Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate

opportunity to speak their peace. Senator Bryant, sir. Don't move your glass. you out my way Maybe Oh, yeah, no, we're, we're good, uh, you're exactly right. Uh, introduce yourself to the Record Center Bright and, uh, we are talking about uh Senate Bill 455, Mr. Chair, there's amendments. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. You recognize the introduce your amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. The amendment, you know, we discussed this bill right before uh break. The amendment addresses some of those concerns about the prohibited substances list as well as the the wording within the ATC to make sure there's no conflict and moving those fines back to consistent. It also lowers 50 mg to 25 mg for the purposes of ensuring that we push out any synthetics, because that is. prohibited and The intent of the bill overall is to ensure there are no synthetics allowed 25 mg was consistent in the industry to help alleviate those concerns. You want to have a question on the amendment? OK Motion to adopt the amendment. Is there a 2nd, 2, all in favor say aye. Amendment's been adopted, you recognize as amended. Thank you so much, committee. I will be brief and discuss Senate Bill 455 as amended. As you know, before the break, the impetus for the bill is just to address the initial concerns I had, I think as well as the General Assembly had about these products being available to miners, um, without the controls and the regulations needed to ensure that they are off the shelves and they're behind the counter and they're able to, you know, 21 and older individuals. Uh, attempt was made in 2023 to To do that Uh However, those results, as we all know, are are locked up in federal court. What this bill seems attempts to do is let that litigation play out. I think there was some confusion in the last committee about whether or not this bill did that. I sought clarity and I hope each member was contacted, if not as a group, but indirectly and directly by the Attorney General's office to say that the bill does have the appropriate language to ensure that the litigation against Act 629 of 2023 plays out prior to the implementation of any language of this bill. So that, that is the intent and that, I, I got that confirmation immediately after the committee, so I hope that alleviates that concern for for this committee. But what it attempts to do is regulate and pull these products up off the shelves, as would be my goal. Now, if the goal of the state is to attempt to ban these products, we have to let the courts of the Congress have that fight because all attempts that we've had so far have not been successful at pulling these products off the shelf. I would argue that uh a subsequent bill, not only in the house but come in and pour this body again today is again an attempt to do that, but I believe there's still serious flaws with that bill, and we'll still be here in 2 years addressing these same concerns. So what this bill does again is nothing changes with Act 629 of 2023. If the courts rule against the state and say we cannot do what 629 attempted to do, this would go into effect. It would put regulations of ATC in control, it pulled up off the shelf, and then we can basically regroup and see. what the state needs to do to Further protect our youth. So with that, I'm. for the or take any questions. OK. Turn this way. So the language on I didn't think it looked like it was corrected in the amendment. Sorry. Page 41 that uh repeals the uh Tobacco control board that is still there. I asked for clarity and it's supposed to be there because it's how the original 629 bill was. And so it's, it doesn't repeal it as a statute because, you know, from back in the 70s, what it does is just repeals Acts 6:29. And then replaces it with this with this language, so it doesn't affect the outcome of the control. board. I know it's, it's, I'd asked 2 or 3 times and I got clarity and the language needs to stay because that's part of the overall repeal of 629. Senator Hickey. Not, not of the sponsor. We're going to hear from the AG on this, OK. OK. Anyone else? OK. Uh, seeing no further questions, I will, uh, ask for testimony for and against, and first, we will hear from the Attorney General's office. You would, your mic is on, introduce yourself, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, uh, Alex Benton with the Attorney General's office. I believe that Senator Desmas. point About page 41. Section 11 starting on lines 20. Deletes more than necessary. It, it deletes the enabling legislation for the Arkansas Tobacco Controlled board. Uh, it repeals. About how the governor may make appointments to this board, and it also, more importantly, deletes the duties of the board. And there is no place in this bill and Senate Bill 455 where those duties and that creation are put back in, uh, I went back and watched the testimony from this committee's previous meeting. And I believe the, the testimony was that it was imputed back on page 40 and 41, um, And that is, that is not the case, as I read this. But, but that aside, I think our office is opposed to Any regulatory scheme regarding hemp products because not only You have to legalize something. Before you can regulate it, and it is our position that Not only with the ban in 2023 that this body passed, did that ban these Delta products. Uh, but that there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the farm bill operates and that there is a perceived loophole, not an actual legal loophole. That allows these Delta products. To be sold or that creates the confusion that, that these products are being sold under. And prior to the 2023 ban. There were 3 prosecutions that we were able to find in Wachita County, specifically, that tested the Delta products that were marketed specifically as being sold as uh compliant with the farm bill under 0.3%, uh, in an affidavit that was filed in Washita County in those three criminal felony criminal cases. The Arkansas crime lab came back. Showing that there were positive results with these products being controlled substances that these were THC levels that were well above 0.3% and that's why they were intoxicating. products that were labeled bubba Kush. Products that claimed specifically on their labeling to be in compliance with the 2018 farm bill. So the 2023 ban that this legislature passed that is, yes, currently enjoined. Um It was more of a tool to clarify and to give prosecutors the tools that they needed to be able to get these products off of shelves, uh. Since then it's correct that the lawsuit has been enjoined, um, by, with a TRO and a preliminary injunction in federal district court. We are on appeal. We appealed that in October of 2023, oral arguments were had, and we are awaiting the court's decision on that, um, and we remain. Optimistic and confident in that lawsuit upholding Act 629 of 2023. I'm subject to your questions. Dickey So And I Probably speaking for everybody here, although I'm just gonna speak for myself, so. I know we're trying to thread a needle here. My my sole objective is, is that we regulate this to a maximum extent that we can until you all get done, uh. To make sure that we don't have these things on the shelf. But if I'm hearing you correctly, You all don't think that there's really anything else that we can do. As far as trying to regulate this. During your court proceedings until we get the hopeful ban that, that we're looking for. Would that be, is that true? There are no acts that the legislature could pass now with an emergency clause that could take effect now in between now and the court case that would not moot out the lawsuit. However, the trigger language that is in Senator Bryant's bill would hold the regulatory scheme in abeyance until that court case came down, uh, that would not moot out the lawsuit, but it would not let the regulation take effect now, either. And I don't want to, maybe. So y'all, but y'all stance is, is, and maybe you all don't want to get involved because you don't want some type of conflict or I don't know, maybe that's the wrong word. So it is that what I'm interpreting though? Is there not any type of legislation that you all would think would be helpful to, to, to help with the desire of this legislature that we regulated as much as possible until this court proceeding to hopefully that y'all win and the band. be in effect. Is there nothing that we can do? I would bifurcate my answer into yes, uh, which is why I'm also here today to support Senator Dees's bill, um, to update the 2023 ban, which also had regulation as a backup in it, uh, and that would keep that. But there's nothing that could take effect. Tomorrow, if this, if any bill were to take effect now, uh, that would not immediately moot out the lawsuit prior to an order being entered, and then start over those arguments for another two-year lawsuit, I appreciate your explanation. Any other questions? Ms. Bitten, thank you very much. OK, we have people signed up to speak, uh, for and against this bill. Amy Crawford speaking for. Um, I did not know that there was an amendment, so I am at this time not going to speak without seeing that amendment. OK, uh, Larry Page. So. Speaking against the bill. Uh Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Marie Page of the Arkansas. Mr. Chair, and, and I don't mean to be disrespectful. I think we usually always, I don't know how many people you have, it looks like a lot. Should, should we have a motion to at least limit testimony before the first one starts, uh, I'll I don't know what's going to be appropriate or what the committee would want is is 3 minutes enough? Does that give you enough time, sir, to do 3, hopefully that'll the motion. Yeah. I want to be brave because I know you got a lot on your plate and I will be, but I want to come at this from a little different direction. I mean, we're doing this kabuki dance about regulation, with all due respect, that's not the solution to this. The solution is to do what several states have already done, and that is to ban Any human consumables that even have even a trace of THC. Cause I'm telling you, you're not going to be able to regulate this with any kind of, of satisfaction. There's just too much out there. So that, the, the uh consensus is it just should be banned. In fact, the federal or the FDA has indicated that federal law prohibits THC from being in food and beverages, uh, it's not enforced, but it is against the law. California, Washington state, Massachusetts, South Dakota have banned, totally banned THC in any human. Consumables. Uh, here's what California said, We will not sit on our hands while bad actors in the hemp industry target our children with dangerous and intoxicating hemp products containing THC. Industry concerns are more about protecting their profit than the public. Listen, why, why do they want THC in these human consumable products to enhance the flavor? No, I don't think so. Health benefits? No. CBD in the hemp is reported to provide that. THC is desired because it is an intoxicant and these products that don't have THC aren't gonna be nearly as sexy, and they're not gonna be as popular as they would be. Listen, let me close with this. The state's voters in the general election of 2022 rejected medical marijuana by a sizable margin, I might add. The voters made their decision, but here we are, and you're being asked to do an end around the state's voters by using a poorly drafted and ill-advised federal farm bill in 2018. The voters deserve to be respected and not have their will overturned. If the voters had wanted to have THC available on a recreational basis, they could have done that and they said no. Look, grow all the hemp you want to make the products that we know can be made with it, rope, building materials, uh, all kinds of things, but don't extract the THC and put those in human consumableable, don't we have enough intoxicants on the shelves and on our retail outlets. We don't need more. So I would just suggest you go back to the drawing board and look for a ban on any THC in human consumables. Thank you. I hope I kept it under 3. Anyone have a question? Thank you, Mr. Page. OK. Speaking forward is Roger Crawford. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. Um, I had a whole speech ready for today, but I'm gonna shoot from the hips here. Um, I represent Sunmed, modern wellness, where the largest hemp retailer in the world with over 2 million customers. We're a USDA certified organic company, uh, we're a soil to oil company. We're third party tested 4 times before our products. Ever make it to the shelves where award-winning. Uh, we're ranked number one in the industry. Worldwide Um, the gentleman that just spoke mentioned states that are recreational states and what we're seeing across the country is monopolization of the cannabis industry, and you have to understand the plants. I've got over 20,000 hours in this industry, 6 years. Marijuana and hemp are cousins in the cannabis. Family. So hemp has higher cannabidiol, lower THC, marijuana has higher THC, lower cannabidiol, so hemp in the long run is a more holistic product. It actually saved my life 6 years ago. If you'd have told me, I'd be speaking before you about cannabis, I would have said you were smoking too much of it. I was a truck driver addicted to alcohol. Uh, pain pills, Sleeping medications and caffeine. I was 240 pounds. I was introduced to CBD and I sit here today a lot healthier. Human being I have over 12,000 customers in my database and THC actually plays a very huge role in the holistic part. Of the hemp plant. Now, if we want to talk about Emergencies for Arkansans. I, I suggest that you, first of all, Google how many people have died from botanical cannabis. It's 0. There's none. In fact, since the last session, no Arkansas citizen has died from THC. Now, you can't put a water label on a bottle of vodka and call it water. So we have a problem in our industry. We have a lot of synthetics in this industry that are already deemed illegal by the federal government. I have one in my shopping complex in Hot Springs Village that has been raided multiple times. I also have a store in Orange Beach, Alabama where the police officers have kits on them at all times, and they can test these products. They came in my store after I spoke before the city, they tested my products, which were deemed legal, tested a product just down the street that were deemed illegal. We need to fix the industry and we need to regulate it. If you look at what alcohol does to Americans. 488 people die every day in this country. We have no emergency. 1400 people die every day from tobacco-related products. We have no emergency, but we have a plan that was given to us by God. It's a seed bearing plant that was mentioned in Genesis 1:29. He told us to use all the seed bearing plants as food. I use these products on a daily basis. I drove 2 million miles, I wrecked my neck, and I use these products for pain, for sleep, anxiety. I haven't had a sip of alcohol in 2.5 years. What I want to see in the industry, I want to see regulation. I want to see attacks involved, and I'd like to see us have our own board that regulates these products and don't put our products in the hands of killers. Alcohol and tobacco kills people in Arkansas every day. Why would we take a plant that God gave us and put it in the hands of an industry that kills people on a daily basis. Your time's up. Did anyone have a question? Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Laura. Jane David We all testifying together. Yes, sir. He can sneak out of the back corner. There you go. right here. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Laurahu. I'm general counsel with the Department of Health, and you may remember that we testified against this bill previously. Uh, we still have the same concerns as we testified about uh before uh from a health and safety standpoint, the governor's office asked us to be here today to testify against this bill. We are neutral, um, on, uh, Senator Dee's bill, and that will be presented later today and uh basically we have the same, uh, concerns as we did before with unintended consequences of this bill, and we We're here to answer any questions that you may have have questions with the health department. Seeing Nunn, thank you very much. David Potter. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'll be brief as well because I was able to speak last time. Uh, our concerns remain the same as far as ATC, uh, as the agency that oversees compliance for minors and how miners access products, I would just say that is we're in attempting to regulate such an intoxicating commodity, there is going to be a way that miners are going to attempt to find access to this product. Uh, that is highly concerning for us, given the level of intoxication of this, uh, we were doing more work than ever. in the proliferation of vape products in schools. We were breaking agency records as far as how many compliance checks we're doing, how many inspections we're doing. We're very, very active in that space. But yeah, you see miners showing up at schools with these products. I just submit to the committee that it would be the same if we're regulating and intoxicating hemp product. Um, my fear is that all the calls that I received from school resource officers from police departments, from parents, and, you know, parents where their kids have been sick, put in the hospital. I'm afraid that's going to continue, so. I'm open for any questions. Question from the committee. Nunn, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Bryant. You recognize you, and I'll keep this brief. I know you got a long agenda. Common saying that I've heard myself say before is, everybody's thinking the same thing, nobody's thinking. And so what I'm trying to do is think out of this, out of the box for this um for the state of Arkansas. And I know it's, it's hard. Um, but I think the, the fact that we're bringing another bill from From the executive branch to the legislative body shows you that the confidence to continue this fight is still very low. I think there'll be testimony in that that will prove that we'll still be tied up in litigation regardless of which bill attempts to go against the farm bill. So until the farm bill gets corrected, the only avenue I think the state has to keep these products above, above the shelf. Regulated, tested, would be to do just that, in which this bill does just that. It may not be perfect, but I think it's, uh, we won't let perfect get in the way of good. And I think it's, it's what the state needs while we continue this fight. Um, and until then. We're just going to continue to be back here. So with that, I will. closed for the bill. Uh, Senator Brian, uh, uh, for lack of quorum, we're not gonna have a motion on your bill. And they all left. I, I apologize to it. I, uh, you know. I understand. I believe, I understand, I understand, but as, as, as much as what we've got going on, we're gonna take a short recess. So, um. But there again, if we get back in, we'll ask for, uh, uh, A, uh, uh, a motion, but right now we don't have Corp and I, uh, I want to be very much above board. So we're gonna stand in recess for 5 minutes. All right. Thank you. I, I, yeah, I'm signed in Come back to order. You, you better. You better find me. You better findings. We're gonna try for a minute or two to find members. OK. Uh, do a warm coffee. Caro. Senator Dismay. Senator Dismay. Senator Hickey, Senator Hickey here. Senator letting, Senator letting here, Senator Gilmore. Senator Gilmore. Senator Kroll. Senator Crow. Senator Scott, Senator Scott, Senator Stone, is there a stone here, Senator Caldwell. Senator Caldwell here. So we have 5. recall her name. Senator Scott. Here Scott here. We have 5. Right. Uh, we're going to pass over House bill, uh, excuse me, Senator Brian, are you still in the room? He said you're going to pull it down just for the record, he's gonna pull it down. Uh, on a House Bill 1656, that's being amended, so we're gonna pass over that, uh, Senate Bill 466, Senator Dismay. Not here. I sent Irwin, Representative Simmon. Senate bill. 400. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, at the army's request, uh, I'm going to present, uh, 400, but with, uh, several Senate, uh, members. I believe it's best to pass over this bill this time. Uh, turn your mic on, Rich Stein, apologies identify yourself, please, uh, Trey Steel, District 2, State Representative. Now state again, your, your intent, right? So, uh, Senator Irvin asked me to, uh, present a Senate Bill 400 and after visiting with, uh, several, uh, Senate members, we feel it's best to pass over this bill, uh, to address some issues with it. While you're at the table, would you like to go ahead and present your bill? Uh, yes, I would. That would be, uh, I believe Senate Bill 1525525. We have an amendment to that. OK. So on this amendment, you know, all it does is just uh create just a little bit of language change from adequate to adequate proof of, um, and, you know, with that, I'll take any questions. to explain that, basically, that, that's the proof that you have, uh, equity and if you go to the bank to borrow money for a car and you buy a $10,000 car, you don't have to take the $10,000 down there. You have to take proof of the ability to pay the $10,000 and, and that's all that that corrects. so you don't have to actually provide the equity which you provide the proof of equity, that is correct, Senator. OK. So, time out. Anybody have a question on the amendment? Motion to approve the amendment? Second by Senator Hickey motion by letting all in favor say aye. You're recognized to presential bill the way it's amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as we, uh, you know, as these renewable energy, uh, creates more opportunities in Arkansas, More farm land is being converted into these, uh, renewable energy facilities, and what this bill will do is it'll mandate uh these renewable energy facilities, uh, located on agricultural land, they must enter into a remediation. agreement With the respective landowner, and this ensures land use for uh This energy development remains usable for agriculture once the renewable energy facility is no longer operational. So with this renewable remediation plan, you know, must, uh, include a clear and detailed uh deconstruction plan ensuring that any renewable energy facility removal will be carried out responsibly to prevent long term damage to agricultural land. Uh, one of the other, the amendments on the House side that we put in there, I felt was good is if this is a, uh, if you're personal property owner and, uh, you're using a solar field to power your, uh, personal grain bins, you would not have to enter into a remediation, uh, program at that time. OK Questions for anyone? This is pretty much agreed to between, uh, industry. Uh, yes, and, and one, you know, one good point is most, uh, most good actors are already doing this, and what this is gonna do is just prevent the bad actors from potentially coming in and ruining, uh, you know, some of our farm grounds. So, there again, this is already being pretty much done industry-wide. We want to keep the good actors in business. We want to make it tough for the bad actors to, uh, to hurt our, uh, our, our farmland. OK. Maybe you want to have a question. So Senator Hickey. So we're Your own. No, you turned it off. All right. Can you hear me now? OK. So we're doing this for renewable energy, so would, so oil wells, things to that nature, they wouldn't be included in this, right? Not to my understanding, Senator. I mean, I don't I struggle with this a little bit just because I understand what you're trying to do, but you know, it's like, well, if we're gonna, if we're gonna say that, then, you know, if someone goes out there and puts, uh, I can use Louisiana, for example. You go drive through there and you got farmland out there and you got 50 oil wells. That are on it, it's just I wonder why. Why we're not including those or, you know, it's just, it's, that is a little bit of a struggle for me that we're just singling out. This one industry. Right, and I think as renewable energy is increased across Arkansas, you know, we need to put a plan in place now and not play, um, Monday morning quarterback and at that same sentence, you know, there's any facility that's already in operation is grandfathered in. So those oil wells, but you do bring a good point, uh, you know, Senator Hickey, I believe that we do need to potentially look into, uh, other, you know, potentially fossil fuels or other industry, but at this point in time, you know, I feel this is the best path, uh, way forward as, uh, renewable energy increases. In Arkansas. Kind of I struggle may continue. I kind of struggle just a little bit too with the property rights. I mean, I, I mean, I know what you're trying to do for the future, but then by the same token, it's that, it's that particular individual that owns that property that made that agreement and was compensated for it. Uh, if, if he didn't negotiate something. For the cleanup going in. You know, I don't know whenever they sell that property if, if that's a reduction in their market price that they should, you know, that it's kind of a free market thing that should work itself out either. So, again, I understand what you're trying to do, and I, I don't not being disrespectful. I do struggle, do struggle with it from that standpoint, so. Right? And, you know, my, my thoughts on that, Senator, that, uh, we have a lot of good actors out there in renewable energy, uh, field, but this is there again, try to take care of the bad action, maybe, uh, take advantage of some of these property owners, uh, that, uh, in, in not create a remediation plan, knowing that once those solar panels are done, that, uh, you know, it's gonna be a, a very, very tough task to, to pull them, pull them up out of the ground and, and make that hole. May I just continue? I'm I'm trying to see if I can. Vote for it here some way, uh. So, So they're just supposed to have a remediation agreement. So they have an agreement in place. If the agreement is that, I mean, and they show that they have, have the agreement and the agreement is that there will be no compensation to remove those. If that's between them and the landowner, if they have a remediation agreement and it says, uh, in the end, if something happens and these things were no longer using them. We've, we went under. All the liability is on you, the property owner to move them. Can they do a remediation agreement? Of that nature also, or does it have to be something that's Of, of a certain value. I believe that there's gonna be, you know, some value to, to take that land back, you know, to be made whole, so to speak, on that. And I think, um, There's some Department of Ag potential oversight on this as well. That would uh maybe bring them into that and, you know, if, uh, you know, someone in the department ag would want to come down and visit, you know, they're more than willing to. So we do think that there would have to be. Some type of adequate and, and again, if we could point to that in the line of this bill, if it's, if it's not there, I may feel better about it. But, but if we're If we, if we're trying to say there has, you know, if they, if we're just saying there has to be a remediation agreement. So in other words, that we've brought this forward that the landowner and this renewable energy company have all said, look, there's a potential that we're going to go under. Uh You know, there's a potential that we're going to go under. Go ahead then if you've got some extra information. Yeah, so there is a Line 21, you know, with, uh, or 22, I'm sorry, I, I'm, I mean. There we go. um, line 19, the restoration of agricultural and land upon the conclusion of the commercial renewable energy facility, um, Ha What just have a seat, Secretary Warren and go ahead and introduce yourself, turn that mic on Senator Crow's mic, turn it on. Introduce yourself, please. Yes, sir. West War Department of Agriculture and uh to your, to your question, Sarah, uh, our interpretation of, of the bill, uh. I think it's still page 2 on 18 through 20 unless that's changed with the amendment, but, uh, just to ensure the restoration of agricultural land upon the conclusion of the commercial renewable energy facility, so it's got to take it back to, uh, that restoration of the agricultural land where it still can be productive use. Ma I secretary War a question then at this time. So Are you, are you all gonna be the ones that's approving this uh this agreement. We, no, sir, so we, we would get a copy of it, uh, and then it would be a civil action should, should there be a disagreement between the parties of did they restore it, did they not restore it, that would be on them to take that to court if there was a disagreement and if the renewable energy companies is defunct, that's just the way life's going to be. We're gonna have a, just like any other contract, it's worthless. OK. All right. Thank you for your explanation. Good. Betty, any other questions? No. Is there anyone in the audience that wished to speak for this bill? Anyone wish to speak against this bill. Not Representative Steiner, you're ready to close for your bill? Uh, yes, I am close to my bill. Thank you. I Motion to pass as amended. Senator Scott, seconded by Senator Letting. All in favor say aye. All opposed Congratulations bill passes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Thank you. Senator De, you in the room. Representative Gassway. Representative Represented Woolridge. Senator Hill. Secretary of War, you come to the table, please, for a moment. I think the answer is yes to that, yes sir, West War Department of Agriculture 555 changed the name of the Arkansas Livestock Poultry Commission. To Borland Health, are, are there any changes in this bill other than title? There there there are Senator Hill had asked that we run that bill for him, which I don't mind doing. But uh, so let, let's, let's look at the Senate bill. Bar 50. 71 Uh, being that long, uh, we're going to wait. So we'll let him come back and see, but uh Yeah, we, we, we will do that. I'm not familiar enough with it to run. I thought it was a change of name only, and there's more to it than that. OK. Anyone in the room to present a bill that has not been called on. Good. Senator Vault asked me to run 1772. I think it's everything exactly as we wanted to amend it, so I'm willing to do that for her, OK, if you want me to. Uh, yes, sir. House Bill 1772. Yeah Yeah Senator, you would identify yourself for the record and you recognized, uh, Jimmy Hickey, Arkansas Senate. The only only reason that I'm, I'm doing this is because I think this committee is I think had about 3 times. It's been on the Senate floor. It was referred back to committee and we think that uh With some help that now that it's uh Probably a prudent bill, so, uh, basically what this is, is that it allows for a vegetable garden, you know, to be planted, uh, uh, on residential property within a municipality. Uh, we've put some other language in there that would make it so that, uh, you know, things were not obtrusive, uh, things as far as uh I think If you look on page 2, it's probably gonna be best at the back. Of this section does not prohibit the adoption of the local ordinance or regulation that regulates certain specific Specifics impacting vegetable gardens including without limitation, the use of water during drought conditions, fertilize fertilize use, control of invasive species and weeds and reasonable size and location specifics related to the permissible vegetable garden locations, including without limitation side or backyards. And again, this was, uh, uh, myself and other members that worked with the Representative Volt. Again, basically the, it, it says that you can have it, it basically says you can't have a garden, but again, it does not prohibit the municipality to regulate that. Um, I'm sorry, I'm, I'm finished presenting. OK. Any committee have a question, Senator Hickey. We, we've wallowed this for a while, uh, Senator Scott. Um Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, does it resolve the issues that I know you had with the bill. Does this amendment or correction. It does. She actually brought it to me to to rework. Thank you. I don't really. OK. Any other question? Anyone in the audience have a, uh, want to speak for or against this bill. Signa and what's a pleasure of the community. Move do pass percentage letting Senator Scott, all in favor say aye. Senator Dees, you got in by the hair of your chinny chin chin. that, motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. our history for now. Yeah Yeah. All right. Senators, uh, Ms. Benton, if you both would turn your mics on and introduce yourself to the record. Yes, sir. Senator Tyler Dees from District 35. Alex Benton, Attorney General's office. We have an amendment. Yes, sir. Get the amendment passed out, let the committee look at it for a moment. We'll let that get passed out, and we can talk through that when you're ready, Mr. Chair. Senator Dees, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. Um, so the amendment you have in front of you, uh, really does, um, just a few things, um, it looks extensive, but I can, uh, uh, clarify on that. It's, it's a technical correction from the Department of Health on a lot of the chemical compound in nature throughout the bill, uh, for their request. that's the first nature, that's the majority of the amendment. And then the second part is on Um, related to the emergency clause, um, it removes that language and adds trigger language, uh that is related to some of the conversations that maybe we've we've heard about uh with the uh with the lawsuit in action that could happen there. And also with the federal farm bill. So it has trigger language tying into things that could happen outside of our state. So that's what the amendment does. I would appreciate and ability to adopt that. Hey, uh, members, do you want to have a question on the amendment. I just, I'll give, I'll give you time. Really? Any questions? Turned Hickey You know? Uh, what's the pleasure of the committee on the amendment? My motion to pass. I have a 2nd. Scott 2nd. All in favor say aye. Senator Day you recognize to present your bill as amended. Thank you. Senate Bill 533 as amended. Um, thank you for the ability to present this today. So, uh, we don't need much recap. I know there's been some, in some ways some recap with um a previous bill that was presented earlier today, but, uh, we passed Act 629 last session. And um for, for myself, the, the reason I came apart, a part of that bill and, and this initiative was, was really as a young father seeing these products sold over the counter. And I would think, uh, both those sponsors we've kind of agreed uh with that nature of concern of how these products are being sold over the counter, and even targeted and marketed to children, very heavy concern um intoxicating products that um that are getting kids high and and so that's what first brought me uh even to this topic and to this subject. And so we passed that bill, um, last session. And so really to anchoring thoughts was, uh, the harmful acts, uh, and marketing to children, but also, uh, we, we banned those products because it completely aligned with what the voters have said they wanted as well, which was, uh, that we don't want to be a state associated with recreational marijuana, basically recreational marijuana with intoxicating products um on demand, uh, available to the mass public. And so that was the framework how we passed the last bill. This, this action, this bill today is um in association with what we did in the last session. We believe this will help with clarity with definitions, uh, strengthens the case. It builds a a framework for moving forward. We, we believe, and so, uh, you're going to hear from the Attorney General's office and our work with this. um, we, we have worked extensively to get the definitions right, but really, it, it does, if you boil it down 3 things, it, it brings clarity that we not prohibiting industrial hemp. Very clear, uh, that, that. There's no attack on um uh the industrial side of hemp products, ropes, uh, house sidings, etc. Um, it also brings clarity that we're not um touching CBD products. Those are not intoxicating, uh, these are separate products. There's no prohibit uh on the side. And then finally, what it, what it does do is bring clarity that we are banning products with harmful intoxicating THC element um items, um, because That aligns with the goals of protecting children, but also with what the voters have said they want for our state. We do not want to beat Colorado. We do not want to be California. We do not want to be some of these states that have basically been the wild west of these types of products. And the irony of that statement if we don't want to be Colorado, is that they have banned these products. As wild as they are with their, with their products on the shelf and, and how they view marijuana and in different items. They've banned these THC products. And so it, it's befitting to the will of the people we believe with this bill, it strengthens and so with that, that's, that's kind of an intro into what this bill does. I want to introduce Miss Miss Alex Benton from the AG's office. I know she spoke earlier, but, uh, and maybe some more of the details of the bill and, and open to questions, Ms. Benton Benton, please identify yourself and you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, Alex Benton, Attorney General's office, um, I agree with everything that Senator Dees, uh, just said, I think that, you know, We, we've always, we always Endeavor to, to learn from um to see what lessons that we can learn. We've learned a lot from, uh, this lawsuit we've learned a lot from what other states are doing, uh, Texas last week advanced a Senate bill that would move to ban these, these types of products, uh, Colorado has done so as well. Um, but really I want to touch on, on the farm bill and the history of it as a refresher from 2023, when we first, uh, came in and supported Senator Dees's original. The, the way that we think about the farm bill lends itself to confusion, uh, in 2018, the farm bill had a definition of hemp that excluded hemp products from the definition of marijuana. And it took hemp out of the definition, um, on the Federal Controlled Substances list of marijuana. Uh, what that definition did is it talked about the 0.3% on a dry weight basis. Um, so what you're seeing is this percentage that must be in these products when they are first harvested and taken off of the ground. What we have learned is that a lot of these products have been synthetically modified. You're seeing, um, you know, carbon bonds are, are being chemically moved in these compounds to heighten the psychoactive substances and the argument from the industry has been that that's permissible under the farm bill because of this broad definition of hemp. Um, so I think we, we as a state have decided that we aren't going to wait on the the. federal government to try and and fix this loophole, um, certainly we are seeking that perceived loophole to be closed on the federal level as well, but that the farm bill specifically allows for states to take more restrictive action. And so that's what this bill does, um. Some of the things that that we've seen are Our products that are labeled as delta products, but they are, they present very much as, as medical marijuana, um, as flour. And they're being sold in quarter, half pound, and 1 pound, um, quantities online and those are being harvested in Texas, shipped into Arkansas, and sold to Arkansas consumers. Um, specifically looking at what is being sold online right now, they in Arkansas, um, talks about how the flour contains 250 mg of Delta 8 THC per gram, um, that It's cultivated on their Texas farm and the hemp flower is coated with Delta 8 THC. And so these are the, the flower products that we are seeing. We're also seeing vape products, we're seeing gummies, um. We had a woman in Arkansas reach out to our office back in 2023 when the original bill was passed that talked about her 14 year old son consuming the products, um. They were purchased by an adult, uh, and the, the minor got their hands on them, uh, and had a seizure, had to go to the ER. We've seen the, the crime lab have tested some of these products that are on the store in stores now, and they're well above 0.3%. Um, so what this bill Attempts to do is to take that more restrictive action that is explicitly allowed in the farm bill, um, and to protect Arkansas consumers. And update the language to continuously try to address the substances that we see popping up, um, you know, when you look at controlled substances, it's often legislation is like whack a mole. Legislation is always going to be behind what these new products, uh, the new products that are hitting the market. Um, so we are attempting to kind of give a face lift to the 2023 bell with trigger language that would ensure that legally what we're trying to do, um, that we won't start that lawsuit all over again. and it won't take us 2 more years to get a favorable ruling that if the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, um, agrees with our arguments that we can ban these products, um, that when we get a favorable ruling, this bill could then spring into effect and cover more products, provide more clarity in terms of what's intoxicating, what is not, um. And that's, that's what we're attempting to do today. Questions from the committee. Sola Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is just for my own education, and it has to do with the amendment that we've adopted. It's on page 8, Where we are listing out the different forms of uh Delta 10, Delta 9. It looks like the only change we made is we were adding two terms there that I am familiar with, but only under very different uh. Context. So I'm just curious, how do they apply here. And this is on the amendment or on the bill, it's in the amendment and it was page 8 of the bill, uh, lines 1 through 31. Here I can just show you specifically those terms and how they apply in this context, the system or trans THC in optical isomers. I, I admit I'm not a scientist. I could not sit here. I would have to defer to the scientists in the room, but it is not in the, um, The social context in which you would normally see them but I didn't know maybe they had like sort of a similar like one maybe be uh uh. I'm not even going to wade into those waters and get any of us in trouble. OK, thank you. It did come all from, from the Department of Health and per their request to make it consistent through the bill. OK. And those are terms that were in the 2023 bill as well. Other questions? No, we do have people signed up to speak for or against. Mm Mm Roger Crawford. Oh. just consistent with the last year with the last 13 minutes. OK, yep. Or if you would identify your shift, your microphone is on. My name is Roger Crawford. Um, I'm the owner of Free Sun Med wellness locations to an Arkansas, one in Orange Beach, Alabama, and I actually just opened a store in Colorado. So just to clarify that my products are not illegal. In Colorado. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee members for holding this hearing today. Um, it was just 2 years ago that I sat here at a table across the way with Senator Des and Amy Martin, an attorney and medical marijuana dispensary owner. At the same time, I had no clue that big marijuana was using lawmakers to create legislation through fair tactics like Save the Children campaigns to eliminate their competition. Just so you know, the same THC that exists in the hemp plant also exists in the marijuana plant. As they are cousins in the cannabis family. It's similar to Burger King saying that Wendy's Nuggets will kill you, but theirs won't and the nuggets coming from the same chicken processing plant. Today we're witnessing a David versus Goliath scenario all across this country where big marijuana, big alcohol, and big tobacco are using the same tactics being employed in Senate Bill 533. They cannot provide their consumers with quality products, so they create legislation to monopolize the industry in their favor. Many Americans are walking away from harmful alcohol and replacing it with God-giving products such as hemp derived CBD and THC. This shift is affecting their bottom line, so instead of developing competitive products, they're using lawmakers to introduce legislation such as Alabama HB 445, which I will be speaking against tomorrow. In Montgomery, Alabama, Senator Dees has once again declared an emergency, and there is in fact an emergency for citizens of Arkansas, but it isn't related to cannabis whatsoever. For Arkansas in 2022, here are the leading categories of death for children and teens, homicides, 66, 53 of which are aged 15 to 19, no emergency filed. Non-transport accidents, 58, no emergency filed. Transport Accidents 52, no emergency filed. Suicide 24, birth defects, 16, cancer, 14, heart disease, 13, no emergency filed since 2023, an estimated 2000 Arkansas citizens have died from alcohol. Not one lawmaker has declared an emergency since 2023, an estimated 11,000 Arkansas citizens have died from tobacco-related illnesses. Not one lawmaker has declared an emergency since 2023. An estimated 600 Arkansas citizens have died from opioids, not one lawmaker has declared an emergency since the last session, 0 Arkansas citizens have died from botanical cannabis. In fact, there's not a single death associated with botanical cannabis throughout history. The reports of children overdosing on THC are in reality linked to synthetic marijuana products that are misrepresented as hemp-derived CBD and THC. It's important to note that synthetic marijuana is classified as an illegal substance at the federal level. can be actively enforced. At this moment, you cannot put water, a water label on a bottle that contains vodka and call it water. I respectfully ask each and every one of the members of the committee today to vote no on SB 533 as it only hurts Arkansas farmers, small businesses and industry consumers. Thank you, and I would love to take your questions. Senator Di. And so you, you talked a little bit about an end run that I guess Folks in the marijuana business have been trying to make against hempive THC products. And I mean I would just say that the people of Arkansas did not pass that. And, in fact, we have a law on the books that says that those are illegal and joined as it may be right now. And I think the people of Arkansas very specific about what they wanted because they passed the amendment to state that. So I don't think anyone's getting an in run around in Arkansas except for the youth and others that are able to buy these products on the shelves today, because I think the people Arkansas were explicit in what they wanted, and that was marijuana for medical use, not everyday use. Uh, would you agree? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And can I respond to that question? And, and so if you were to, to, to come into my location, which some of the senators, Senator, uh, uh, McKee has and then Les Warren has come in my story as well. They changed their vote on SB 5:30 or 358. Once they came in, we've already, uh, have the childproof packaging, 21 plus. We don't allow any minors in our facility, nor can a minor get into any of our products. So We already lead the way in that category. OK. And there's only 5 types of THC in the hemp plant. So Delta 10, it's language. So if you put naturally derived. In the bill, then you eliminate all the, the, the, the THC. If you name the THC, the bad players are just gonna name it Delta 13 and Delta 17, Delta 21. But if you say naturally derived in the plant, then you limit it to the only natural derived THC that's in the plant. And I think that's where the lawmakers, I know y'all have your heart in the right place. I don't want kids getting sick off of anything, including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, or, or, or hemp products. I don't want that. But there's nothing that naturally occurs in the hemp plant. that would cause a child to go into a seizure. That's just not the case. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Crawford. I appreciate your testimony. Amy Crawford? Good morning. My name is Amy Crawford, and I am also an owner of 3 Sunmed CBD stores, um, So while this bill is framed as a measure to protect children, I'm going to explain how it's going to negatively impact small business, um, in Arkansas. So a three-tier system within the ATC, um, and us being exclusive to SunMed, uh, there is no guarantee that they are going to carry our products, um. We also don't have an exclusivity. So if they do carry our products, those products that exclusive to SunMed could be sold to anyone. So that is a concern that we do have. I'm also consuming, so on page 10, now with the amendment, I'm not sure what page it'll be, but the original bill, page 10, line 16, a consumable hemp products shall not be combined with any amount of tetrahydro cannabidiol as to create a danger of misuse, overdose, accidental consumption, inaccurate dosage or other risk to the public. Do we hold the same standard for pharmaceuticals, medical marijuana, alcohol or tobacco. Why is hemp being so heavily regulated. It labels, if the labels clearly indicate the serving size, dosing guide limits, milligram amounts, than adults should be able to therapeutically determine their own dosage. Unlike pharmaceuticals, alcohol and tobacco, hemp is nontoxic. It is not a one size fits all solution. So who decides what constitutes overconsumption. What will stop someone from consuming an entire container. This bill also states that ethanol cannot be used as with consumable hemp. So when Senator Dees said that he is not banning CBD. He is banning CBD. Ethanol is the leading solvent that is used for THC extraction when you have a broad spectrum product. It also, um, the FDA allows 50 mg of ethanol per day, um, and a proper COA analysis will reflect that. And the $5000 retail permit fee. I can see this as a manufacturer. For me, it will cost me $10,000 to be a retail specialist for our modern wellness products. Um, For comparison, Florida has one of the highest at $650. Tennessee is $250 and New York is $300 for a retail license. Hemp is a wellness supplement. Much like over the counter vitamins. Yet unlike any other OTC product, we are required to maintain records for invoices for 10 years. Keep safe records for one year and track product transfers. This is an undue burden for small businesses like mine. This bill also has a purpose, um, or this bill also proposes a requirement to label products as hemp derived. As he mentioned, your time is up. Does anyone have a question? Signa and thank you for your testimony. Senator Des Oh, I'm sorry, just a moment. Anyone else want to speak for or against this bill. Sure. Come to the table. Your microphone is on speaking, the microphone, introduce yourself. Thank you. My name is Abton Metazottigan. I'm an attorney with Hull Booth Smith and I'm lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the biogender for the bill or against the bill speaking against the bill. Thank you, sir. You're recognized. I, I appreciate everyone, uh, granting me this opportunity to be here. I recognize that I might not be the most uh favorite person here. Uh, I would just like to say to Senator Des I saw, I think I sat next to you two years ago in this room, um, and what I wanna just express is my, my praise and thanks as Narcans and for the amount of time and study you learning this area of law. I think it's commendable. I think all of us, whether you're on, uh, the for or against side of it. I, I appreciate that our, our, our legislature is working, uh, and, and doing the work to study this. What I like to offer is just an an understanding of the farm bill and some provisions of this bill that I think will make it unconstitutional, um, the farm bill has an uh an anti preemption clauses, saying that states can't do certain things. We often focus on the first preemption clause. says states can't interfere with interstate commerce or shipment or transportation. Those are extremely important, especially as we discussed internet sales, but there's another provision of it that I think begins to unravel the regulatory scheme that this bill attempts to embody and it's in the penalties. Uh, the farm bill adopts a conditional cooperative form of federalism. And so the default provision of the farm bill is that the Feds regulate states desiring to have that primary regulatory authority can. a state plan to obtain it once they get that approval, they can have that regulatory authority. That plan And the express provisions of the farm bill in 297 BE state explicitly that states cannot, um, enforce the plan, uh, as it relates even to negligent violations, more stringently than the farm bill provides. This bill does that. It, it, it would subject you to misdemeanor or felony, um, uh, uh, prosecution, depending on your mental state of culpability for things even as a reckless violation for failing to, for instance, not maintain a piece of paper. We're even growing in the absence of a permit. The farm bill recognizes that that action, um, could not for negligent violation cannot be punished by criminal enforcement action. This bill does that and it adds fines, where the farm bill doesn't allow fines for those types of negligent violations. So out of the gate, we have that problem. The second issue is that the bill adopts a somewhat strained definition of hemp that strays from the farm bill. I don't think the change in the definition, it's the lesser of or otherwise the farm bill with the farm the farm bill. it. I don't think that change really adds anything other than creating confusion for the public of is it 0.3% delta 9 THC or is it the lesser of 0.3% delta 9 THC. That gets us into again, another void for vagueness problem with this bill, um, because the person of ordinary common intelligence needs to know what's going to land them in trouble. And then there's another provision again that deals with the interstate commerce of these, uh, these products that cannot be um impeded. What this bill part, I think the biggest problem with this bill, and I just articulate it. Because I don't, I, I want to try to cooperate with this committee. The biggest problem is that it has committee member, you have a question? Sing Nan, thank you for your test. Yes, sir. Anyone else here wish, wish to speak for or against this bill. no, Senator Des. Thank you, members. Uh, appreciate the ability to close on this bill. We, um, We extensively worked on it, uh, last session. I know there was um a lot of education for myself, learning about this industry and And these products and I, I think what's clear is that, um, There's, there's a principled view, um, about the The route that we're trying to take here, and it aligns again with, with two main factors, and that, uh, we as a state, we as leaders have the ability to try to protect children, um, from these products that are purposely been marketed to. Uh, with cartoon characters with easy to open packaging with, um, with, uh, gummies and Rice Krispie treats and, and all similar types of products that are purposely marketed to children. There's that aspect. And then there's the other side of this that this bill and these efforts align with the will of the people, the people have said we don't want Recreational marijuana. It's been a vote of the people and it follows in that same demand. And so that's very consistent. The the, the side that is against these efforts have direct profits on the line, uh, uh. That, that is very clear. And, and if you say we're against small businesses, that's not true. We're against selling products that are against the law. We're against selling products that harm, that harm folks. And, um, uh, we are not outlying CBD, uh, that, that is not true, um, and so with that closed, I appreciate a good though. Senator D is close for his bill. What's the will of the committee? Motion to motion to pass as amended. Senator Scott, all in favor say aye. All opposed. Congratulations, Bill Pass. Thank you, members. I appreciate the conversation. We'll take a two-minute recess, uh, then we'll come back this way. 00, don't. The Senate Bill 466 Senator Jonathan Dima District 18. I have Jeremiah Moore with me, Representative from 661. You recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is fairly simple. It allows for a temporary moratorium on wind powered devices that definition is provided here, uh, for those that would exceed 150 ft, uh, that moratorium is going to exist until July 1st, 2027, and that's going to allow a study to be done that will predominantly focus on the its windmills impact or potential impact on migratory waterfowl and predatory birds, also known as raptors, uh. This will not apply to as defined a wind powered device that is under construction or has broken ground on before its operation on March 21st, 2025. And with that, I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, committee. Oh Gilmore. Thank you. uh, thank you for that explanation, Senator. Just a quick question, what about, um, lease agreements that are already signed this would be under construction, but if, for instance, it would contemplate win where it has a wind farm that's going in place as it as it's defined here, a wind power device would include a wind farm, and so they're already under operation, they're already building and it's not going to impact what they have happening and when. But if they have been planned lease has been signed, ground is not shovel hadn't turned dirt, that would eliminate those, would not eliminate them, it would just put a moratorium on it, put a prohibition on construction that could not start before July 1st, 2027. Of course, this legislative body could come back and enact something sooner, but we had a previous testimony on this in the Joint Energy Committee and in that joint energy committee, one of the things that kept saying over over and over again, there are no studies. Prove it. That there's an impact And then I would say the opposition to that bill acknowledged that there were no studies and there in fact should be some studies about what's happening. We're talking about significant structures that are being placed in the flyway in Arkansas, which is a incredible resource for us, for us as a state. It's a lot of our heritage even sitting around this table and those ducks in that hunting is something that we, we treasure and we want to continue on. It's important for our tourism, but again, no one knows what the impact is going to be because there has not been a study in an area like ours. And so this is going to allow that to occur before we forever possibly alter something and really, uh, the landscape in that part of the, the country. Yeah Jeremiah Moore District 61. Thank you members of the committee. Um, I do want to say that this is not prevent energy companies from exploring these leases or even adding new leases to their portfolios. This simply says we're going to take this opportunity to discover some due diligence on how this will greatly or not greatly affect eastern Arkansas and waterfowl flyways. And I do want to quote, I went back over some committee testimony from a previous iteration of this bill, um, a representative from Triple Oak Power, and this is a direct quote, Triple Oak recognizes the economic and societal importance. of game species, especially in Arkansas, and would welcome legislation in the form of a study bill. And that's exactly what this bill is. In fact, we've worked with another wind energy company that is a 2 or 3 years away from starting construction, and they were fine with this bill, as far as we know. They're at least neutral on it and said this would allow them time to continue their exploration in East Arkansas and still pay those farmers and landowners for their due diligence period. Questions from committee member. Dickey? Yeah, I'm, I don't, don't misconstrue that I, you know, would be for this either way, but I, I do have 11 concern. Uh, just You know, we're, and, and again, as much as I like our Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. You know what I'm gonna say, don't you? It, uh, uh, you know, would, is that a conflict of interest to use them, because, you know, it would seem, it would seem like to me, I know it's debatable, that you know that they're in the business, you know, protecting all type of waterfowl, so you know, it almost seems like to me there could be a little bit of a conflict that they'd say, well, We're going to lead to lean towards something that may, may not be exactly right. So, you know, I don't know, uh. I, I struggle with them, if we were to just to do a study, and I'm, I'm not, I'm just point blank. I'm not for the moratorium. I'm not against the study. Uh, you know, If we wanted to go forth, I just hate to stop this economic development, you know, thing over over in that area. But even if we did go through with the study, I, I would, I would rather see it somehow. I'd rather us to have someone that's more independent, you know, of, of all of that. So just to observation from my, my point. I mean, to your point, they, they have a a duty to protect wildlife for future generations. I mean, I don't know that that's a conflict, but an independent charge that we put upon them and I mean, it is part of their job to read these duck bans and mon what's happening and waterfowl migration and so I mean, I think it goes hand in hand with what we're looking to do here. I don't think that the Game and Fish commission is predisposed to being against, you know, wind turbines in the flyway, but I don't think any of us have the knowledge to know and we can say the moratorium maybe not justified or maybe that's an argument that some will make, but once those are up, they are up and they're not coming back down, um, and so once those, those flat paths are altered or those birds are Whatever it may happen and we don't know because everyone will say around this table that they do not know. Uh It, it will not be able to be changed. How many windmills are in the United States right now? No, you heard it testified at the other meeting. I definitely didn't remember 75,000 so I mean, if there was this big problem that y'all are alluding to out there, we would have heard about that by now, there have been plenty of studies, but again, let's, let's, uh, keep the facts out there. The fact that they're between Canada and Arkansas right now, we've got about 75,000 windmills out there that, that that Senator Hickey's concern, uh, as to how we're going to kill Senator Gilmore, you have a question. Well, and, and so I was just looking because Senator Hickey raised a point that maybe not a bad point in the sense of, um, you know, I've had a lot of interactions with game and fish over the years. And so, uh, but the way I read the bill, they're allowed to contract, is, am I reading this correctly, Senator and Representative, they're allowed to contract with another entity to perform the study. Is that OK, thank you. Hickey, I just, and I, I agree. I, I don't disagree with. Some of what you said, Senator Dismay. My, my only thing is, is I think that they could be involved. I just think that if we were to go forward with a study that I wouldn't mind those people being totally independent, not contract with game and fish, of course, if they wanted data as far as bird bands and things of that nature, of course they could. You know, we would expect gaming fish to You know, to be a resource for that, but as far as the contracting agency, that, I guess that's where I struggle with it. Thank you, thank you. Any other questions? we have people sign up to speak for or against. Ed Penny. Sorry, Senator Gi can we stick to the same rule to be consistent on 3 minutes, we will, uh, Mr. Penney's not speaking for or against the bill's speaking on the bill to bring information, and I would ask you to make an exception for him. I'll, I'll make that motion reflect an exception for him and then, yeah, and we will know that, but, but again, uh, he, he's speaking, he, he came to bring information from Ducks Unli come to bring information on it. So I, I don't know. I'm, I'm, I'm on it. Well, I respectfully, uh, As If, if we're gonna, if we're gonna say 30 minutes for anybody that's gonna sit at the end of the table. I'll, I personally just feel like that that's what we should do. I, I don't, I don't want anybody to think that we're not either side here think we're not being fair. We'll, we'll have questions for him at the end they could go with. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, I will keep it brief. Um, Ed Penny, director of policy for Ducks Unlimited in the southern region. I'm happy to be here and I appreciate the chance to provide information and to be clear, we are not for or against this bill, uh, but we do recognize that these agreements between landowners and wind companies are voluntary in nature. Uh, we respect private property rights. We know how difficult the farm economy is and, and wind energy development is, is one possible way to keep folks on the land. Uh, however, uh, it's important to consider impacts, potential impacts, and there is very little science, very little research on this issue, particularly in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. We feel like this bill does provide that opportunity to provide. For studies in gaming fish is a great partner and they can be a leader in supporting research and we stand ready to help too. But, uh, those are the biggest things we, we also want to highlight that, uh, wind energy development needs to avoid minimize and offset those potential impacts. We feel like there are good actors out there and we work with wind energy companies in other parts of the country to do habitat conservation, so our take home recommendation is to support more habitat conservation in the state of Arkansas to avoid minimize or offset any impact. So that's, that's under 3 minutes. I'd be happy to. answer any questions. Half your time, so question from anyone, introduce me. Just curious as far as what you're seeing in other states, how many windmill farms do we have in the flyway? I don't know that answer. I'd be happy to help gather that, and I think that that needs to be part of the study is look at, look at continental uh wind development, uh, but really what we're talking about is Arkansas and impacts the waterfowl populations here, waterfowl hunting economy here and that can be part of the discussion, but as far as, but. But as far as what DU is seeing in other states is what, what is the discussion happening in other states in their flyaway or, you know, with that share fly away with us. So general comment here is that most wind development that we are that we're connected to is in the Great Plains, uh, you know, prairie pothole region. Uh, there is some science that demonstrates or suggests that uh breeding pair numbers have declined. And, and portions of places where there are wind farms and wind development, uh, but most of this is connected to lesser prairie Chicken, greater prairie chicken, those species and, you know, those are upland environments and, you know, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Texas that, uh, we don't have as much interest in we're talking about migratory waterfowl here is what we're talking so. But in those same studies, they've come back and shown that their own breeding pair of ducks that, uh, there's been no significance, uh, Change in those breeding pair of ducks in Windmill farms. Is that correct? Well, the published research suggested 20% declines have happened. That's the research that I'm familiar with. I'm sure that there's been others, uh, and I think that another important point to make is that wind energy partners can help support science. Uh, they are, you know, they're partners in Habitat conservation with us. And I think that it's in their interest to make sure that, that what we're doing in this state supports waterfowl and waterfowl hunting. So. Whenever you said 20% decline. You're, you're talking about just 20% decline on overall numbers or are you talking about 20% decline because of this wind power in the area where that wind development was 20% decline in breeding pairs. That's, you know, that's, that's a separate statistic and without going into the ecology, that's who who those studies, uh, I'd have to look back, but it is published and I think it was Journal of Wildlife Management. I think what I read here in Hickey. But what that also stated that, that was within 300 ft of the base of the windmill. That is, when, when it's not windmill fields, it's in the immediate, uh, uh, location of the windmill tower itself is, is, uh, if I, my recollection is correct. May I continue? Do, do you know any of the specifics such as Senator Caldwell was talking about, if, if, if those specifics were within the base of the tower or, or was it more broad-based or do you even remember that study? I don't want to get out over my skis. I have, I have reported that in previous testimony in Mississippi. I'd be happy to, to gather that for you. Thank you, sir. Also, there was a, in previous testimony, it was, uh, uh, related to, uh, the study of redhead ducks, uh, in the Laguna Madre in Texas, where, uh, the population had gone down to 14,000, but, uh, 3 years later, uh, Laguna Madre and redhead ducks are much like, uh, Razorback fans in Don Real Stadium on the homecoming day is packed full and, uh, today, there's not very many people there and, uh, 3 or 4 years after that, uh, 14,000 count, the count was 1.32 million. So you know, uh, taking a, a snapshot of a, of a count on a day, uh, it does not necessarily reflect the entire, uh, health of the, uh, population, so. Would that be correct? Yeah, they're, you know, I think university uh Texas A&M Kingsville or Corpus did that, did that research and again, that's published and what that reflects is uh, you know, decline in numbers. It doesn't reflect, uh, bird deaths, but it reflects avoidance of that area, uh, and that was pre, pre-in energy, pre-in facility construction and post, uh, so I feel like that those, that is good data. It shows that or demonstrates that there was some some avoidance there 1.3 million was post windmill negative, so that's true. OK. Any other question? Senator Dispa? I'm just trying to follow. I mean, I, I think your testimony is in the studies that you've read, there's been an avoidance and a decrease in pairing of about 20% from what's been seen so far in the area of windmills. That is that right? I'm really kind of getting confused on that. I, I'd like him to answer the question if you don't mind. So, you know, again, birds are not dying from this. I, I don't want to suggest a wind turbines are killing a lot of waterfowl, but uh they do avoid those areas and, and again, we can call it snapshots, um, but it is what's published and it is peer reviewed by lots of different scientists and, you know, if we're trying to build a body of information, a body of evidence that either demonstrates that wind is compatible or incompatible in certain areas where there are Waterfowl habitat and waterfowl populations that we need to investigate this. Ser Gibel? Just wanted to touch on something you just said. They, you said the waterfowl do avoid those areas? Is that what I heard you just say? That's correct. OK. Thank you. The limited research that we have. That was breeding pairs breeding pairs breeding. In your question Sure. Just for clarification, if waterfowl are avoiding windmills if they were around the public hunting would it negatively impact the public hunting or could it potentially do so? I think that that would be one thing to, to assess and review. Any other question? no thank you. I appreciate you coming. to speak on the bill, uh, Brad Leland. Thank you, senators. Uh, I'm Brad Lila. I'm, uh, vice president of development from Cordelia Power. We are the company that is currently constructing a wind energy project on the east side of uh of Wynn. And I just wanted to share some some numbers with you today regarding that project and and a little bit about some development numbers as well in the future, so. The project that we're currently constructing in uh in Cross County is 135 megawatt project. It is a $375 million investment from our company. As of right now we have 22 turbines, uh, standing, and we will install 30 in total. We expect to complete the construction of uh of the turbine sometime late spring early, uh, early summer. As of today, uh, at that project we have uh employed over 500 individuals, um, in the amount of time that we have been constructing a project since, uh, roughly mid last year. We will pay. $489,000 roughly per year for the next 30 years of this project and taxes, we will also pay to the county, uh, an individual payment of $454,000 each and every year for the next 30 years, that payment alone is going to be $13.6 million. Uh, the landowners within this project will make $52 million in, in rent payments just for this project alone. In all that is is only going to take out roughly less than 50 acres of total agricultural land for this project. We are also developing a couple of other projects and uh one other project in Cross County and another project is primarily in Woodruff, Jackson, and Independence County, which, uh, could be upwards around 1000 megawatts, uh, that, that project alone is going to Is going to employ over thousands of people, uh, during the construction. And uh we will pay over $100 million in taxes on that project to, to those, uh, to those communities. Happy to answer any questions. Sure. All right, thank you. Uh, you mentioned your taxes, the 400, so you, is it a total, is it $489 a year plus $450 a year. All right. And what in the 489 is what type of tax collection is that? sales tax or that's like an industrial personal property tax. OK. And what's the, the 450 was in lieu of the property tax. OK, and so that's $450,000 that does not go to the school districts in that area, correct? It goes to the general fund of the county roughly. In lieu of the property tax that should have went to the school districts in those areas. Yes, sir, but it's also $27 million that will be paid in taxes that otherwise wouldn't be paid. OK. So what are those? What are those 27 million then? What, what, might as well go a little further then. The roughly about 14 million will be paid in taxes an additional $13.6 million will be paid in lieu of taxes directly to the county. In lieu of Yes, sir. OK, how are you doing that? The we, we, we came to an agreement with a uh a pilot agreement with the county and we agreed to split the the payment in lieu of taxes with the county. With that one particular county, which county was it? Cross County that was Cross. OK. Let, let me ask you this, since you're, you've been in the business, uh, I, I know you all have to, uh, have addressed this and seen it. And I know you're, you're one-sided here, but what impact or or what studies have you seen out there as far as the way it affects waterfowl. You know, I've been developing wind energy projects for about 18 years in the United States, have also worked up in uh North Dakota where there are turbines everywhere and uh what I've, what I've learned developing in North Dakota is that it is not a problem. Um, the, the wind energy is, uh, is expanded in North Dakota and there, I don't even know how many turbines there are, but, but they. Do the landscape and there's never been an issue, um, the, the studies that are out there, there are, there are, there are several out there that, that are in support of wind energy, um, and the, uh, the project in Texas, the studies in Texas, you know, one thing you have to look at in, in respect to that project is that the. The Impacts were based primarily on the placement of roads in a ponding of the water rather than the wind turbines. So sometimes people look at that and think that it was the impact of the wind turbine that caused it. It really wasn't so much impacted the wind turbines were was the placement of the access roads to, to reach the turbines in a pounding of the water. OK. So as far as North Dakota goes, Have, have you all dealt with this in the legislature or any other, uh, their gaming, gaming fish or anything of that nature. So each and every one of our projects, we have to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as the, the, the local agencies to to permit the projects, um, but no, in North Dakota this has never been an issue. OK, well, this, this is, this is a hard subject for me because you got, you got a place up here that's been well known for duck hunting and they're trying to protect it. And, uh, uh, has been, uh, basically a part of our. So, and then, of course, you know, just point blank. I appreciate you all being here and working with these landowners and this economic development. So, you know, this is, is kind of a struggle, and that's the, that's kind of the reason that I hate to do a moratorium, but I wouldn't mind a an immediate study to get started on this thing somehow, so, uh, just added comment with me. Thank you. I appreciate it. I, I too I'm a duck hunter, um, I, I do not personally believe that they they do impact the flyways, nor do they, nor do they, uh, kill Dexter. And I'd expect you to say that. Thank you. Are, are you familiar with how much, uh, wind energy, uh, Iowa economy changes much like Arkansas. Are you familiar with how much wind energy is, uh, produced in Iowa. Iowa, it's uh yes, sir. Iowa is roughly, uh, I believe it's roughly 50% of all the energy created in Iowa was created through wind energy. It is, it is the same thing as wind energy is created in Arkansas. I'm sorry, sir. How much wind energy is created in Arkansas? None right now. 0, yeah. This, this project will one when one operational will generate enough energy for 50,000 homes. You know, let me ask you one, sir, let me ask one insurance and then I'll, I'll get, let me ask, and I'll get back to you, uh, have, have, have y'all, uh, ever contributed money to any of the organizations to study, uh, waterfowl, the effects of windmills on waterfowl. Uh, we have not, however, the, uh, in, in Mississippi, they are currently going to study uh wind energy and we, we did not oppose that legislation Hickey. I want to make sure I understand. You said something about 52 million to the landowners, right, is that just, is that, is that a, a lease that you said? What is the 52 million again? I didn't write, write that down. That is a wind energy lease, yes sir. OK, and that is one time or annual or bi annual? What is that? Well, it's an annual payment and that's through the life of the project. OK, so you're saying 52 million for the totality. OK, thank you, sir. Sure. On Mississippi, what did they do in Mississippi? Do they have a moratorium or just a study? OK. What do they have as far as, uh, how many windmill farms are you aware of windmill farms are going in there there's a project in uh in Tunica that is operational, yes, sir. OK, thank you. Do any states have a moratorium? No, sir. Thank you Gilmore. What, what's the total footprint of yours here in Arkansas and compared to like say Mississippi. Do you know? Acreage and our impact total footprint of like acreage and all of that. Total number of windmills. Well, for, for the, for the project and when I, I think it's roughly around, there's 10,000 acres, ballpark that we have under lease just for the wind rights, but, uh, all in all, where the, the, the impact where the turbines sit, the access roads and everything. At that project and win is less than 50 acres total. I'm sorry, less than how much? 50. He said, you said. You ate earlier. I don't believe I did. I have 50 acres. You wanna say no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. I can't read this. riding on his Simon Mahan man. going to come back at you. No. work straight through. Or if you'd recognize yourself for the, uh, record, thank you, Chairman. Uh, good morning, everyone. My name is Simon Mayhan. I'm the executive director of the Southern Renewable Energy Association. We're a renewable energy trade association for wind, solar, batteries, transmission developers, and we work throughout the Southeast. Uh, my family and I though, we chose Little Rock here to be our home just a few years ago. Um, I'm here today to support the study, uh, in Senate Bill 466, but to oppose any two-year. moratorium, uh, Arkansas has a long history of supporting private property rights, free market principles, and economic development, and the bill currently is written risk undermining some of these core conservative values. In addition to that, this legislature has been dealing an awful lot with the power demand that Arkansas is going to be experiencing over the next 5 years, uh, to be removing a renewable energy technology or any technology at this point is going to remove a quiver or remove an arrow in our quiver to help promote economic development here in the state. As mentioned previously, wind energy projects provide landowners, often farmers and ranchers, the opportunity to earn additional income by leasing their land for wind development. This legislation by placing an arbitrary cap on wind turbine height restricts these landowners' rights to decide how to best use their property and how to generate revenue. We shouldn't be in the business of picking and choosing. generation, winners and losers for the energy market. Landowners should be free to decide whether they would like to participate voluntarily in the growing renewable energy market just as they, as they are free to lease their land for farming, oil and gas production or any other sort of recreational activities. Uh, wind energy resources can attract other business opportunities too, uh, as you already heard this morning, there's a wind project in Tunica, Mississippi that is operating that facility was built at the request of Amazon for their data centers going into Mississippi and so some of the businesses that are looking to locate here in Arkansas are going to ask for these types of generation resources and our ability to sell those types of resources to those new businesses is at risk if we move forward with a, a two-year moratorium on that. Um I, I, I've got a handful of other things I could talk about, uh, with ducks, but I, I think we heard plenty from Mr. Penny uh earlier today. Uh, like I said, our, our organization is, is not opposed to a study, uh, we've seen, you know, 40% wind power in places like Texas and North Dakota, where there is plenty of duck hunting that continues today. Um, I was checking earlier this morning, places like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, they were getting 66% of their electricity this morning from. energy That was this morning. Uh, and that, that data comes from the Southwest Power pool, which operates its headquarters here in Little Rock. And so we have a number of phenomenal resources here in Arkansas that can help answer some of these, these questions that folks have, your time is up, Senator. How, how much are we, are we generating any, any megawatts through wind right now in Arkansas. Not right now. So Southwest, uh, Southwest Power pool, of course, they operate and uh make sure that that if wind is generating that that they're moving the power around, um, the Southwestern Electric Power Company. They're an electric company in kind of Northwestern Arkansas and North and Southeastern or southwestern Arkansas, they purchased wind from Oklahoma and Kansas, uh, some of the cooperatives also purchased. men from Oklahoma and Kansas, uh, but currently we, we don't produce any wind power at the utility scale. And, and what is that being bid in at the market? What is, what's the market rate on that right now? it picked up. I get there's fluctuation and demand and all those kinds of things, but on, on average, what are we seeing? Uh, well, and, and sometimes these contracts are confidential, but what they do is they'll sign a long-term power purchase agreement with an offtaker. So the, the Tunica project with Amazon, we don't know how much Amazon's willing to pay for that, but that's a voluntary price for them and let me clarify because I don't think I was clear. I'm, I'm referring to like on the art in the RTO market. So like in a miso or an SPP or whatever. Um, this morning when you were looking at the Southwest Power pool market, there were negative prices that we were seeing across the footprint and so, uh, it, there was so much wind energy on the market that it was reducing the total cost for everyone. And follow up. And, and typically the way that works though is, uh, when that gets bit in say, uh, natural gas or whatever it might be, will get picked up first as a base load, right? Uh, actually, it's the opposite. So wind energy and solar resources tend to get picked up first because they don't burn any fuel, they, they can bid into the market at $0 which is the variable operational costs, so when Southwest Power Pool or the Midcon Independent System operator sees wind. resources in the forecast, they will book those resources first, and then they go up a sliding scale of cost, and so, uh, you're, you're right, combined cycle natural gas. Next in price usually hydro and and nuclear are are also really, really cheap, uh, but then it goes up in cost with combustion turbines for natural gas, coal plants, etc. But during peak demands, do they typically all, when they bid in, do they typically all get the same rate? How does that work? My understanding is yes, they, they, you do get the same rate, uh, there, there's a market that that gets cleared on an hourly basis and so whatever the the rate is for the market, all the generation resources get that same price. Thank you. Or the questioning Nunn, thank you for your testimony. Seeing no other, uh, witnesses anyone here that wished to speak, uh, For the bill? Anyone here wish to speak against the bill? Sure But Would you come come to the table. And it, did you sign up? I, I missed it somewhere. No worries. Yes, I'm Phoebe Bloom, manager of development with Triple Oak Power, um, Chair Caldwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Senate Bill 466. Uh, as mentioned earlier, Triple Oak is a US-based clean energy clean energy company with energy development projects in 22 states, including here in Arkansas. Triple Oak respectfully opposes Senate Bill 466 as written and asks the committee not to pass the bill. While relatively new to Arkansas, wind energy has been deployed for decades across the US and it's been accompanied by decades of wildlife research. This research has informed responsible sighting and coordination between developers and wildlife agencies. Across the US developers follow the wind energy guidelines known as the WAGs, which involve coordination between developers and state wildlife agencies such as Arkansas Game and Fish Commission to exchange data, make informed sighting decisions and address wildlife conservation in wind energy development. Triple Oak Power is dedicated to upholding these practices at our long grain wind project, which is in Crittenden County, Arkansas. We have conducted multiple years of avian studies at the project site, and we shared the methodology and findings of those studies with Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. We also discussed the appropriate methodology to then refresh those studies, and we hosted the commission for a site visit, using the commission's guidance to inform a responsible sighting process in Crittenden County. Furthermore, longer wind and projects like it represent a 350 to $500 million investment in the state and will provide tens of millions of dollars in property tax revenue that can bolster public schools, vocational technical schools and county emergency services. Triple Oak also fosters long term community partnerships. In Crittenden County, for example, Triple Oak supports the local chambers of commerce and two local nonprofits, Families in Transition and Moms of Marion, which are both focused on supporting young families in need in that community. It is our hope to continue bringing this economic development to Crittenden County and to the state of Arkansas. If passed, Senate Bill 466 will halt wind energy development and its economic opportunities for the sake of performing studies that are already a standard process, an integral to wind energy development. The moratorium would prevent wind projects from moving forward, denying counties significant tax revenue and denying communities and economic development opportunity. Thank you for consideration of my comments. I urge the committee to reject Senate Bill 466, and I look forward to your questions. I do, uh, before you, I'll get to you this, uh, how much money do y'all spent already on your project? Uh, so this project is in development. We've spent, Rounded the order of $12 million on development a dozen million dollars roughly, and this, this bill would stop that project in its tracks. Uh, without certainty that we could proceed, it would be very difficult to continue our investment in Crion County. Have y'all entered into any agreements with the county for preferred tax rate or a, um, payment in lieu of taxes. We've not. The county is aware of our project, um, we've been, uh, in a request for that. No, sir. OK, thank you. OK Just follow. So your project can exist without that preferred taxation. It's possible, yes. OK. Any other question? Good. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate you coming. He turned his wing. No, before, I'm sorry, as soon as, excuse me. Is there anyone else wish to speak for against the bill? OK, you reckon. Mr. Chairman, committee members, um, again, it's a very straightforward, simple bill. I mean, I think you've just heard testimony from DU that there has been a shown impact at least on the limited amount of studies that's happened. Um, it's my firm belief that once this, once these uh structures get put into the ground, they're not coming out. And so we will forever change the landscape, uh, in this part of the country if we continue to move forward without the moratorium, and that's why the moratorium's important, but equally. important is making sure that we are doing the right thing, which is the study. And so once we have that complete, we'll have the information to make educated decisions about what it is we're doing, uh, with wind, uh, in the flyway. With that, I'd turn it over to my, uh, house sponsor for any additional comments for clothes. Thank you committee members, and I think it's important to not put the cart before the horse, um, there'd really be not much of a point in conducting a study, uh, in 2 years from now, we see tremendous infrastructure built out with these wind turbines and existing contracts. And I'll, I'll point out that it's, it's about displacement. It's about destruction of the habitat around these turbines themselves. Uh, so while the project at Wy may only be comprised of 50 total impacted farm acres. The project's footprint is 10,000 acres, if I'm not mistaken. I heard that in committee earlier. Uh, the Triple Oak project in Crittenden County, uh, I believe it's over 20,000 acres. That's the real impact and 2 years from now, These projects keep popping up. We could possibly see them worst case scenario, wall to wall from the Arkansas to the Mississippi River. And what then it will have been too late. Thank you. Players closed, closed. Motion to pass. All in favor say aye. All the poll say no no have it. Senator Johnson. Oh. If you Yeah That's what That's so this is uh Bill 290, uh, yes, sir. You got an amendment. I got a constituent. I got to meet up Senate Bill 290. We Yeah Senate Bill 290. We got that in here. Exactly that. Josh, do you have an amendment to this bill or is this? No, it's been engrossed. If you would recognize yourself, please, Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. Uh, members is 290 amended it a couple of times, uh. Started out with a complete ban, uh, or the, release, release the moratoriums with Senate Bill 84. This bill, uh, it, uh, goes through the legislative process, and, uh, administrative Procedures Act and, uh, defines moratorium and uh also uh uh those moratoriums will last for a period of 4 years, and the existing moratoriums, uh, at the beginning of January 1st, 2026, they have to go through a Through this process, existing moratoriums. It at the beginning of this, this, uh This bill. For the What's the word? When the bill comes into Aff. Hm Turn your mic on here, Josh. Yes, sir. Thank you. Are you, yeah, I mean, it, that's pretty much what it does. It just sets up a legislative process, uh, oversight of the, of the, uh, those departments and, and where they have to come before us, the beginning of the bill, that first paragraph, it says, uh, you know, right now, under rule, we have to, uh, if it's not against state law, uh, federal law, the Constitution, we more or less have to pass the rule. This, this under these moratoriums give us the levity to do what the legislature needed to do in this process rather than the uh bureaucracy, uh, creating these moratoriums in the legislature having to live with them. OK. Question from the committee. You need just time out. I, I'll give you a minute. I thought I, I didn't know the amendment had been engrossed grossed. You're welcome. I won't give him a few minutes to, to study the language. Great. This bill has nothing to do with hemp or windmills, so. Dick, you recognize. Just, just one deal, and I'm not sure if we could do a voice amendment in here or not. I noticed that we put legislative counsel. Do we just want legislative counsel or do we, because we did this we want legislative council or joint budget in case we were in. Yeah I would probably be, you know, joint budget or legislative council would be probably good, but, but, uh You know, it's, it's up to y'all's discretion. Can we do a voice amendment in here on that last time. I don't try to be consistent on that. It, uh. It's we, we, we failed to do that one other time. It just, uh, Sometimes it just money, money savings down your floor. Well as late as it is and as many times as I've done it, uh, I mean, it's, you can suspend the rule, you don't, you know, to do a substantial and you'd have to suspend the rules to, to do a voice amendment that we've done it in the staff can get it done, let me ask you this Senwell, would you entertain if I, if I made a motion to suspend the rule to just have a voice, since we're this late in the session. So I'd make a motion to spin the rules. Y'all know what I'm gonna ask for since he made a motion to Spend rules, and, and Senator Crow. Uh, uh, secondary, it's not in our rules to suspend the rules, but it is, it does say that it's, it's a call of the chair and the chair rules, uh, that that's a proper motion. And so we have a motion to suspend the rules. All in favor say aye. All opposed. All right, sure. And, and my thing is, is that it's our standard language. It's normally our standard language that where we have legislative council, we put or joint budget just in case we're in session so that joint budget can hear it. I think we all understand how that operates the same. So anywhere, anywhere that's an appropriate place, which I, it appears like to me it's going to be on page 2 lines 24 and 25. There could possibly be another one, so I don't want to limit it to that, but I don't see it. So we'll just add more joint budget that's more of a technical. Correction the last time it was really a language correction that, uh. So, OK. Just Smith Moore. That is correct. Line 20 also. Any anyone have a question on Senator Hickey's motion. Seeing none, all in favor of Senator Hicke's motion, say aye, all opposed say no. All right, your motion has passed, so you continue with your bill. Do you have any other comment? OK, we have several people signed up to speak against the bill, Senator Johnson, so. You're first. Well No. And, and, and, and I publicly apologize to this gentleman because he came before to, and I marked him off the list. He came before to speak, and I thought he had spoken, and I marked him off the list, and again, publicly, I apologize for doing that to you, sir. So you're gonna get to go first if you would recognize yourself for the record. Richards, welcome. Welcome you still have time. Now I am on yourself again. Johnson. Thank you, Little Rock, Arkansas. Uh, this bill, I get confused whether you're for or against. I'm against repealing a moratorium. On the Buffalo River for CAFOs, and I'm against What I've learned about CAFOs. In the last month since I've learned about this bill. CAFOs seemed to be the four-letter word in the room, uh, they seem, what I've learned about them. Is that there's a documentary called The Smell of Money. That they are not very good neighbors. Uh, they tend to, uh, Pollute way beyond their footprint. Uh, on the other hand, uh, my parents took me to the Buffalo River when I was 5 years old and said, Rich, you'll be able to see every pebble at the bottom of the river, and they were right. And I was just up there last week and they're still right, but it's because the river has been protected and, uh, When I was in the 10th grade at Hall here, we had uh Jimmy Driftwood, who was from that neck of the woods, so to speak, come down and sing praises of the Buffalo River, but his quote was that the Buffalo River is Arkansas's gift to America and that the Buffalo River is Arkansas's gift to the world. And so anything that Good Damage that or pollute it. I'm against. And also it seemed like in this Billy, we're talking about Lake Momel watershed, which I've enjoyed fresh water from Lake Malel my entire life. So why would I wanna build it allows for massive hog farms in the watershed. That's it. Thanks. Thank you. Any questions of the witness? Thank you, Richard. You've been very consistent about coming. Thank you. I think it's important. Thank you. Cathy Downs Yeah And your microphone is on, if you would, uh, introduce yourself for the record, you're recognized. Am I tall enough that you can hear him here? I'm pretty short here getting the shortest one in the room. Uh, my name is Kathy Downs, and I live in Jasper, Arkansas, and uh I'd like to add Jasper Newton County, Arkansas, and so I'm in the Buffalo River watershed. The reason I'm there, and I've been there for many, many years now is because of the Buffalo River. I'm here to Phil. from Russellville, Jim Westbrook, Reverend Westbrook's son, and when he was 6, when he was turned 16 in Rustville. He got his driver's license and he drove straight up to the river and started floating in '64. And when I met him in '77, our first date, our first come down to meet the folks today was, uh, to float the Buffalo River. So he's been floating for 60 years. I've been floating for 48 years, and we've been living in Newton County since '92. And um we love it very much and we love it because of the river and the beauty and the natural environment and the, the cleanliness of the environment, and we would do anything to keep it that way. And I don't, I don't feel like just for us, I feel like for the future, for the generations that, I'm 77 years old, and, uh, I'll be gone in 5 or 10 years, just like, are we all going to go? But I'm concerned about the people who are coming after me, that they see that river. the way it is right now, and if we, if I'm against, I'm here to vote, to ask you, please, to vote against this bill so that we keep the moratorium against Cahos in the Buffalo River watershed. I know this bill is for the whole state, and I think that you, you are really, really think about the Buffalo River watershed as our beautiful gym in Arkansas and our beautiful gym in the south, and I know from living there that people come all the time from all over the country, and they bring lots of money that they spend there. They bring to Newton County alone. We have 8000 people in the county, and people always tell me half of those are under 12. OK? So we got 4000 adults and 1 in 10 of the jobs, uh, the, our tourism related or related to helping fellow travelers. I lived next door to several Airbnbs in Jasper, and there's lots of people I meet that come from all over the country and stay next door to me and tell me all about how beautiful this is, how rare it is. I know it is. I'm from Omaha, Nebraska. The muddy Missouri was my river growing up, and it was a whole different thing than the buffalo. So I'm just here to ask you to please consider not only the beauty and the clarity of the river and, and vote and vote so that we can keep the moratorium on the Buffalo River against Catos, but also so that we can keep the money coming in to Newton County. Which is, uh, uh, the last year alone was, uh, the whole 9478 million just to the, the, the counties. Anyway, there's great economic benefit, thank you, Mr. Down. I appreciate you coming back for your test. Thank you. Thank you for hearing us. David Peterson. Mr. Peterson, your microphone is on, if you would identify yourself for the records and you're recognized. Thank you. I'm David Peterson. I have a PhD in applied mathematics 55 years ago, and I'm here to present the scientific argument that a moratorium is really needed. We've had testimonials, I think the state has shown great love for the river and all that. But is there science? And I handed out some graphs before, but just to repeat some of the results, the 5 year BCET study showed 116% increase in nitrate and Big Creek as it passed Cage Hog farm, 69% increase in phosphorus at 61% increase in the 600 ft deep well at a four-year span of sevenfold higher level of nitrate in an ephemeral stream adjacent to the farm, and the geo of E. coli level of 154 colonies per. 100, which is way above the infection rate, a limit of 126 colonies. Per 100 millimeters in the state of Arkansas. You can't really swim very often in Big Creek during this experiment. These results are consistent with manure applications being used to satisfy nitrate demand rather than phosphorus need. Andrew sharply retired UA professor and author of more than 100 peer reviewed papers on nutrient management rights. Phosphorus can accelerate fresh water. You utrophication, one of the most ubiquitous forms of water quality improvement in the developed world, repeated outbreaks of harmful algae brooms and increased societies awareness of this trophication and The need of solutions and we could have better solutions on the Buffalo River for potential water quality problems except right now we don't in our agencies in a moratorium seems necessary. Indeed, he and others have found that at 10 to 20 pound per acre agriculture demand on pea for grazing land is adequately met by field levels of 60 pounds per acre with no loss of productivity, and yet, Um On CNH hog farm, the 15 field average of TP was 200 pounds per acre. More than 3 times what was necessary to produce a crop. And yet in 2019, the application rate of phosphorus on the land was between 170 and 300 pounds per acre. So CaO specialize in nutrient dumping on the land and that, that's why the moratoriums needed. Um This is justified by 360 pounds of nitrate per acre, uh, to satisfy a six ton. Per acre yield of hay even though Arkansas's average yield of hay per acre is 2. There's exaggerations in these things. Um, The tendency towards legacy phosphorus. OK, thank you. Committee members. Seeing none. We appreciate your testimony. OK, thank you. OK, we have somebody to sign up for, Mark Lambert. I'll take a 4. Good. I'm Mark Lambert. I'm with Arkansas Farm Bureau. Uh, we signed up in support of Senate Bill 290, as you heard at the last committee meeting, we, um, had a statement to, uh, in support of it. Um, and we heard testimony at the last committee meeting about a couple of issues in the bill and what we try to do is try to amend the bill to make it, um, to address those issues, whether it was the administrative Procedures Act, taking the 30, 3 days to 90, uh, moving and pushing it to ALC. However, um, right now, the two rules are out pending, uh, Rule 5 and 6. so they would still have to go to the rules, rules committee and ALC and then, um, from there get voted, um, to be put back in, then reviewed back. I'm not going to rehash everything Senator Johnson has said about the bill, um, but we did, uh, address a bunch of those, a bunch of those questions that were raised at the last, um. At the last meeting, um, we argued that this is a right to farm. This does not strip away any moratorium does not take away the Lake Montelle moratorium, nor the Buffalo River moratorium. Uh, this would just have one extra process in ALC so, or is, uh, as y'all added back in joint budget, but I would be happy to take any questions. Gilmore. So just walk me through, and I, I apologize, I had constituents here, I had to go to the rotunda and see him, so I may have missed some of the bill presentation. Just walk me through when you say it doesn't jeopardize the two moratoriums. So as they're currently written in pending, pending rules that have been pending for 10 years. So the rules will be presented at ALC and ALC is, um, the AL ALC week. Right now, they're, they're outstanding. So what y'all could do is go into ALC review. that rule and then it's put into place. The effective date of this act is January 1, 2026, and this will, uh, effectively take effect 90 days after January 1, 2026, and basically what they'll have to do is come back before ALC and say, you know, here's the justification for the moratorium and ALC will say yes or no. Does that make sense? Yeah, I'm, I'm, and I'm reading it now, so I, thank you. Sure, sure, this way. What, what is the reasoning, and I apologize, this also. out. What is the reasoning for the 4 years. Um, Senator Johnson, you wanna It's just a, a re-review of the, of any of those moratoriums on rivers and waterways, uh, if, if, uh, if it's still in place and it's justified, then it'll, it should stay in place, but it just gives us as a body, a, a mechanism to, to review, review those moratoriums, uh, whether they need to stay in place or, or be eliminated. Yeah. You turned this way. question, but the way that it's worded, it says that they shall expire after 4 years of the effective date of the rule, and it says review and approve, not just review. And it is not out of the nature of the legislature to defer the hearing of a rule. Um, I mean that's the first, the first paragraph of the bill, let's changes the, the function to be able to uh to not accept it. That's the first, the first paragraph in the, in it. If it's, uh, if it's, if it's the body's will that cannot accept that, that rule. But that's different than every other rule that comes before us. We're, we're giving it a different Threshold than the disapproval that would be required. For any other rule that we have come before the legislative council. I think, I think you passed that, and I think we can change that. Sherry Gilmore. I was chair, so then just again sort of pick up there because that was the question I had in the sense of, you know, this will be an outlier in that process. OK, just so we're, we're clear on that. And then, so it will it will expire after 4 years unless we state a reason. Or an objection to the rules they can go through the same process. They, they have to come and, and be re-reviewed every 4 years. Uh, same process with the, with the ones that are in place now, they have to be re-reviewed. Uh, by, by the body and that's, this is just a legislative process. This is not getting rid of the moratoriums. This is an oversight of, of a, uh, Executive branch department. So if they re up it prior to the expiration of this. Then It would stay in fact. Yeah, as long as the body, you know, this, if this law is in place. Then, and the body accepts it, then, then or in, in paragraph one, it can Reject it. Uh, I think Senator just may knows that we have to accept. If it's not against state law, federal law, the Constitution. We can't just disapprove. Uh, this allows us to not approve of not approve the. Moratorium and, and, and, and you created that system and we can We can modify it. And members just the moratorium is, is something, uh, that's an outlier also, in my opinion, as the agriculture producer. Uh, because that's not allowing the agricultural producer to even apply for a permit. It has to go through a permitting process to ever be approved in the same departments. Uh, are the ones that approve those or disapprove those permits. But this is telling a producer that he can't even Attempt to use his property. In the, in the way he wants to. And, and this can be expanded beyond just KOs. And I think everybody in here knows, uh, and, and And agrees that that you don't want those KOs in the Buffalo River. And I don't think a producer would put those things in the Buffalo River. But, but telling, uh, telling an agriculture person this is, this is the not limited to the possibility ofAOs. There have been waterways in the US say that I have to mitigate the last 5 acres of my of my ever farm that I farm, this is a possibility. So my runoff water does not pollute a ditch. Uh, you know, where is the limits on this thing if, if it's expanded into agriculture production, you're going to lose ground and not be able to feed, feed the nation or the world that we try to do, and, and you guys, uh, enjoy daily. You know the question. OK, Mr. Lambert, thank you for your testimony. so I'm sure I can't read the writing in is this butch or? Uh, someone signed up as a farmer and speaking against its ARD come, come, come. I will let you. Uh, interpret your writing for me. And I apologize for thank you for allowing me to speak even though I clearly didn't define myself very well. My name is Beth Art Apple. I am a farmer in Newton County. I live in Mount Judy. I have 94 acres. I have had a cow calf operation on my farm for 45 years. My children and my grandchildren participate, um. I think it's a false narrative to think that That farmers are against the moratorium on the buffalo, I think, uh, many farmers support the moratorium on the buffalo because of the particular nature. Of this, the karst under layman, um, the buffalo is a gem for our steak. It's a gem for the nation. It's a very small part. Of the state, I think like 2% or something. That uh is very special to the state. I think I've heard that 70% of the people who visit the buffalo are Arkansans, not people from out of state. Uh, I know that for generations, it's been an affordable vacation for people in Arkansas. It's a working person's place where you can go and for a very reasonable amount of money enjoy an incredibly beautiful location. I floated two weekends ago with my children and grandchildren and. It's just um It's quite an experience for young people to grow up in a place where they have access to A river like that. I think I had something else in mind, but I can't think of it just now. OK Any questions? Any questions? Sign none, I will say one more thing. I just want to add, I have great respect for my careful friends, people who own CaOs, um. They love the land as I do. It's It's simply that the science doesn't support. Having a KO in the Buffalo River watershed, um, so I think it In the 98% of Arkansas that is not the Buffalo River watershed, uh, maybe we, you know, need to figure Where we needVOs, but um. I think just not on the buffalo River watershed. Richard May Hm Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. And Senator Johnson. My name is Richard Mays. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock, um, My practice includes environmental law and litigation. I had the good fortune of and the great honor of representing the Buffalo River watershed Alliance and a number of other Um, nonprofit organizations in litigation against CNH hog farm. Regarding the uh propriety of the hog farm operating on the Buffalo River. Oh, there are currently in the state of Arkansas, 2 moratoriums that are in existence and have been in existence for quite some time. One of them relates to Lake Monell. It's the, uh, there's a good reason for that. We drink about 400,000 people in central Arkansas drink the water. From like all like my male and you want to protect the water. That includes everybody here in this room when you're in session. The other moratorium is on the Buffalo River, and you've heard that, uh, mention that moratorium was placed on the discharge of Pollutants into the river, uh, from hog farms after about 4 years of litigation, uh, and based upon the scientific judgment and evidence that had been produced by a whole lot of expert witnesses who testified or who were available in that case. Uh, moratoriums are not just placed willy-nilly by anybody. The only, the only entity that so far has done that is the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality under the supervision of the Arkansas pollution Control and Ecology Commission. Um, I think that this, this bill with all due respect to Senator Johnson is a solution in search of a problem. Uh, and also I would say that with all due respect to the, the elevated intellect to very a member of the legislature here, uh, in Arkansas. That these issues involve a lot of scientific evidence. I saw a lot of scientific knowledge, and they require time and uh process to go through, and I don't know that you really want to burden yourselves with hearing this type of thing. Uh, I've heard testimony that today that this is not going to affect the moratoriums on Mom or the Buffalo River, it will do exactly that. The, if you read the bill that requires that within 90 days after the effective date of the bill application has to be uh provided by those, by the entities that impose those moratoriums and the benefit from them to renew them. Sir, your time is up. Anyone on the community have a question? Miss, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Marty Oison? Your microphone is on, if you would introduce yourself and you're recognized for the, uh. I'm Marty Olsen, um, I'm from Ponca, Arkansas. Vice President of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and a small family business owner in Newton County. There are plenty of reasons why Arkansas would want to make sure there's a moratorium to protect its river, the buffalo. When you visited it to hike or float or for the piece it offers when staying in a cabin or campground, you know why so many of us care so much. It's one of a kind, a unique and true Arkansas treasure and everything about it depends on its crystal clear waters. I'm speaking not only as a member of BRWA but also as an owner of a small family business with 4 generations that have relied on the buffalo for our livelihood. We have 3 cabins, a historic river rock store. And were certified Buffalo National River concessioners for floating and hiking. We provide leave no trace instructions and recycling bags for every boat we launch. We help with visitor traffic at river landings are certified employees help with river and hiking rescues and have been trained in that. We're volunteer firefighters. Our septic tanks are in good shape. Our drinking water is pumped from our well. If our well water or river becomes polluted, we go out of business. There is no public water supply in our valley. We hire local youth to work during peak seasons. There are. a few jobs in Newton County and this gives them experience that they can use to build their futures. Many of our farmer friends have added tourist cabins to augment their incomes. We host a farm farmers' market market every Saturday where people can meet each other and sell their local produce. Farm raised beef, fresh vegetables. We're not against farming. I'm speaking for many of our rural neighbors who live in the watershed and for the beauty of the Buffalo National River itself. Make no mistake, there is no other buffalo River in Arkansas. It's a national treasure. Laboratory certified water samples continue to show high residual phosphorus levels near the location of the last swine kao in the watershed. Scientific studies have shown that it can be released from field and stream sediment for up to 10 years. We're not asking for a moratorium on CaOs for all of Arkansas. We're just asking for this governing body to protect our state's Buffalo National River and the people who make their livings there because it is what it is. Thank you for your service. I'm asking for a no vote on SB 290. Alright. Members, are there any questions? Saying none. Thank you for your testimony, who else is saying? Mm Right. John Ray. Is he speaking against against. Mr. Ray, if you'll state your name for the record, and you can proceed. John Ray. Thank you all, uh, committee for taking comments. Um, I am a, a trainer, author and musician, and I'm also a hiker, kayaker and photographer, and I spent a lot of time out in Newton County and around the Buffalo River. Um, I am in an environmentalist. And uh although environmentalist is, is sort of a four-letter word these days. Uh, actually, the most significant environmental laws that protect our waterways and air and land in this country were bipartisan and signed by a Republican president. Some people think that if you're an environmentalist, you don't support agriculture. Not so. A lot of my best friends are farmers, and my wife and I buy food directly from sustainable farmers, uh, in all around our area of Arkansas. We support these farmers and we've been doing that for 3 decades. The point is you can support agriculture and protect the environment at the same time. Stewardship is not a political or divisive thing. The buffalo River is the jewel of Arkansas. The awesome beauty of the Buffalo River draws visitors from all over the country. 1.7 million in 2024. These people added over $78 million to the Arkansas economy and that's every year supporting nearly 1000 jobs. The tourist economy is very important to the governor, as you know, and to the natural state initiative at the Arkansas Outdoor Economy Summit in Bentonville recently. Tom Walton and Brian Sanders discussed the importance of the Buffalo River to their vision for the state and for Arkansas prosperity. At the summit, I spoke with the owners of several companies that focused their entire business on fishing and hunting. And they were all wholeheartedly supportive of having a permanent moratorium on large Caos in the Buffalo River watershed for the sake of their businesses. And for their families, enjoyment of the river now and in the future. I've talked with legislators in the Senate and in the House. Who tell me that they have enjoyed paddling on the river with their parents and that now they do the same with their children, and they want to keep it that way. These things are not gonna change every 4 years. And there is no slippery slope when it comes to these kinds of large KO moratoriums. This moratorium in the Buffalo River has been in place for over 10 years, there hasn't been an avalanche of moratoriums on hog capos in other areas of the of the state. So what I want to say is that there are some states like in North Carolina and Iowa, where legislators didn't protect the pristine waterways in time. And they wound up with lots of pollution, creating algae blooms, depleting oxygen in the water and creating massive fish kills out of time. Thank you very much for taking my comments. If not Does anybody else. All right, I don't see anybody else signed up. Does anybody else here want to speak for or against the bill. Um, I'm sorry, Mr. Fletcher overlooked you can't come on to the table. Are you speaking for or against the bill? OK. committee Yeah, yeah, hand it out. Fletcher, if you'll recognize yourself, and then you can proceed. Thank you. I'm John Fletcher. I'm an attorney who's practiced business law in this state for 32 years. And one of my areas of practice is advising clients and whether their state issued permits are valid and enforceable. The first thing I would like to do with this handout is just I would like to confirm, I think that Mr. May spoke to this too. We think these are the two moratoriums that are impacted or targeted by this bill, and um, I would just ask the sponsor if they could please at the appropriate time. Confirm this is all, this is what we're talking about. Second, If we get to April 1st, 2026 under this bill, and the AOC has not approved these two. Moratoriums, these bills, they will be revoked. That is the default outcome as I read this rule. And so I do think that this bill puts these moratoriums at risk, and without any act, If anyone with just passage of time, these will be revoked. And I would like to clarify, you know, if, if, if the sponsor could confirm, I'm reading this correctly, but I see approval by the ALC has to occur or these come off the books. The final point I would like to make is, I think it's well understood under the separation of powers doctrine. That only a state agency can make line item changes to its regulations. So, if we do this, um, I believe you will not be striking just these paragraphs. You will be revoking reg 5 and reg 6 in their entirety is when a bill is presented or a regulation presented to the ALC. They have two choices, approve in its entirety or reject in its entirety. Without any action of anyone on April 1st, we could look up and have April, Greg 5 and reg 6 revoked in their entirety. Every outstanding permit under those regs will also be revoked. If you revoke an authorized regulation, all permits under that regulation are also revoked. And if I were asked to be given an opinion on April 1st, 2022. If any Greg 5 permit was valid and enforceable. I would not give that opinion. That concludes my testimony. And to be clear, I would ask the committee reject this bill. Thank you Mr. Spector. Does anyone have any questions? Say none Is anybody else wish to speak for or against the bill. Please state your name for the record and you can proceed. Michelle Bufkin Horton, uh executive vice president of the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony today in support of SB 290. Previously in this committee, you heard from some of my producer members, uh, about how they personally protect their land and their watersheds. These practices, which are common among cattle producers are driven by our desire to care for the land that sustains our livelihoods and ensures its preservation for future generations. Additionally, with 57 separate watersheds across the state, allowing agencies to impose more or ium s without legislative input could lead to broad, unnecessary regulations that negatively impact farmers and ranchers statewide, not just the Buffalo National River Watershed. SB 290 keeps these decisions in the hands of elected officials. Further, the Arkansas Cattleman's fully supports Senate Bill 290 because it upholds the fundamental right to private property, a principle deeply embedded in our organization's policy and the Arkansas Constitution. I would like to also clarify that this bill does not do away with the existing moratoriums, but creates a process for their approval that puts the power in the hands of the people, in the hands of you, people elected by Arkansans. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Thank you for your testimony, uh, members, are there any questions? Say no, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak for or against the bill. Yes, go ahead, we'll allow it. Please state your name for the record, please. My name, excuse me, my name is Alyssa Dixon, and I'm um a citizen of Little Rock in Arkansas. And I followed this pretty closely for the last 10 years, and it makes no sense to put, um, A hog farm in the Buffalo River watershed ever are in the uh Momel watershed, um, the science just is not. Um Support it and as I recall, as a taxpayer, we already spent $1.6 million getting the first one off. And, um, I just do not support this. It won't it we should have a permanent moratorium. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Miss Dixon. Does anyone have members? Does it, does any members have questions of Miss Dixon? Say no, thank you. I'll ask one more time, does anybody else wish to speak more against the bill? Saying none, Senator, you're to close for your bill. That Thank you, members, uh. I, uh There's been a lot of Testimony here today that should come when this bill is put in place. Uh, we're not here to debate. The value of the Buffalo River or the moratorium. This is a process and it will not get rid of reg 5 and reg 6. Uh, it allows the legislature, the oversight, uh, from the departments that we Legislative create. And uh and also, you know, gives us a better step in the rulemaking process to protect, uh, to protect agricultural production in the state of Arkansas. Uh, I don't think there's any ag producer that wants to destroy the natural beauty of, of that, uh, river or Lake Motel. And, uh, it was said that, uh, a conservationist is a liberal. Agriculture producer is a conservationist at heart because we make our living. Off the ground that we produce, whether it be a hog farm, a cattle farm, chicken farm, or my crop farm. We make a living off of that land, and we will do nothing to uh to harm it. And uh there's mitigation processes in every situation, whenever you're, uh, you're getting a permit. And uh I would appreciate a good vote. members across the will of the committee. I moved due passes I mean by voice in this committee. Uh, recommended due pass by Senator Hickey, seconded by Senator as amended, seconded by Senator Crow. All in favor say aye. All opposed. I have it. Congratulations, Senator, your bill is passed. Uh, we are adjourned. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you said a journey, OK. Oh, I thought you said Senator Hill you better get up here while getting the good I know. Yeah. Yeah. Oh hell. Turn your microphone on and let's go. Introduce yourself for the record, sir. Mr. Ricky Hill, Senate District 11. SB 550 SB 550 Senate Bill 550. Yes, sir, with your permission I'd like to have uh Secretary Ward uh to come down here as well for you. You said it was a name change. He said there's some Uh, policy changes in there, so that's what he told me. So we're gonna let him talk about those. That's fine. And so I, I'm gonna tell you them of this bill, it's 70 something pages long when I saw that, I thought this name changed, but most of that is because it is a name change. Thank you Sher wars you would, or secretary Ward, uh, introduce yourself, please. Yes, we're uh West War Department of Agriculture. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The, the main, the main thing I wanted to, uh, point out besides the name change that we're doing, we're actually increasing the Hopefully, uh, the new name, uh, Animal Health Board to 3 veterinarians instead of 2. So it'll be 3 of those on there because they are dealing with uh The livestock and poultry in the state of Arkansas, plus the, the health and well-being of the food, food supply chain. So we want 3 veterinarians on there for, for that. And then I'll let uh Secretary Ward go through every other change that's on here because I did notice some, uh, uh, lineouts and some, uh, the underlining, so he's going to, to go through those. you. Yes, sir. I'll be, I'll be very brief to to Senator Hill's point, that the biggest piece is the name change to reflect the, the broader responsibilities of, of what was livestock and poultry commission currently with the responsibilities for veterinary oversight. uh, it, it changed the number of veterinarians on the board, the other pieces, there, there were some strikeouts of language and the code that that are not used currently, so we're striking those things out just a little bit of cleanup associated with that as well. Uh, but that, that's the main point of the bill, um, as, as far as the 7. pages are concerned. you need a moment to look at the bill. Yes, sir. Let's give me a moment and, and while we're doing that, uh, I'd like to put Secretary Ward on the spot while, while we're here and again, uh, but Making letting him allowing him to make a statement that there is no significant changes in this bill that In any way sneaky. Yes, sir, we, we have read and reread and reread again all 71 pages just to make sure that there are no unintended consequences associated with with this bill. That gives me some level of comfort, Mr. Secretary, but I have a question for the senator. Have you read every page and word of this book? Yes, sir, I have. I don't believe that. And the reason I read it is for what I just asked the, the secretary over here. The The only thing I'd seen, and maybe you said it, I'm sorry, I was trying to read it. You, y'all did y'all did kind of make it specific on what areas of practice. Also, did you mention that? Yep, might just, just so that. That's the only other thing that was significant that I've seen. Yes, sir. So, uh, uh, and because of the, the veterinarian oversight, so it specifies those three veterinarians. Uh, one will be from poultry, one will be large animal, one will be general practice. It still maintains the veterinary committee as part of that which has at least 2 small animal veterinarians with it since we're that's the only other thing I'd seen, so, all right, thank you. Very good. Any other questions? no, you don't hear signed up or want to speak for this bill or against this bill? The nonsense you like clothes for your bill? I'm clothing. I appreciate a good vote. We got a motion passed by Senator Crow, seconded by Senator Leding. All in favor say aye, all oppose. Thank you. Is anyone else here? To present a bill we go ahead and those bills out their departments. Ward? Yeah, that's what let's do it now because it's uh it's, it's crunch time for Senator Wallace. That's fine. Absolutely. That's what they do, so I'm gonna turn it over to him. So these are introduce this yes sir. Senator Ben Gilmore, Senate District one. These are House bills 1741, 1942, 43, and 44, I believe. And with that, I will begin with 1741 and ask the secretary to take it over. Yes, sir. And, and I apologize if I lump all these together, but the four bills all essentially do the same thing. So it clarifies, uh, the, the relationship between the, the plant board itself and the department. So there, there were still some uh language in there on the board, uh, doing administrative tasks. We clarified that where the department's collecting fees. The board still maintains the regulatory oversight to oversees all licensing and all of those aspects, the, the department carries out the administrative functions. The other piece is, is a ated with the fees where uh on, on all four bills, uh, The industry currently has to calculate their own tonnage fees, uh, and they submit, they submit a payment to the department, the department goes back, recalculates, and we do about 30 a month where we're having to send rebates, reissue checks, and so this streamlines that process and makes it easier for the businesses to comply, makes it easier for to do it one at a time. Let's do House Bill 1741. If it's OK, our division directors standing outside the door, if you don't mind if I behind us, OK, I was looking for him. Bring drag your chair up to the end of the table. I'll get up. I served no purpose here anyway. I know. Introduce yourself for the record. I'm Scott B Division Director. Thank you. All right, Secretary War, you recognize that? We're doing half bill 1741. Yes, sir. So, uh, this, this one is specific to the agricultural limbing Materials Act, but as I mentioned, it, it clarifies the language, the language between the board and the department ad or Mr. Bray. See no. Is anyone in the room here to speak for or against this bill. So no, Senator Gilmore. Uh, thank you, members. I'm closed for the bill. As, uh, for a good vote and make a motion to pass. have seconded by Senator Kroll, all in favor say aye. All right. House Bill 1742 that that did pass. Thank you, Senator, and I will defer to the secretary to present the bill. Yes, sir. West War Department of Agriculture, very similar. This one is just on the the seed certification law itself clarifies the language between the board and the department and, and clarifies the reporting of fees from the Be ain't none. Anyone here to speak for or against the bill, seeing none, Senator Gilmore. Thank you, members. Close the bill. Make a motion, uh, to pass. Motion pass. Do I have a second from Senator Stone. All in favor say aye. All opposed Bill passes. Congratulations. House Bill 1743. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I defer to the Secretary to present the bill. To simplify, sir, just to amend the Arkansas fee Law of 1997. Questions none bill. Thank you. Make a motion to pass. Du pass, seconded by Senator Crow, all in favor, say aye. All opposed. Gilmore House Bill 1744. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I defer the Secretary present the bill. Yes, sir, uh, to amend the law related to fertilizer. Any questions? A none. Senator Gilmore. Thank you. I'm closed. Make a motion to pass. Jack Senator Crow, all in favor say aye, all oppose. We have any other bills. Seeing none. Is anyone else here to present a bill. We are adjourned. you