaker 226
Speaker 228
Speaker 234
Speaker 237
Speaker 238
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Speaker 250
Speaker 251
Speaker 254
Speaker 262
Speaker 253
Speaker 192
Representative Cameron Cooper
Unverified
Speaker 278
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 293
Speaker 294
Speaker 298
Speaker 301
Speaker 303
Speaker 167
Speaker 314
Speaker 316
Speaker 137
Nathan Reed
Unverified
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 327
Speaker 47
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 342