Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (21)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB455
· 8 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB455 J. Bryant TO ALLOW REGULATION OF HEMP PRODUCTS BY ARKANSAS…”
|
TO ALLOW REGULATION OF HEMP PRODUCTS BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB400
Act 933
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM.”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. | Irvin | Notification that SB400 is now Act 933 |
|
SB466
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB466 J. Dismang TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND…”
|
TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS … | J. Dismang | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1525
Act 923
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1525 Steimel TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY; AND TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL IMPACT REMEDIATION AGREEMENTS. | Steimel | Notification that HB1525 is now Act 923 |
|
HB1656
Act 1024
· 2 mentions in transcript, agenda
Matched: “Uh, on a House Bill 1656, that's being amended, so we're gonna pass over that, uh, S…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION AND CONSERVATION. | Beck | Notification that HB1656 is now Act 1024 |
|
HB1741
Act 526
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1741 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL LIMING MATERI…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL LIMING MATERIALS ACT. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1741 is now Act 526 |
|
HB1742
Act 527
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…. HB1743 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FEED LAW OF 1997. HB1742 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO SEED CERTIFICATION.…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO SEED CERTIFICATION. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1742 is now Act 527 |
|
HB1743
Act 586
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1743 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FEED LAW OF 1997.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FEED LAW OF 1997. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1743 is now Act 586 |
|
HB1744
Act 530
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1744 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO FERTILIZER.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO FERTILIZER. | Wooldridge | Notification that HB1744 is now Act 530 |
|
SB290
Act 921
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB290 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB290 is now Act 921 |
|
SB533
Act 934
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB533 Dees TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODU…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; … | Dees | Notification that SB533 is now Act 934 |
|
SB550
Act 703
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB550 Hill TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULT…”
|
TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO THE ARKANSAS BOARD … | Hill | Notification that SB550 is now Act 703 |
|
HB1149
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBER AT THE PINE TREE RESEARCH STATION. HB1149 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. SB281 Gilmor…”
|
CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. | Vaught | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1562
Act 941
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL IMPACT REMEDIATION AGREEMENTS. HB1562 Gazaway CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF AN ORAL LEASE OF FARM…”
|
CONCERNING THE TERMINATION OF AN ORAL LEASE OF FARMLANDS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1562 is now Act 941 |
|
HB1681
Act 812
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NDS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING NOTICE OF TERMINATION. HB1681 Vaught TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE WATER AND SEWER TREATMENT FACILITIES GRANT PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Vaught | Notification that HB1681 is now Act 812 |
|
HB1772
Act 529
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1772 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION.”
|
CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. | Vaught | Notification that HB1772 is now Act 529 |
|
SB281
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION. HB1149 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. SB281 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING AGRICULTURE; TO ESTABLIS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING AGRICULTURE; TO ESTABLISH THE PRODUCER BILL OF RIGHTS FOR COMMODITY … | Gilmore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB563
Act 741
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB563 Irvin TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMI…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY FOR CERTAIN … | Irvin | Notification that SB563 is now Act 741 |
|
SB582
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USED FOR AN EQUINE UNDER THE OFFENSE OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. SB582 B. King TO ESTABLISH THE STATE ACTION POULTRY FLOCK DEPOPUL…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE STATE ACTION POULTRY FLOCK DEPOPULATION GRANT PROGRAM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB84
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HER BODIES OF WATER. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB84 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERM…”
|
TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF … | B. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB85
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER. SB85 Caldwell TO PRESERVE PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBE…”
|
TO PRESERVE PUBLIC PROPERTY; AND TO PRESERVE TIMBER AT THE PINE TREE RESEARCH STATION. | Caldwell | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
President Cesar Corral, this meeting come to order. Senate Agricultural, Forest, and Economic Development Committee. Excuse me. We've got a full agenda today, and we will try to take everyone, give everyone an opportunity to speak their piece. Senator Bryant. Yes, sir. I'll get you out of my way.
Speaker 6
0:30
Yeah, we're good. You're exactly right. Introduce yourself for the record,
Senator Bryant, and we are talking about Senate Bill 455, correct? Yes, Mr. Chair,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:42
there's an amendment. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. You recognize
Speaker 13
0:48
to introduce your amendment? Thank you, Mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:51
Chair. Thank you, committee. The amendment, you know, we discussed this bill right before a break. The amendment addresses some of those concerns about the prohibited substances list as well as the wording within the ATC to make sure there's no conflict in moving those fines back to consistent.
It also lowers 50 milligrams to 25 milligrams for the purposes of ensuring that we push out any synthetics because that is while prohibited and the intent of the bill overall is to ensure there are no synthetics allowed. 25 milligrams was consistent in the industry to help alleviate those concerns. Anyone have a question on the amendment?
Motion to adopt the amendment. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, say aye.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:52
Amendment's been adopted. You're recognized to present the bill 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 minors without the controls and the regulations needed to ensure that they are off the shelves and they are behind the counter and they are available to 21 and older individuals.
The attempt was made in 2023 to do that. However, those results, as we all know, are locked up in federal court. What this bill 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 saw clarity, and I hope each member was contacted, if not as a group, but indirectly 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 is the intent, and I got that confirmation immediately after the committee, so I hope that alleviates that concern 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 or 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 a subsequent bill, not only in the House, but coming to 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 will still be here in two 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, it would put ATC in control, it would pull it 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 close for the bill. Or take any questions.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
4:00
Okay, question. Senator Dismay. So the language on, I didn't think it looked like it was corrected in the amendment. Sorry. Page 41 that repeals the Tobacco Control Board. That is still there. Yeah, I asked for clarity
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:21
and it's supposed to be there because that's how the original 629 bill was. And so it doesn't repeal it as a statute because, you know, from back in the '70s what it does
is just repeals Act 629 and then replaces it with this language. it doesn't affect the outcome of the control board. I know it's, I had to ask two or three times and I got clarity that the language needs to stay because that's part of the overall repeal of 629. Senator Hickey?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
4:59
Not of the sponsor. Are we going to hear from the AG on this? Yes. Okay.
Anyone else? Okay. Seeing no further questions, I will ask for testimonies for and
against, and first we will hear
Speaker 36
5:29
from the Attorney General's office. Your mic is on. Introduce yourself, please. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Alex Benton with the Attorney General's office. I believe that Senator Dismang's point about page 41, section 11, starting on lines 20,
deletes more than necessary. It deletes the enabling legislation for the Arkansas Tobacco Controlled Board. 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, in Senate Bill 455, where those duties and that creation are put back in.
I went back and watched the testimony from this committee's previous meeting, and I believe the testimony was that it was imputed back on page 40 and 41, and that is not the case as I read this. 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, 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 these products are being sold under. And prior to the 2023 ban, there were three prosecutions that we were able to find in
Washtag County specifically that tested the Delta products that were marketed specifically as being sold as compliant with the farm bill under 0.3%. In an affidavit that was filed in Washtag County in those three 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 Cush, 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, 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.
Since then, it's correct that the lawsuit has been enjoined 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, and we remain optimistic and confident in that lawsuit upholding Act 629 of 2023. I'm subject to your questions.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
9:07
Chair Zicke? So, and I'm probably speaking for everybody here, although I'm just going to speak
for myself. So I know we're trying to thread a needle here. My sole objective is that we regulate this to the maximum extent that we can until you all get done 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 we're looking for. Would that be, is that true? There are no acts
Speaker 36
9:51
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.
That would not moot out the lawsuit, but it would not let the regulation take effect
Speaker 48
10:17
now either. Can I answer your question? Maybe. But y'all's stance is, and
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:22
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 is that what I'm interpreting, though? Is there not any type of legislation that you all would think would be helpful to help with the desire of this legislature that we regulate it as much as possible until this court proceeding to hopefully that y'all win and the ban will be in effect?
Speaker 36
10:48
Is there nothing that we can do? I would bifurcate my answer into yes, which is why I'm also here today to support Senator Deese's bill to update the 2023 ban, which also had regulation as a backup in it. and that would keep that. But there's nothing that could take effect tomorrow if any bill were to take effect now that would not immediately move out the lawsuit prior to an order being entered and then start over those arguments for another two-year lawsuit.
Speaker 53
11:19
Okay. I appreciate your explanation. Any other questions? Seeing none, Ms. Benton, thank
you very much. Okay, we have people signed up to speak for and against this bill.
Amy Crawford
Unverified
12:03
I did not know that there was an amendment, so I am at this time not going to speak without seeing that amendment. Okay, Larry Page speaking against the bill. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 65
12:45
members of the committee, I'm Larry Page of the Arkansas. Mr.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
12:48
Chair, 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 we have a motion to at least limit testimony before the first one starts uh i'll accept your money i don't know what's going to be appropriate or what the committee would want is is three minutes enough does that give you enough time sir yeah three
Speaker 75
13:10
maybe yeah okay three hopefully i want to be brief because i know you got a
Speaker 65
13:15
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 because 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 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 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 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 purported to provide that. THC is desired because it is an intoxicant, and these products that don't have THC aren't going to be nearly as sexy, and they're not going to 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, all kinds of things. But don't extract the THC and put those in human consumables. Don't we have enough intoxicants on the shelves and in 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 three. Anyone
Okay, speaking forward, Roger Crawford.
Roger Crawford
Unverified
16:21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. I had a whole speech ready for today, but I'm going to shoot from the hips here. I represent SunMed, Modern Wellness. We're the largest hemp retailer in the world with over 2 million customers. We're a USDA-certified organic company.
We're a soil-to-oil company. We're third-party tested four times before our products ever make it to the shelves. We're award-winning. We're ranked number one in the industry worldwide. The gentleman that just spoke mentioned states that are recreational states, and what we're seeing across the country is a monopolization of the cannabis industry, and you have to understand the plants. I've got over 20,000 hours in this industry, six years. So 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. Six 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, 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 our kansans i i suggest that you first of all google how many people have died from botanical cannabis it's zero 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 plant that was given to us by God. It's a seed-bearing plant that was mentioned in Genesis 129. He told us to use all the seed-bearing plants as food. I use these products on a daily basis. I drove two 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 two and a half 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 into the hands of an industry that kills
people on a daily basis? Your time's up. Do you want to have a question? Thank you for your testimony. Thank
you, sir. Laura Hsu? Shane David? Are you all testifying together? Yes, sir.
If you can sneak out of the back
Speaker 85
20:01
corner. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm Laura Hsu. I'm general
Speaker 87
20:05
counsel with the Department of Health, and you may remember that we testified against this bill previously. We still have the same concerns as we testified about before. From a health and safety standpoint, the governor's office asked us to be here today to testify against this bill. We are neutral on Senator D's bill, and that will be presented later today.
And basically we have the same concerns as we did before with unintended consequences of this bill. And we're here to answer any questions that you may have. Okay, committee might have a question
of the health department. Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you. David Potter.
Speaker 90
20:58
Thank you, committee, for allowing me to speak. I'll be brief as well because I was able to speak last time. Our concerns remain the same as far as ATC. As the agency that oversees compliance for minors and how minors access products, I would just say that as we're attempting to regulate such an intoxicating commodity, there is going to be a way that minors are going to attempt to find access to this product. That is highly concerning for us given the level of intoxication of this. We are doing more work than ever in the proliferation of vape products in school.
We are 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 yet you see minors showing up at schools with these products. I just submit to the committee that it would be the same if we're regulating an intoxicating hemp product. My fear is that all the calls that I receive from school resource officers, from police departments, from parents, and parents where their kids have been sick, put into the hospital, I'm afraid that's going to continue. So I'm open for any questions.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
22:00
Question from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:16
You're recognized. Thank you, committee. I'll keep this brief, and I've got a long agenda. A 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 the box for the state of Arkansas.
And I know it's hard, but I think the fact that we're bringing another bill from an executive branch to the legislative body shows you that the confidence to continue this fight is still very low. I think there will 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 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 we won't let perfect get in the way of good, and I think it's what the state needs while we continue this fight. Until then, we're just going to continue to be back here. So with that, I will close for the bill. Senator Bryan, for lack of quorum,
we're not going to have a motion on your bill. I understand. They're all left. I apologize to it. You know. I understand. I believe you. I understand.
I understand. But as much as what we've got going on, we're going to take a short recess. So, but there again, if we get back in, we'll ask for a motion. but right now we don't have quorum and I want to be very much above board. So we're going to stand and recess for five minutes. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 117
26:19
you? Oh, really? Well, that was one day last week. Is
Speaker 129
26:30
that your daughter or your daughter? Oh,
Speaker 132
26:39
no one here.
No, that daughter and granddaughter right there. Yes,
Speaker 133
26:49
sir. How are you doing? Good. Mr. Chairman, if any, I just wanted to
Speaker 117
26:55
tell you how it's here. How are you? Good. You're just showing me how to do coke.
Speaker 138
27:01
- Good, good, glad to be here.
- Mr. Chairman, I'm Cathy Downs from Jasper. Can you go from Jasper today?
Speaker 147
27:21
- I'm good, I'm good, in the long drive, we made it. I was wondering, are you going to be taking testimony today on the
Speaker 151
27:28
moratorium? We're going to turn the seat first. He's supposed to run that bill. He's supposed to run that bill. They're running that bill. So, are you going to take
Speaker 113
27:39
testimony on it? Sure. Okay. We've heard over there that you weren't. Maybe that's somebody just
Speaker 147
27:43
trying to tell us to shut up. Here, come here.
But we are, okay. I'll let you sign in
Speaker 63
27:51
right here. Yeah, I'm signed in right here. Oh, you're signing in. Okay, good. We're limiting the testimony in three
Speaker 156
27:56
minutes. That's okay. Okay, good. We're limited for three minutes. That's okay. I got another two minutes. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 176
29:24
about it, I don't know, anything about it. I mean, it's a high party. Yeah, high
Speaker 177
29:35
gas. What does that mean? I don't know if it's a ship, right? Yeah, it just leaves up a whole bunch of money for contractors
Speaker 100
29:38
to come in for everything. And we'll see a good thing, so we don't get out. We're only, they don't do that for a time. I don't know, I don't know. Hey, you shouldn't do that, I don't know. Yeah, I don't know. Thank you.
Unknown speaker
30:23
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
32:40
two to find members.
Speaker 196
33:23
Senator Dismang? Senator Hickey? Here. Senator Hickey, here. Senator Letting? Here. Senator Letting, here. Senator Gilmore? Senator Gilmore? Senator Kroll? Senator Kroll? Senator Scott? Senator Scott? Senator Stone? Here. Senator Stone, here. Senator Caldwell? Here. Senator Caldwell, here. Senator Stone? We have five. Recall
Here. Senator Scott, here. Okay. So we have five. All right. We're going to pass over House Bill. Excuse me. Senator
Bryant, are you still in the room? He said he was going to pull it down.
Just for the record, he's going to pull it down. On House Bill 1656, that's being amended, so we're going to pass over that. Senate Bill 466, Senator Disbang, not here.
Senator Irvin, Representative Simmel. Senate Bill
Speaker 203
34:38
400. Thank you, Mr. Chair. At Senator Irvin's request, I'm going to present Senate Bill 400.
Speaker 204
34:44
but after visiting with several Senate members, I believe it's best to pass over this bill at this
Speaker 75
34:52
time. Turn your mic on, Representative Stimel, please. Apologies. Identify yourself, please. Yeah.
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
34:57
Trey Stimel, District 2, State Representative. Now, state again, your intent. Right. So, Senator Irvin asked me to present Senate Bill 400, and after visiting with several Senate members, we feel it's best to pass over this bill to address some issues with it. While you're at
Speaker 206
35:13
the table, would you like to go ahead and present your bill? Yes, I would. And that would be, I believe, Senate Bill 1525. 1525. We have an amendment to that. Okay. So on this
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
35:25
amendment, you know, all it does is just create just a little bit of language change from adequate to adequate proof of.
And, you know, with that, I'll take any
questions. And to explain that, basically, that's the proof that you have 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 that's all that that corrects. So you don't have to actually provide the equity, but you provide the proof of the equity.
Yes, that is correct, Senator. Yeah. Okay. So, time out. Anybody have a question on the amendment?
Motion to approve the amendment? Second by
Senator Hickey. motion by Senator Letting. All in favor say aye. You're recognized to present your bill the way it's amended. Thank
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
36:18
you, Mr. Chair. So as we, you know, as this renewable energy creates more opportunities in Arkansas, more farmland is being converted into these renewable energy facilities. And what this bill will do is it'll mandate these renewable energy facilities located on agricultural land. They must enter into a remediation
agreement with the respective landowner and this ensures uh 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 one of the other
amendments on the house side that we put in there I felt was good as if this is a if you're a personal property owner and you're using a solar field to power your personal grain bins you would not have to enter into a remediation program at
that time okay questions for anyone this is pretty much agreed to between
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
37:37
uh industry uh yes and one uh you know one good point is most uh most good actors are already doing this and what
this is going to 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 We want to keep the good actors in business. We want to make it tough for the bad actors
to hurt our farmland. Committee, do you want to have a question? Senator Hickey? You're on. No, you turn it off.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
38:14
All right. Can you hear me now? Okay. So we're doing this for renewable energy. So oil wells, things to that nature, they wouldn't be included in this, right? Not to my understanding, Senator. So 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 going to say that, then, you know, if someone goes out there and puts, I can use Louisiana, for example,
you go drive through there and you've got farmland out there and you've got 50 oil wells that are on it,
It's just I wonder why we're not including those. It is a little bit of a
struggle for me that we're just singling out this one industry. Right, and
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
39:00
I think as renewable energy has increased across to Arkansas, we need to put a plan in place now and not play Monday morning quarterback. At that same sentence, there is any facility that's already in operation is grandfathered in, so those oil wells, but you do bring a good point, Senator Hickey, I believe that we do need to potentially look into other, you know,
potentially fossil fuels or other industry. But at this point in time, you know, I feel this is the best pathway forward as renewable energy increases in Arkansas. Sure.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
39:35
I kind of struggle just a little bit too with the property rights. I mean, I know
what you're trying to do for the future, but then by the same token, 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 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 don't not being disrespectful at all I do struggle, do struggle with it from that standpoint, so. Right, and, you
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
40:17
know, my thoughts on that, Senator, that we have a lot of good actors out there in the renewable energy field, but this is there, again, to try to take care of the bad actors,
maybe take advantage of some of these property owners and not create a remediation plan, knowing that once those solar panels are done, that, you know, it's going to be a very, very tough task
to pull them up out of the ground and make that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
40:45
hole. May I just continue? I'm trying to see if I can vote for it here some way. So they're just supposed to have a remediation agreement. So they have an agreement in place.
If the agreement is, I mean, and they show that they 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, in the end, if something happens and these things, we're no longer using them, we went under, all the liability is on you, the property owner, to remove them. Can they do a remediation agreement of that nature also? Or does it have to be something that's of a certain value?
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
41:33
I believe there's going to be, you know, some value to take that land back, you
know, to be made whole, so to speak. And I think there's some Department of Ag potential oversight on this as well that would maybe bring them into that. And, you know, if, you know, some of the Department of Ag would want to come down and visit, you know, they're more than willing to. So we
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
41:58
do think that there would have to be some type of adequate, and again, if we could point to that in the line of this bill, if it's not there, I may feel better about it.
Right. But if we're trying to say 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. There's a potential that we're going to go under. Go ahead then if you've got some extra information.
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
42:35
Yeah, so there is line 21, you know, or 22, I'm sorry.
Secretary Warren. There we go. Line 19, restoration of agricultural land upon the conclusion of the commercial renewable
seat, Secretary Warren. Go ahead and
Speaker 233
43:00
introduce yourself. Turn that mic on. Senator Crowe's mic, turn it on. Introduce yourself, please. Yes, sir, West Ward, Department of Agriculture. And
Speaker 234
43:08
to your question, sir, our interpretation of the bill, I think it's still page 2, line 18 through 20,
unless that's changed with the amendment, but 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 that restoration of the agricultural land where it still can be productive use. Okay, may I ask Secretary Ward
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
43:31
a question then at this time? So, are you all going to be
the ones that are approving this agreement? No, sir. So, we would get a copy
Speaker 234
43:46
of it, and then it would be a civil action.
Should there be a disagreement between the parties of did they restore it, did they
Speaker 239
43:53
not restore it, that would be on them to take that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
43:57
to court if there was a disagreement. And if the renewable energy company is
defunct, that's just the way life is going to be. or don't have a, just like any other contract, it's worthless. Okay. Thank you
for your explanation. Good. Committee, any other questions? Seeing
none, is there anyone in the audience that wished to speak for this bill? Anyone wished to speak against this bill?
If not, Representative Stein, were you ready to close for your bill? Yes, I am closed for my bill. Okay,
thank you. Motion to pass. As amended, Senator Scott. Second by Senator Letting. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations, your bill passes. Thank
Speaker 206
44:37
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Senator Deese, you in the room?
Representative Gadsway. Representative Vaughn, Representative Woolridge, Senator Hill, Secretary Warren, would you come to the table, please, for a moment? I think the
Speaker 246
45:26
answer is yes to that. Yes, sir. West Ward Department of Agriculture.
Thank you. 555 to change the name of the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission to Board of Admin and Health. Are there any changes in this bill other than title? There are. Senator Hill had asked that we run that bill for him, which I don't mind doing.
So let's look at Senate Bill 550.
being that long we're going to wait so we'll let him come back and see but yeah we will do that I'm not familiar enough
with it to run I thought it was a change of name only and it's more
to it than that okay anyone in the room to present a bill that has not been called on senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
46:28
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 okay if you
want me to yes sir house
Speaker 252
46:51
bill 1772 Senator Hickey-Wood, identify yourself for the record. You're recognized. Jimmy Hickey, Arkansas Senate. The only
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
46:57
reason that I'm doing this is because I think this committee has, I think, had about three times. It's been on the Senate floor.
It was referred back to committee, and we think that with some help that now that it's probably a prudent bill. So basically what this is is that it allows for a vegetable garden, you know, to be planted on residential property within a municipality. We put some other language in there that would make it so that, you know, things were not obtrusive. Things as far as I think if you look on page two, it's probably going to be best at the back of this section.
does not prohibit the adoption of a local ordinance or regulation that regulates certain specifics impacting vegetable gardens, including without limitation the use of water during drought conditions, fertilized 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 myself and other members that worked with Representative Vaught.
Again, basically it says that you can have a garden, but, again, it does not prohibit the municipality to regulate that. I'm sorry.
Speaker 256
48:35
No, I'm finished presenting. Okay. Any committee have a
question, Senator Hickey? We've wallowed this for a while.
Speaker 258
48:44
Senator Scott? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does it resolve the issues that I know you had with the bill? Does this amendment or correction? It
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
48:56
does. She actually brought it to me to rework. Okay. Thank you.
I don't really. Okay. Any other quick question? Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill? Seek none. What's the pleasure of the committee? Move. Do pass by Senator Letting.
Second by Senator Scott. All in favor say aye. Aye. Senator
hair of your chinny-chin-chin. Yes, sir. Motion passes.
Speaker 267
49:36
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Dees, Ms. Benton, if you both
would turn your mics on
Roger Crawford
Unverified
49:47
and introduce yourself for the
record. Yes, sir. Senator Tyler Dees from District 35. Alex Benton, Attorney General's office. Okay.
Speaker 36
49:54
We have an amendment? Yes, sir. Get the
amendment passed out. Let the committee to look at it for a moment.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
50:27
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. So the amendment you have in front of you really does just a few things. It looks extensive, but I can clarify on that. It's a technical correction from the Department of Health on a lot of the chemical compound and nature throughout the bill for their request. That's the first nature. That's the majority of the amendment. And then the second part is related to the emergency clause.
It removes that language and adds trigger language. That is related to some of the conversations that maybe we've heard about 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 the ability to adopt that. Okay. Members, anyone have
a question on the amendment? I'll give you time.
ready any questions they're taking and then
what's the pleasure of the committee on the amendment like motion do pass I have a second sir Scott second all in favor? Say aye. Aye. Senator Dees, you recognize to present your bill as amended. Thank
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
53:07
Thank you for the ability to present this today. So we don't need much recap. I know there's been in some ways some recap with a previous bill that was presented earlier today, but we passed Act 629 last session, and for myself, the reason I came a part of that bill And this initiative was really as a young father seeing these products sold over the counter. And I would think both bill sponsors, we've kind of agreed 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 intoxicating products that are getting kids high. And so that's what first brought me even to this topic and to this subject. And so we passed that bill last session. And so really two anchoring thoughts was the harmful acts and marketing to children. But also we banned those products because it completely aligned with what the voters have said they wanted as well,
which was that we don't want to be a state associated with recreational marijuana, basically recreational marijuana, with intoxicating products on demand available to the mass public. And so that was the framework how we passed the last bill. So this action, this bill today, is in association with what we did in the last session. We believe this will help with clarity, with definitions, strengthens the case. It builds a framework for moving forward, we believe. And so you're going to hear from the Attorney General's office in our work with this.
We have worked extensively to get the definitions right. But really, it does, if you boil it down three things, it brings clarity that we are not prohibiting industrial hemp. Very clear that there is no attack on the industrial side of hemp products, ropes, house siding, et cetera. It also brings clarity that we're not touching CBD products. Those are not intoxicating. Those are separate products. There is no prohibit on those side.
And then finally, what it does do is bring clarity that we are banning products with harmful, intoxicating THC element items 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 be 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 of we don't want to be Colorado is that they have banned these products.
As wild as they are with their products on the shelf and how they view marijuana and different items, they've banned these THC products. And so it's befitting to the will of the people, we believe, with this bill. It strengthens. And so with that, that's kind of an intro into what this bill does. I want to introduce Ms. Alex Benton from the AG's office. I know she spoke earlier, but into maybe some more of the details of the bill and open to questions. Ms. Benton. Ms.
Speaker 273
56:13
Benton, please identify yourself. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 36
56:17
Alex Benton, Attorney General's Office. I agree with everything that Senator Dees just said. I think that, you know, we always endeavor to learn to see what lessons that we can learn. We've learned a lot from 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 to ban these these types of products 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 deez's original bill 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 on the federal controlled substances list of marijuana. What that definition did is it talked about the 0.3% on a dry weight basis. 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 carbon bonds 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.
So I think we as a state have decided that we aren't going to wait on the federal government to try and fix this loophole. 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. Some of the things that we've seen are products that are labeled as Delta products, but they present very much as medical marijuana, as flour.
And they're being sold in quarter, half pound, and one pound quantities online. And those are being harvested in Texas, shipped into Arkansas, and sold to Arkansas consumers. Specifically looking at what is being sold online right now, they, in Arkansas, talks about how the flower contains 250 milligrams of Delta-8 THC per gram that it's cultivated on their Texas farm, and the hemp flower is coated with Delta-8 THC.
So these are the flower products that we are seeing. We're also seeing vape products, we're seeing gummies. 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. They were purchased by an adult, and the minor got their hands on them and had a seizure, had to go to the ER. We've seen the crime lab have tested some of these products that are in stores now, and they are well above 0.3%.
So what this bill attempts to do is to take that more restrictive action that is explicitly allowed in the Farm Bill and to protect Arkansas consumers and update the language to continuously try to address the substances that we see popping up. 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 are, the new products that are hitting the market.
So we are attempting to kind of give a facelift to the 2023 bill with trigger language that would ensure that legally what we're trying to do, that we won't start that lawsuit all over again and that it won't take us two more years to get a favorable ruling that if the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agrees with our arguments that we can ban these products, 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.
And that's what we're attempting to do today.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:00:58
Questions from the committee? Senator Lading. 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 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 context. I'm just curious, how do they apply here?
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:26
on the bill? Sorry, it's in the amendment, and it was page 8 of the bill, lines
Speaker 283
1:01:33
1 through 31. Here, I can just show you. I see, I see. Just specifically those
Speaker 36
1:01:38
terms and how they apply in this context. Yeah, the cis or trans-THC in optical isomers, I admit I am 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 social context in which you would normally see those.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
1:01:56
But I didn't know if maybe they had sort of a similar one. I'm not even going to wade into those waters and get any of
Speaker 285
1:02:02
us in trouble. Okay, thank you. It did come all from the Department of Health per their request to make it consistent through
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:02:08
the bill. And those are terms that were in the 2023 bill as well.
Speaker 36
1:02:15
other questions thing none we do have people sign up speak for against Roger
Crawford just consistent with the last still consistent
with the last one three minutes okay yep if you would identify yourself your
Roger Crawford
Unverified
1:02:55
microphone is on my name is Roger Crawford I'm the owner of three Sun Med wellness locations two in 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
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee members for holding this hearing today. It was just two years ago that I sat here at a table across the way with Senator Dees 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 fear 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 are 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 2,000 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, zero 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 CVD and THC. It's important to note that synthetic marijuana is classified as an illegal substance at the federal level and can be actively enforced at this moment. You cannot put 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 Disby.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:06:06
And so you talked a little bit about an end run that I guess folks in the marijuana business have been trying to make against hemp-derived THC products. Correct. And I would just say that the people of Arkansas did not pass that. And, in fact, we have a law in the books that says that those are illegal and joined, as it may be right now.
And I think the people of Arkansas are very specific about what they wanted because they passed the amendment to state that. So I don't think anyone's getting an end 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 of Arkansas were explicit in what they wanted. And that was marijuana for medical use,
Roger Crawford
Unverified
1:06:48
not everyday use. Would you agree? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And can I respond to that question? Yes. And so if you were to come into my location, which some of the senators, Senator McKee has,
and then Les Warren has come in my store as well, they changed their vote on SB 358. Once they came in, we already have the child-proof 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. Okay. And there's only five 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 THC.
If you name the THC, the bad players are just going to 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 you all have your heart in the right place. I don't want kids getting sick off of anything, including alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, 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.
Speaker 212
1:08:05
Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Crawford. Appreciate you, sir. Thank you, sir. Amy Crawford.
Amy Crawford
Unverified
1:08:42
Good morning. My name is Amy Crawford, and I am also an owner of three SunMed CBD stores. 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 in Arkansas. So a three-tier system within the ATC and us being exclusive to SunMed, there is no guarantee that they are going to carry our products.
we also don't have an exclusivity so if they do carry our products those products that exclusive to sun med could be sold to anyone so that is a concern that we do have um 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 product shall not be combined with any amount of tetrahydrocannabidiol 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? If the labels clearly indicate the serving size, dosing guide limits, milligram amounts, then adults should be able to therapeutically determine their own dosage. Unlike pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and tobacco, hemp is non-toxic. 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 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, the FDA allows 50 milligrams of ethanol per day, and a proper COA analysis will reflect that.
The $5,000 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. 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
Speaker 299
1:11:53
businesses like mine. This bill also proposes a requirement to label products as hemp-derived.
Amy Crawford
Unverified
1:11:59
As was mentioned, your time is up. Does
anyone have a question? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you. Senator Deese. Oh, I'm sorry. Just a moment. Anyone else want to speak for against this bill? Sir, come to the table. Your microphone is on. Speak into the microphone. Introduce yourself. Thank you. My name is Abton Metazodigan. I'm an attorney with Hall Booth-Smith.
Speaker 301
1:12:29
and I'm lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the biogenesis case. You're speaking for the bill or against the bill? I'm speaking against the bill. Thank you. You're recognized.
I appreciate everyone granting me this opportunity to be here. I recognize that I might not be the most favorite person here. I would just like to say to Senator Deese, I think I sat next to you two years ago in this room, and what I want to just express is my praise and thanks as an Arkansan for the amount of time and study you have spent learning this area of law. I think it's commendable. And I think all of us, whether you're on the for or against side of it, I appreciate that our legislature is working and doing the work to study this.
What I like to offer is just an understanding of the Farm Bill and some provisions of this bill that I think will make it unconstitutional. The Farm Bill has preemption clauses saying that states can't do certain things. We often focus on the first preemption clause that says states can't interfere with interstate commerce or shipment or transportation. Those are extremely important, especially as we discuss 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.
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 submit 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 297BE state explicitly that states cannot enforce the plan as it relates even to negligent violations more stringently than the Farm Bill provides.
This bill does that. It would subject you to misdemeanor or felony 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, or even growing in the absence of a permit. The Farm Bill recognizes that that action for a 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, however the Farm Bill defines 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 because the person of ordinary common intelligence needs to know what's going to
leave them in trouble. And then there's another provision, again, that deals with the interstate commerce of these products that cannot be impeded. This bill, I think the biggest problem with this bill, and I just articulate it because I want to try to cooperate with this committee. The biggest problem is that
Abton Metazodigan
Unverified
1:15:39
it has... Your time is up. Committee members, do you have a question? Seeing none, thank
you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony. Yes, sir. Anyone else here wish
to speak for or against this bill?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:15:53
Seeing none, Senator Dees. Thank you, members. Appreciate the ability to close on this bill. We extensively worked on it last session. I know there was a lot of education for myself learning about this industry and these products, and I think what's clear is that there's a principled view about the route that we're trying to take here,
and it aligns, again, with two main factors in that we as a state, we as leaders, have the ability to try to protect children from these products that are purposely been marketed to with cartoon characters, with easy-to-open packaging, with gummies and Rice Krispie Treats 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 side that is against these efforts have direct profits on the line. That is very clear. 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 folks. And we are not outlined CBD.
That is not true. And so with that closed, I appreciate a good vote. Senator Deeds is closed
for his bill. What's the will of the committee? Motion to
Speaker 312
1:17:50
pass. Motion to pass. As amended. As
amended. Second, Senator Scott. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations, bill passes. Thank you, members. I appreciate the conversation. We'll
take a two minute recess. Then we'll come back this way.
Speaker 319
1:18:32
- I'm already 10 years older than my dad ever was.
Speaker 299
1:18:36
- Getting up there, that's true, that is true. We're all living in our pictures, huh? - My back's been compressed, I
Speaker 156
1:18:41
don't know. - You already know what I did, oh my God.
Unknown speaker
1:19:02
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:21:02
Senator Jonathan Disman, District 18. I have Jeremiah Moore with me, representative from 61. You're recognized,
sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This bill is fairly simple. It allows for a temporary moratorium on wind power devices. That definition is provided
here for those that would exceed 150
feet. That moratorium is going to exist until July 1, 2027, and that's going to allow a study to be done that will predominantly focus on a windmill's impact or potential impact on migratory waterfowl and predatory birds, also known as raptors.
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.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:22:00
Is there any more? Thank you.
Thank you for that explanation, Senator. Just a quick question. What about lease agreements that are already signed? This would
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:22:09
be under construction, but for instance,
it would contemplate wind where it has a wind farm that's going in place 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
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:22:26
impact what they have happening in wind. But if they have been planned, leases been signed, ground is
not, shovel hasn't turned dirt, that would eliminate those? Would not eliminate
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:22:39
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 and over again, there are no studies. Prove it, that there's an impact. And 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 an incredible resource for us as a state.
It's a lot of our heritage even sitting around this table. And those ducks and that hunting is something that 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 the landscape in that part of the country. Jeremiah Moore, District 61.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:23:48
Thank you, members of the committee. I do want to say that
this does 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. 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 two or three 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 a committee member?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:24:58
I don't misconstrue that I would be for this either way, but I do have one concern. And again, as much
as I like our Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, you know what I'm going to say don't you it uh you know what 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 not be exactly right so you know I don't know uh, I struggle with them. If we were to just to be able to do a study and I'm, I'm not 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 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 a observation from my my point i
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:26:14
mean and 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 a independent charge that we put upon them and i mean it is part of their job to read these duck bands and monitor 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 may be 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 flight paths are altered or those birds or whatever it may happen and we don't know because
everyone will say around this table they
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 We've heard about that by now. There have been plenty of studies. But, again, let's keep the facts out there. The fact that between Canada and Arkansas right now, we've got about 75,000 windmills out there to answer Senator Hickey's concern.
As Tammy was going to kill. Senator Gilmore,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:27:43
do you have a question? Well, and so I was just looking because Senator Hickey raised a point that maybe not a bad point in the sense of, you know, I've had a lot of interactions with Game and Fish over the years. And so, but the way I read the bill, they're allowed to contract. Am I reading this correctly, Senator and Representative? They're allowed to contract with another entity to perform this study. Is that? Okay. Thank you. Senator Hickey.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:28:10
Just, and I agree. I don't disagree with some of what you said, Senator Dismay. 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 Game and Fish to, you know, to be a resource for that. But as far as the contracting agency, I guess that's where I struggle with it.
Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Seeing none, we have people signed up to speak for or against. Ed
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:28:55
Penney? Sorry. Senator Gibble? Can we stick to
the same rule to be consistent on three minutes? We will. Mr. Penney is not speaking for or against the bill. He's speaking on the bill to bring information, and I would ask you to make an exception for him.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:29:09
I'll make that motion reflect an exception for him.
That's fine. Yeah, and we will. But, again, he came to bring information. He's from Duxland. He's coming to bring information, not it. I don't know. I'm going to
Speaker 349
1:29:23
protest on that. Well, respectfully, if we're going
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:29:26
to say three minutes for anybody that's going to sit at the end of the table, I personally just feel like that's what we should do. I don't want anybody to think that we're not, either
side here, think we're not being fair. We'll have questions for him at the end.
Speaker 351
1:29:44
Thank you, Chairman. I will keep it brief. I'm Ed Penney, 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. But we do recognize that these agreements between landowners and wind companies are voluntary in nature. We respect private property rights. We know how difficult the farm economy is and wind energy development is one possible way to keep folks on the land.
However, 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 forest studies, and Game and Fish is a great partner, and they can be a leader in supporting research. and we stand ready to help too but those are the biggest things we we also want to highlight that 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 any 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 under three minutes. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Half your time. So question from anyone? Senator Diswing? Just curious, as
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:31:16
far as what you're seeing in other states, how many windmill farms do we have in the flyway?
Speaker 350
1:31:22
I don't know that answer. I'd be happy to help gather that. I think that that needs to
Speaker 351
1:31:28
be part of the study is look at continental wind development. But really what we're talking about is Arkansas and impacts to waterfowl populations here, waterfowl hunting economy here, and that can be part
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:31:40
of the discussion. But as far as what DU is seeing in other states, what is the discussion happening in other states in their flyway or would that
Speaker 350
1:31:50
share a flyway with us? So general comment here is that most wind development that we're
Speaker 351
1:31:55
connected to is in the Great Plains,
You know, prairie pothole region, there is some science that demonstrates or suggests that breeding pair numbers have declined in portions of places where there are wind farms and wind development. But most of this is connected to lesser prairie chicken, greater prairie chicken, those species, and, you know, those are upland environments in, you know, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Texas that we don't have as much interest in. And we're
talking about migratory waterfowl here is what we're talking about.
But in those same studies, they've come back and shown that on breeding pair of ducks that there's been no significant change in those breeding pair of ducks in windmill farms. Is that correct? Well,
Speaker 351
1:32:42
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. 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 okay senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:33:10
jake whenever you said 20 percent decline you're you're talking about just 20 percent decline on overall numbers are you talking about 20 percent decline because of this wind power in in
Speaker 351
1:33:21
the area where that wind development was 20 percent decline in breeding pairs that's you know that's that's a separate statistic and without going into the ecology that's who did those studies uh I'd have to look back but it is published and I think it was journal
of wildlife management I think North Dakota states what I read here in Hickey but but what that also stated that that was within 300 feet of the base of the windmill that it when when it's not windmill fields, it's in the immediate location of the windmill tower itself,
if my recollection is correct. May I continue? Sure. Do you know any of the specifics,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:33:59
such as Senator Caldwell was talking about, if those specifics were within the base of the tower, or was it more broad-based, or do you even
Speaker 351
1:34:06
remember that study? I don't want to get out over my skis. I have reported that in previous testimony in Mississippi. I'd
be happy to gather that for you. All right. Thank you, sir. Also, there was a, in previous
testimony, it was related to the study of redhead ducks in the Laguna Madre in Texas, where the population had gone down to 14,000. But three years later, Laguna Madre and redhead ducks are much like Razorback fans in Donald Rental Stadium. On the homecoming day, it's packed full, and today there's not very many people there.
And three or four years after that 14,000 count, the count was
1.32 million. So, you know, taking a snapshot of a count on a day, it does not necessarily reflect the entire health of the population. So would that
Speaker 351
1:34:59
be correct? Yeah, you know, I think University of Texas A&M Kingsville or Corpus did that research. And, again, that's published. And what that reflects is, you know, decline in numbers.
it doesn't reflect bird deaths but it reflects avoidance of that area and that was pre pre-wind energy pre-wind facility construction and post 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 correct okay any other questions senator dismay i'm just trying to follow i
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:35:42
mean 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 percent 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'd like
him to answer the question if you don't
Speaker 351
1:36:02
mind so you know again birds are not dying from this. I don't want to suggest that wind turbines are killing a lot of waterfowl, but they do avoid those areas. And again, we can call it snapshots, 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 and 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. Senator Gimel? I just wanted to touch on something you just said.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:36:36
You said the waterfowl do avoid those areas? Is that what
I heard you just say? That's correct. Okay, thank you. The limited research that we have. That was breeding pairs? Breeding pairs.
Breeding pairs. Any other questions? Senator Stone? Just for clarification,
if waterfowl are avoiding windmills, if they were around a public hunting, would it negatively impact the public hunting, or could it potentially do so? I think that that
Speaker 351
1:37:10
would be one thing to assess and review. Any other questions?
Speaker 75
1:37:21
Thank you. I appreciate you coming. Okay, to speak on the bill, Brad Lila. Brad Lila: Thank
Speaker 370
1:37:37
you, Senators. I'm Brad Lila. I'm Vice President of Development for Cordelia Power. We are the company that is currently constructing a wind energy
Speaker 371
1:37:45
project on the east side of Wynn. And I just wanted to share some numbers with you today regarding that project and a little
bit about some development numbers as well in the future. So the project that we're currently constructing in Cross County is a 135-megawatt project. It is a $375 million investment from our company. As of right now, we have 22 turbines standing, and we will install 30 in total. We expect to complete the construction of the turbine sometime late spring, early summer. As of today, at that project, we have employed over 500 individuals in the amount of time that we have been constructing the project since roughly mid-last year.
We will pay $489,000 roughly per year for the next 30 years of this wind project and taxes. We will also pay to the county 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. The landowners within this project will make $52 million in rent payments just for this project alone. And all that 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 in one other project in Cross County, and another project is primarily in Woodruff, Jackson, and Independence County, which could be upwards of around 1,000 megawatts. That project alone is going to employ over thousands of people during the construction, and we will pay over $100 million in taxes on that project to those communities. Happy to answer any questions.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:39:44
Sure, it is, man. All right, thank you. you mentioned your taxes the 400 so you is it a total is it
489 a year plus 450 a year yes sir all right and what in the 489 is what type of tax collection is that sales tax or that's like an
Speaker 371
1:39:58
industrial personal property tax okay and what's the the 450
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:40:00
was in lieu of the property tax yes sir okay 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
Speaker 371
1:40:15
to the school districts in those areas? Yes, sir, but it's also $27 million that will be
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:40:23
paid in taxes that otherwise wouldn't be paid. Okay. So what are those $27 million then? Might as well
Speaker 371
1:40:31
go a little further then. Roughly about $14 million will be paid in taxes,
Speaker 372
1:40:35
an additional $13.6 million will be paid in lieu of taxes directly to the county. In lieu of?
Yes, sir. Okay, how are you doing that? We came to an agreement, a pilot agreement with the county, and we agreed to split the payment in lieu of taxes with
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:40:58
the county. Okay, with that one particular county? Which county was that? Cross County, sir. That was
Cross? Okay, let me ask you this. Since you've been in the business, I know you all have to have
addressed this and seen it. and I know you're one-sided here, but what impact or what studies have you seen out there
Speaker 371
1:41:20
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. I've also worked up in North Dakota where there are turbines everywhere, and what I've learned developing in North Dakota is that it is not a problem. The wind energy has expanded in North Dakota, and I don't even know how many turbines there are, but they dot the landscape and it's never been an issue. The studies that are out there, there are several out there that are in support of wind energy.
And the project in Texas, the studies in Texas, you know, one thing you have to look at in respect to that project is that the impacts were based primarily on the placement of roads and the pounding 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 the impact of the wind turbines where it was the placement of the access roads to reach the turbines and the pounding of the water.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:42:30
Okay. So as far as North Dakota goes, Have you all dealt with this in
the legislature or any other gaming fish or anything of that nature? No, sir. With each and
Speaker 371
1:42:40
every one of our projects, we have to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the local agencies to
Speaker 372
1:42:46
permit the projects. But no, in North Dakota, this has never been an issue.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:42:51
Okay. Well, this is a hard subject for me because you've got a place up here that's been well-known for duck hunting and they're trying to protect it, and it's been basically a part of Arkansas.
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 kind of a struggle, and that's kind of the reason that I hate to do a moratorium, but I wouldn't
mind an immediate study to get started on this thing somehow. So just added comment by
Speaker 372
1:43:25
too, am a duck hunter. I do not personally believe that they do impact the flyways, nor do they kill ducks, sir.
Speaker 75
1:43:34
And I'd expect you to say that. Thank you.
Are you familiar with how much wind energy Iowa economy trains, much like Arkansas? Are you familiar with how much wind energy is produced in Iowa? In Iowa,
Speaker 371
1:43:48
yes, sir. Iowa is roughly, I believe it's roughly 50% of all the energy created in Iowa is created through wind energy. It is the same thing in South Dakota. How much wind energy is
created in Arkansas? I'm sorry, sir? How much wind energy is created in Arkansas? None right now.
Speaker 371
1:44:04
Zero. Yeah. Okay. This project will, when operational, will generate enough energy for 50,000 ohms. Okay.
Let me ask you one, let me ask one, Senator Hickey, and then I'll
get, let me ask, and I'll get back to you. Have y'all ever contributed money to any of the organizations to study
Speaker 371
1:44:32
waterfowl, the effects of windmills on waterfowl? We have not. However, in Mississippi, they are currently
Speaker 372
1:44:38
going to study wind energy, and we did not oppose that legislation.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:44:44
Senator Hickey. I want to make sure I understand. You said something about $52 million to the landowners? Yes, sir. Is that a lease that you said? What is the $52 million again? I didn't write that down. That is a wind energy lease, yes, sir. Okay, and that is one time or annual or biannual? Well, it's an annual
Speaker 371
1:45:04
payment, and that's through the life of the project.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:45:07
Okay, so you're saying $52 million for the totality? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you, sir. On
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:45:14
Mississippi, what do they do in Mississippi?
Do they have a moratorium or just a study? No, sir, they do not. Okay, what
do they have as far as how many windmill farms? Are you aware of windmill farms are going
Speaker 371
1:45:25
in place there? Yeah, there's a project in Tunica that is
Speaker 393
1:45:29
operational, yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Do any
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:45:35
states have a moratorium? No, sir. Thank you. Sir Gilmore? What's the total footprint
of yours here in Arkansas compared to, like, say, Mississippi? do you know acreage and our impact a total footprint of like acreage and all of that
Speaker 371
1:45:47
total number windmills well for for the for the project in wind 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 impact where the turbines sit the access roads and everything at that project and wind is less than 50 acres total. I'm sorry, it's less than how much? 50. You
Speaker 377
1:46:14
said 58 earlier. I don't believe I did. I have 50 acres.
Anyone else? Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. I can't read the writing on this. Simon Mahan, Mahan.
Sir, if you'd recognize yourself for
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:47:02
the record. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Good morning, everyone. My name is Simon Mahan. and 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. My family and I, though, we chose Little Rock here to be our home just a few years ago. I'm here today to support the study in Senate Bill 466, but to oppose any two-year moratorium.
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 five years. 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. Wind energy resources can attract other business opportunities too. 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 two-year moratorium on that.
I've got a handful of other things I could talk about with ducks, but I think
we heard plenty from Mr. Penny earlier today. Like I said, our organization is not opposed to a study. 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.
I was checking earlier this morning, places like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, they were getting 66% of their electricity this morning from wind energy. That was this morning. And 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 questions that folks have. Your time is up, Senator Gilmore. I appreciate it, thank you.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:50:17
How much are we generating any megawatts through wind right now in Arkansas?
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:50:22
Not right now. So Southwest Power Pool, of course, they operate and make sure that if wind is generating, that they're moving the power around. The Southwestern Electric Power Company, they're an electric company in kind of northwestern Arkansas and north – or in southeastern – or southwestern Arkansas. They purchase wind from Oklahoma and Kansas. Some of the cooperatives also purchase wind from Oklahoma and Kansas.
But currently, we don't produce any wind power at the utility scale. And what
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:50:55
is that being bid in at the market? What's the market rate on that right now? It depends. As it's being picked up? I mean, I get there's fluctuation in demand and all those kinds of things, but on average, what are we seeing? Well, and sometimes
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:51:08
these contracts are confidential, but what they do is they'll sign a long-term power purchase agreement with an offtaker. So 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.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:21
And let me clarify, because I don't think I was clear. I'm referring to, like, in the RTO
Speaker 412
1:51:27
market, so like an MISO or an SPP or whatever.
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:51:32
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 there was so much wind energy on the market that it was reducing the total cost
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:46
for everyone. And follow up? And typically the way that works, though, is when that gets bid in, say, natural gas or whatever it
might be will get picked up first as a base load, right?
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:52:00
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 operation, operational costs. So when Southwest power pool or the mid con independent system operator sees wind or resources in the forecast, they will book those resources first and then they go up a sliding scale of cost. And so you're right, combined cycle natural gas can be next in price.
Usually hydro and nuclear are also really, really cheap. But then it goes up in cost with combustion turbines for natural gas, coal plants, et cetera. But during peak demands,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:52:41
do they typically all, when they bid in, do they typically all get the same rate? How does that
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
1:52:47
work? My understanding is, yes, you do get the same rate. There's a market that gets cleared on an hourly basis. And so whatever the rate is for the market, all the generation resources get that same price. Thank you.
Other questions? Seeing none, thank you
for your testimony. Seeing no other witnesses, is there anyone here that wishes to speak for the bill? Anyone here wish to speak against the bill? Senator, would you come to the end of the table? Yeah. Did you sign up? Yes. I missed it somewhere. No worries. Recognize yourself.
Speaker 418
1:53:30
Yes. I'm Phoebe Bloom, manager of development with Triple Oak Power.
Chair Caldwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Senate Bill 466. As mentioned earlier, Triple Oak is a U.S.-based 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 U.S.
and has been accompanied by decades of wildlife research. This research has informed responsible siting and coordination between developers and wildlife agencies. Across the U.S., developers follow the wind energy guidelines, known as the WEGs, which involve coordination between developers and state wildlife agencies, such as Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, to exchange data, make informed siting 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 the 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 siting process in Crittenden County. Furthermore, Long Grain Wind and projects like it represent a $350 million 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 non-profits, 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 and integral to wind energy development. The moratorium would prevent wind projects from moving forward, denying counties significant tax revenue and denying communities an 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'll get
to you soon, just being, how much money have you all spent already on your project?
Speaker 418
1:56:22
So this project is in development. We've spent around the order of a dozen million dollars on development, a dozen million dollars, roughly. And this bill would stop that
project in its tracks? Without certainty that we
Speaker 418
1:56:38
could proceed, it would be very difficult to continue our investment in Crittenden County. Senator Dismay.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:56:46
Have y'all entered into any agreements with the county for a preferred tax rate or a payment in lieu of taxes?
Speaker 418
1:56:55
We've not. The county is aware of our project. We've been... Have you made a request for that? No, sir.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:57:00
Okay, thank you. Followed. So your project can exist without that preferred taxation. It's possible. Yes. Okay. Any other questions?
Good. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate
you coming. There it is, man. I'm sorry, Senator, is there anyone else who wishes to speak for or against
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:57:51
the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. 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. It's my firm belief that once these structures get put into the ground, they're not coming out. And so we will forever change the landscape in this part of the country if we continue to move forward without the moratorium, and that's why the moratorium is important. But equally as 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 with wind in the flyway. With that, I'd turn it over to my house sponsor for any additional comments. Thank you, committee members. And
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:58:40
I think it's important to not put the cart before the horse. There'd really be not much of a point in conducting a study. And two years from now, we see tremendous infrastructure built out with these wind turbines and existing contracts. And I'll point out that it's about displacement. It's about destruction of the habitat around these turbines themselves.
So while the project at Wynn 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. The Triple Oak Project in Crittenden County, I believe, is over 20,000 acres. That's the real impact. And two 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.
There's the committee closed. Close. Most new
pass. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. They don't. No, no. Have
it. Senator Johnson. Senate Bill 290?
Speaker 434
2:00:15
Yes, sir. You got an amendment? I got a constituent. I got a million. Senate Bill 290? Senate Bill 290. Have we got that in here?
Back to back. Senator Johnson, do you have an amendment to this bill? No, it's been engrossed.
Speaker 436
2:01:18
If you would recognize yourself, please. Senator Blake
Speaker 437
2:01:24
Johnson, District 21. Members, this 290 amended it a couple of times, started out with a complete ban or a release of the moratoriums with Senate Bill 84. This bill, it goes through the legislative process and Administrative Procedures Act, and it defines moratorium. And also, those moratoriums will last for a period of four years.
And the existing moratoriums at the beginning of January 1, 2026, they have to go through this process, the existing moratoriums, at the
Speaker 436
2:02:05
beginning of this bill. Or the, what's the word? When the bill comes into effect.
Speaker 440
2:02:22
Turn your mic on here, Josh. Yes, sir.
Speaker 437
2:02:37
Thank you. Are you... Yeah, I mean, that's pretty much what it does. It just sets up a legislative process, oversight of those departments and where they have to come before us. The beginning of the bill, that first paragraph, It says, you know, right now under rule we have to, if it's not against state law, federal law, or the Constitution, we more or less have to pass the rule.
This, under these moratoriums, will give us the levity to do what the legislature needs to do in this process rather than a bureaucracy
Speaker 436
2:03:12
creating these moratoriums and the legislature having to live with them. Okay. Question from the committee. I need just a
Speaker 442
2:03:24
minute Time out I'll give you a minute Yeah I thought I didn't know the amendment Had been engrossed Engrossed
You're welcome I won't give you a few minutes To study the language
Speaker 443
2:03:51
This bill has nothing to do with hemp or windmills, so. Senator
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:04:04
Dick, you're recognized. 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 council. Do we just want legislative
council, or do we, because we did this, do we want legislative council or joint budget in case we
Speaker 437
2:04:18
were in? That would probably be, you know, joint budget or legislative council.
It would be probably good, but, you
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:04:24
know, it's up to y'all's discretion. Can we do a voice amendment in
Speaker 252
2:04:28
here on that? I didn't allow it last time, Sergeant Hickey. I don't try to be consistent on that. Okay. We failed to do that
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:04:37
one other time. Yeah. Sometime it's just a
money-saving deal if we're down here. Would you correct it on the Senate floor? Will? As late as
Speaker 437
2:04:50
as I've done it, I mean, you can suspend the rule.
You don't, you know, to do a substantial one, you'd have to suspend the rules to do a voice amendment. We've done it, and the staff
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:05:01
can get it done. Let me ask you this, Senator Caldwell. Would you entertain if I made a motion to suspend the rules to just have
a voice since we're this late in the session? So I'd make a motion to
suspend the rules. You all know what I'm going to ask for. Senator Saranty made a motion to suspend the rules, and Senator Kroll seconded that. It's not in our rules to suspend the rules, but it does say that it's a call of the chair,
and the chair rules that that's a proper motion. And so we have a motion to suspend the rules. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:05:36
All right, Senator. And my thing is, it's our standard language. It's normally our standard language 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. That's correct. So anywhere that's an appropriate place, which it appears like to me it's going to be on page two, 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 joint or joint budget. And that's more of a technical correction. The last time it was really a language correction
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:06:16
that, uh, so, okay. Line, Jeff Smith Moore, that
is correct. Line 20 also. Anyone have a question on Senator Hickey's motion? Seeing none, all in favor of Senator Hickey's motion, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. All right, your motion has passed. So continue with your bill.
You have any other comment? Okay, we have several people signed up to speak against the bill, Senator Johnson,
Speaker 452
2:06:39
so. You're first. Well, 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 going
to get to go first. If you would recognize yourself for the record.
Speaker 454
2:07:05
have the time. You still have time. Am I on or am
Speaker 348
2:07:13
I on? We're on now. Introduce yourself again. Richard Johnson. Thank you.
Speaker 455
2:07:19
Little Rock, Arkansas. 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
Speaker 456
2:07:32
in the last month since I've learned about this bill.
CAFOs seem to be the four-letter word in the room. 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. they tend to pollute way beyond their footprint. On the other hand, my parents took me to the Buffalo River when I was five 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 when I was in the 10th grade at Hall here, we had 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
Speaker 455
2:08:41
gift to the world. And so anything that would damage that or pollute it, I'm against.
And also, it seemed like in this bill we were talking about Lake Maumelle watershed,
Speaker 456
2:08:56
which I've enjoyed fresh water from Lake Maumelle my entire life. So why would I want a bill that allows for massive hog farms in the watershed? That's it.
Speaker 63
2:09:11
Thanks. Thank you. Any questions of the witness? Thank
you, Richard. You've been very consistent about coming.
Speaker 460
2:09:20
Thank you. I think it's important. Thank you. Kathy
Downs. Ms. Downs, your microphone is on. If you would introduce yourself for the record, you're recognized. Am
Kathy Downs
Unverified
2:09:43
I tall enough that you can hear me here?
Speaker 464
2:09:45
Should I bend? I'm pretty short here. I think I'm
Kathy Downs
Unverified
2:09:48
the shortest one in the room. My name is Kathy Downs, and I live in Jasper, Arkansas.
And 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 married a fellow from Russellville, Jim Westbrook, Reverend Westbrook's son. And when he was six, when he was turned 16 in Russellville, 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 day was 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 we love it very much, and we love it because of the river and the beauty and the natural environment and the cleanliness of the environment. And we would do anything to keep it that way. And I don't feel like just for us. I feel like for the future, for the generations. I'm 77 years old, and I'll be gone in 5 or 10 years,
just like we're all going to go. But I'm concerned about the people that are coming after me, that they see that river the way it is right now. And I'm here to ask you, please, to vote against this bill so that we keep the moratorium against CAFOs in the Buffalo River watershed. I know this bill is for the whole state, and I think that you really, really think about the Buffalo River watershed as our beautiful gem in Arkansas and our beautiful gem 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, and to Newton County alone, we have 8,000 people in the county, and people always tell me half of those are under 12. Okay? So we got 4,000 adults. And one in 10 of the jobs are tourism-related, or related to helping fellow travelers. I live next door to several Airbnbs in Jasper,
and there's lots of people that 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 vote so that we can keep the moratorium on the Buffalo River, Against Cahos, but also so that we can keep the money coming in to Newton County, which is
The last year alone was the host 94 million 78 million just to get into then the One have a question. Anyway, there's great economic benefit. Anyway, thank you. It's
down. Appreciate you coming back. Thank you. Thank you for hearing us David Peterson.
Mr. Peterson, your microphone is on. If you would identify yourself for the record,
Speaker 472
2:13:30
and you're recognized. Thank you. I'm David Peterson. I have a Ph.D. 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,
A five-year BICRED study showed a 116% increase in nitrate in Big Creek as it passed the H. Hog Farm, a 69% increase in phosphorus, a 61% increase in the 600-foot deep well in a four-year span, a seven-fold higher level of nitrate in an ephemeral stream adjacent to the farm, and the geo-mean of E. coli level of 154 colonies per 100, which is way above the infection rate 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 Sharpley, retired UA professor and author of more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on nutrient management, writes, Phosphorus can accelerate freshwater eutrophication, one of the most ubiquitous forms of water quality improvement in the developed world.
Repeated outbreaks of harmful algae booms and increased society's awareness of this eutrophication 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, and a motorium seems necessary. Indeed, he and others have found that a 10- to 20-pound-per-acre agriculture demand on P for grazing land is adequately met by field levels of 60 pounds per acre with no loss of productivity.
And yet, on C&H Hog Farm, the 15-field average of TP was 200 pounds per acre, more than three 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 CAFO specialized in nutrient dumping on the land, And that's why the moratorium is needed.
This is justified by 360 pounds of nitrate per acre to satisfy a six-ton per acre yield of hay, even though Arkansas' average yield of hay per acre is two. There's exaggerations in these things. The tendency towards legacy phosphorus. Your time is up. Okay, thank you. Anyone have a question? Committee members, seeing
none, we appreciate your testimony. Okay, thank you. Okay, we have somebody to sign up for.
Speaker 477
2:16:40
Mark Lambert will take a four. 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 tried 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 30 days to 90 uh move and pushing it to alc however um right now
the two rules are out pending uh rule five and six uh 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 address a bunch of those a bunch of those questions that were raised at the last 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 montmel moratorium nor the buffalo river moratorium uh this would just have one extra process in alc so or as uh as y'all added back in joint budget but i would be happy to take any questions is there any good one so just walk me through and i apologize i had
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:18:39
constituents here i had to go to the rotunda and see them 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
Speaker 477
2:18:52
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 ALC, 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 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
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:19:32
does that make sense yeah i'm and i'm reading it now so thank you
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:19:45
What is the reasoning, and I apologize if this is
also out, what is the reasoning for the four years? Senator Johnson,
Speaker 437
2:20:02
do you want to? It's just a re-review of any of those moratoriums on rivers and waterways.
If it's still in place and if it's justified, then it should stay in place. But it just gives us, as a body, a mechanism to review those moratoriums, whether they need to stay in place or be eliminated. But the way that it's
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:20:40
expire after four 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
Speaker 437
2:20:56
the hearing of a rule. The first paragraph of the bill changes the function to be able to not accept it. That's the first paragraph in it. If it's the body's will, it cannot accept that rule.
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
2:21:26
But that's different than every other rule that comes before us. 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.
Speaker 437
2:21:43
I think you passed that, and I think we can change that.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:21:56
Okay, Mr. Goodmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So 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. Okay. So we're clear on that. And then, so it will expire after four years unless we state a
Speaker 437
2:22:22
reason or an objection to the rule. They can go through the same process. They have to come and be re-reviewed every four years.
Same process with the ones that are in place now. They have to be re-reviewed by the body. And this is just a legislative process. This is not getting rid of the moratoriums. This is an oversight of an executive branch department. So if they re-up it
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:22:50
prior to the expiration of this, then it would stay in effect? Yeah, as
Speaker 437
2:22:55
long as the body, you know, if this law is in place and the body accepts it,
then in paragraph one, it can reject it. I think Senator Dismayne knows that we have to accept if it's not against state law, federal law, or the Constitution. We can't just disapprove. This allows us to not approve the moratorium. And you created that system, and we can modify it.
And members, the moratorium is something that's an outlier also, in my opinion, as an agriculture producer. Because that's not allowing an agricultural producer to even apply for a permit. It has to go through a permitting process to ever be approved. And these same departments 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 way he wants to.
And this can be expanded beyond just CAFOs. And I think everybody in here knows and agrees that you don't want those CAFOs in the Buffalo River. And I don't think a producer would put those things in the Buffalo River. But telling an agriculture person, this is not limited to the possibility of CAFOs. There have been waterways in the U.S. say that I have to mitigate the last five acres of my ever farm that I farm.
This is a possibility. So my runoff water does not pollute a ditch. You know, where is the limits on this thing if it's expanded into agriculture production? you're going to lose ground and not be able to feed the nation or the world that we try to do, and you guys enjoy daily. Any other questions?
Okay. Mr. Lambert, thank you for
your testimony. This is a, I'm sorry, I can't read the writing in this, this is Butch R. Someone signed up as a farmer
and speaking against, it's A-R-D. Come, come, come. I will let you interpret your writing for me.
Beth Art
Unverified
2:25:53
And I apologize. 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-cough apparition on my farm for 45 years. My children and my grandchildren participate. I think it's a false narrative to think that farmers are against the moratorium on the buffalo.
I think many farmers support the moratorium on the buffalo because of the particular nature of the karst underlayment. The buffalo is a gem for our state. It's a gem for the nation. It's a very small part of the state, I think like 2% or something, that 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.
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, 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. Any questions? Any questions? Seeing none, thank you. I will say one more thing. I just want to add, I have great respect for my CAFO friends, people who own CAFOs,
They love the land as I do. It's simply that the science doesn't support having a CAFO in the Buffalo River watershed. So I think in the 98% of Arkansas that is not the Buffalo River watershed, Maybe we need to figure where we need CAFOs, but I think just not
on the Buffalo River watershed.
Thank you for your testimony. Richard Mays.
Richard Mays
Unverified
2:29:05
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. My practice includes environmental law and litigation.
I had the good fortune and the great honor of representing the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and a number of other non-profit organizations in litigation against C&H Hog Farm regarding the propriety of the hog farm operating on the Buffalo River. There are currently in the state of Arkansas two moratoriums that are in existence
and have been in existence for quite some time. One of them relates to Lake Maumelle. There's good reason for that. We drink, about 400,000 people in central Arkansas drink the water from Lake Maumelle, and you want to protect that 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 mention. That moratorium was placed on the discharge of pollutants into the river from hog farms
after about four years of litigation, 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. Moratoriums are not just placed willy-nilly by anybody. 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.
I think that this bill, with all due respect to Senator Johnson, is a solution in search of a problem. And also I would say that with all due respect to the elevated intellect, a very member of the legislature here in Arkansas, that these issues involve a lot of scientific evidence, a lot of scientific knowledge, and they require time and process to go through.
And I don't know that you really want to burden yourselves with hearing this type of thing. I've heard testimony today that this is not going to affect the moratoriums on Maumelle or the Buffalo River. It will do exactly that. If you read the bill, it requires that within 90 days after the effective date of the bill, application has to be provided by the entities that impose those moratoriums
and that benefit from them to renew them. Sir, your time is up.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:32:14
Okay. Anyone on the committee have a question? Mr. Mays, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Marty Olison.
Your microphone is on, if you would introduce yourself, and you're recognized
Speaker 494
2:32:56
for the test. I'm Marty Olison. 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 peace 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 four generations that have relied on the Buffalo for our livelihood. We have three cabins, a historic River Rock store, and we're 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. Our 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 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 farmer's 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 CAFO 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 CAFOs 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. All right. Members, are
there any questions? Saying none. Thank you for your testimony.
Speaker 496
2:35:48
Who else is saying? All right, John Ray.
Is he speaking for or against?
Speaker 500
2:36:08
Mr. Ray, if you'll state your name for the record, then you can proceed. Name is John Ray. Thank you all, the committee, for taking comments. I am 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. I am an environmentalist, and although environmentalist is sort of a four-letter word these days,
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 in all around our area of Arkansas.
We support these farmers, and we've been doing that for three decades. The point is you can support agriculture and protect the environment at the same time. Stewardship is not a political or a 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 1,000 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 CAFOs 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 going to change every four years.
And there is no slippery slope when it comes to these kinds of large CAFO 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 CAFOs in other areas 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. You're out of time. Thank you very much for taking my comments. Are there any questions, Mr. Ray? If not? Is anybody else? All right, I don't
see anybody else signed up. Does anybody else here want to speak for or against the bill? I'm sorry, Mr. Fletcher, I overlooked you. Come on to the table.
Are you speaking for or against the bill? I'm against. Okay. Here's a handout if you'll please submit. Yeah, yeah, hand it out. Thank you.
Mr. Fletcher, if you'll recognize yourself, and then
Speaker 506
2:40:46
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 on whether 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. Mays spoke to this too. We think these are the two moratoriums that are impacted or targeted by this bill.
And I would just ask the sponsor, if they could please, at the appropriate time, confirm this is what we're talking about. Second, if we get to April 1st, 2026, under this bill, and the ALC 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 of anyone, with just passage of time,
these will be revoked. And I would like to clarify, you know, 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, I believe you will not be striking just these paragraphs.
You will be revoking Reg 5 and Reg 6 in their entirety as 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 Reg 5 and Reg 6 revoked in their entirety. Every outstanding permit under those regs will also be revoked. If you revoke an authorizing 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 Reg 5 permit was valid and enforceable, I would not give that opinion. That concludes my testimony. And to be clear, I would ask that the committee reject this bill. Thank you,
Mr. Patriot. Does anyone have any questions? Seeing none. Does anybody else wish to speak for or against the bill? Yes, sir.
Please state your name for the record,
Speaker 510
2:43:38
and you can proceed. Michelle Bufkin-Horton, 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 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 moratoriums 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 Cattlemen'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. Members, are there any questions? Say none. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak for or against the bill? I
Alyssa Dixon
Unverified
2:45:05
would like to speak against the bill. Could you sign up for that?
Yes, go ahead. We'll allow it. Please state
Alyssa Dixon
Unverified
2:45:15
your name for the record, please. My name is Alyssa Dixon, and I'm a citizen of Little Rock in Arkansas, And I've followed this pretty closely for the last 10 years, and it makes no sense to put a hog farm in the Buffalo River watershed ever or in the Momel watershed. The science just does not support it.
And as I recall, as a taxpayer, we already spent $1.6 million getting the first one off. And I just do not support this. We should have a permanent moratorium. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Ms. Dixon. Does any members have
questions of Ms. Dixon? Seeing none, thank you.
I'll ask one more time, does anybody else wish to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Senator, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Speaker 437
2:46:20
Thank you, members. There's been a lot of testimony here today that should come when this bill is put in place. 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. It allows the legislature the oversight from the departments that we legislatively create.
And it also, you know, gives us a better step in the rulemaking process to protect agricultural production in the state of Arkansas. I don't think there's any ag producer that wants to destroy the natural beauty of that river or Lake Maumelle. And it was said that 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 row crop farm. We make a living off of that land and we will do nothing to harm it. And there's mitigation processes in every situation whenever you're getting a permit. And I would appreciate a good vote. Members, what's the will of the committee? I'll move due pass as
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:48:01
amended by voice in this committee.
Recommended due pass by Senator Hickey, seconded by Senator Crowell. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. The ayes have it. Congratulations, Senator. Your bill is passed. Thank you. We are adjourned. No, no, no, no, no, no, we're not adjourned. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said adjourned.
Speaker 366
2:48:22
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, we're not adjourned. Uh-uh. Okay. Oh, I thought you said adjourned. Senator Hill. You better
Speaker 150
2:48:33
get up here while we're getting the good.
I don't know. I don't know. Yeah.
Speaker 137
2:48:42
Yeah. Senator Hill, turn your microphone on and let's go. Introduce
yourself for the record, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 199
2:48:50
Chair. Ricky Hill, Senate District 11. What bill number? Bill number SB 550. SB 550,
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:48:56
Senate Bill 550. Yes, sir. Mr.
Speaker 461
2:49:01
Chair, with your permission, I'd like
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:49:04
to have Secretary Ward to come down here as well.
I was going to run that for you earlier. You said it was a name change. He said there's some policy
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:49:14
changes in there. That's what he told me, so
Speaker 523
2:49:16
we're going to let him talk about those. That's fine. I'm going to tell you, the majority of this bill is 70-something pages long. Yeah, when I saw that, I thought it was a name change. But most of that is because it is a name change. Thank you. Senator Ward, if you would, or Secretary Ward, introduce yourself, please. Yes, we're West Ward, Department of Agriculture. Y'all recognize.
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:49:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The main thing I wanted to point out besides the name change that we're doing,
we're actually increasing the hopefully the new name animal health board to three veterinarians instead of two. So it'll be three of those on there because they are dealing with the livestock and poultry in the state of Arkansas plus the health and well-being of the food supply chain. So we want three veterinarians on there for that. And then I'll let Secretary Ward go through every other change that's on here? Because I did notice some lineouts and some underlinings. So he's going
Speaker 526
2:50:12
to go through those. Yes, sir. I'll be very brief. To Senator Hill's point, the biggest piece is the name change to reflect the broader responsibilities of what was Livestock and Poultry Commission currently with the responsibilities for veterinary oversight. It changed the number of veterinarians on the board. The other pieces, there were some strikeouts of language in the code that are not used currently, so we're striking those things out just a little bit of cleanup associated with that as well, but that's the main
point of the bill as far as the 71 pages are concerned.
You need a moment to look at
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:50:50
the bill? Yes, let's give you a moment, and while we're doing that, I'd like to put Secretary Ward on the spot while we're here. Again. but allowing him to make a
statement that there is no significant changes in this bill that's in any way sneaky. Yes, sir. We have
Speaker 526
2:51:12
read and reread and reread again all 71 pages just to make sure that there are no unintended consequences associated with this bill.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:51:21
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 bill? Yes, sir, I have. So I don't believe that. And the
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
2:51:33
reason I read it is for what I just asked the secretary over here. The only thing
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:51:45
I had seen, and maybe you said it. I'm sorry, I was trying to read it. Y'all did kind of make it specific on what areas of practice also.
Did you mention that? Yep, Matt, just so that, that's the only other thing that was
Speaker 526
2:52:00
significant that I've seen. Yes, sir. So, and because of the veterinarian oversight, so it specifies those three veterinarians, 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 two small animal veterinarians with it. Sure, just
Speaker 75
2:52:16
since we're, that's the only other thing I've seen. So, all right, thank you. Very good. Any other questions?
Seeing none, is anyone here signed up or want to speak for this bill or against this bill? Seeing none, Senator Till, would you like to close for
your bill? I'm closing. I appreciate a good vote. We've got a motion to do pass by Senator Crowell, second by Senator Letting. All in favor say aye. All opposed. Thank you. Is anyone else here to present a
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:52:46
bill? While Secretary Ward's at the end of the table, can we go ahead and knock those bills
out to the Department of Bill? Secretary Ward? Yeah, let's do it now because it's crunch time.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:52:58
Well, I'm doing this for Senator Wallace. That's fine. Absolutely. I don't know what
they do, so I'm going to turn it over to him. So these are... Senator Gilmore, introduce this, please. Yes, sir. Senator Ben Gilmore, Senate District 1. These are House Bills 1741, 42, 43, and 44, I believe. And with that, I will begin with 1741 and ask the Secretary to take it over.
Speaker 526
2:53:23
Yes, sir. And I apologize if I lump all these together, but the four bills all essentially do the same thing.
So it clarifies the relationship between the plant board itself and the department. So there were still some language in there on the board doing administrative tasks. We clarified that
Speaker 234
2:53:41
where the department's collecting fees. The board still maintains their regulatory oversight, still oversees all licensing and all of those aspects. The department carries out the administrative functions. The other piece is associated with the fees. where on all four bills, the industry currently has to calculate their own tonnage fees,
and 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 the department to do it. Okay, we'll have to do them one at
a time. Let's do House Bill 1741. If it's okay,
Speaker 234
2:54:25
our division director is standing outside the door. If you don't mind if he's behind us. Okay, I was looking for him.
Drag your chair up to the end of the table. I'll
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:54:35
get up. I've served my purpose here.
Speaker 537
2:54:43
Thank you, sir. Introduce yourself for the record. I'm Scott Bray.
I'm an industry's division director. Thank you. All right. Secretary Ward, you're recognizing him. We're doing House Bill
Speaker 234
2:54:52
1741. Yes, sir. So this one is specific to the Agricultural Liming Materials Act, but as I mentioned, it clarifies the language between the board and the department. Anyone
have a question, Secretary Ward or Mr. Bray?
Seeing none, is anyone in the room here to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Senator Gilmore. Thank you,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:55:12
members. I'm closed for the bill. I ask for a good vote and make a motion to pass.
I have a second by Senator Kroll. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. House Bill 1742. That did pass. Thank you, Senator, and I will defer
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:55:25
to the Secretary to present the bill.
Speaker 234
2:55:32
Yes, sir. West Ward, Department of Agriculture, very similar. This one is just on the seed certification law itself,
clarifies the language between the board and the department and clarifies the
reporting of fees. Questions from the committee? Seeing none. Anyone here to speak for
or against the bill? Seeing none. Senator Gilmore. Thank you, members. Close the bill. Make a motion. Do pass. Motion do pass. Do I have a
second? Second. Second from Senator Stone. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Bill passes.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:56:03
Congratulations. House Bill 1743. Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I defer to the Secretary to present the bill. Secretary Ward. To
Speaker 234
2:56:11
simplify, sir, just to amend the Arkansas Fee Law of 1997.
Questions? Seeing none, close for your bill. Thank you. I'm closed.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:56:19
Make a motion to do pass. Do pass. Second by Senator Crowell. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed. Senator Gilmore, House Bill 1744. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I defer the Secretary to present the bill. Yes, sir. To
Speaker 234
2:56:34
amend the law related to fertilizer. Any questions? Seeing none.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:56:38
Senator Gilmore. Thank you. I'm closed. Make a motion to do pass. Second by Senator Crowell. All in favor, say aye. All opposed?
Do we have any other bills? Seeing none, is anyone else here to present a bill? We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
SB455 J. Bryant TO ALLOW REGULATION OF HEMP PRODUCTS BY ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL; AND TO AMEND THE UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT TO REMOVE CERTAIN SUBSTANCES THAT ARE DEFINED AS HEMP PRODUCTS.
Recess
Reconvene
SB466 J. Dismang TO PLACE A MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN HEIGHTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION TO STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF WIND POWER DEVICES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM.
SB533 Dees TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW THE REGULATION AND PURCHASE OF CONSUMABLE HEMP PRODUCT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Recess
Reconvene
HB1525 Steimel TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY; AND TO ADDRESS AGRICULTURAL IMPACT REMEDIATION AGREEMENTS.
HB1744 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO FERTILIZER.
HB1743 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS FEED LAW OF 1997.
HB1742 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO SEED CERTIFICATION.
HB1741 Wooldridge TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS AGRICULTURAL LIMING MATERIALS ACT.
HB1772 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION.
SB550 Hill TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARKANSAS LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY COMMISSION TO THE ARKANSAS BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH.
SB290 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - SENATE, Apr 1, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Ronald Caldwell Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 13
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Speaker 36
Speaker 48
Speaker 53
Amy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 65
Speaker 75
Speaker 77
Roger Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 87
Speaker 90
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 100
Speaker 113
Speaker 117
Speaker 121
Speaker 129
Speaker 132
Speaker 133
Speaker 138
Speaker 147
Speaker 151
Speaker 63
Speaker 156
Speaker 169
Speaker 150
Speaker 174
Speaker 176
Speaker 177
Speaker 187
Speaker 194
Speaker 93
Speaker 196
Speaker 199
Speaker 203
Speaker 204
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
Speaker 206
Speaker 74
Speaker 233
Speaker 234
Speaker 239
Speaker 246
Speaker 252
Speaker 256
Speaker 258
Speaker 191
Speaker 267
Speaker 273
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 50
Speaker 283
Speaker 285
Speaker 212
Speaker 299
Speaker 301
Abton Metazodigan
Unverified
Speaker 312
Speaker 319
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 333
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 72
Speaker 341
Speaker 349
Speaker 351
Speaker 350
Senator Matt Stone Chair
Unverified
Speaker 370
Speaker 371
Speaker 372
Speaker 393
Speaker 377
Simon Mayhan
Unverified
Speaker 412
Speaker 418
Speaker 434
Speaker 436
Speaker 437
Speaker 440
Speaker 442
Speaker 443
Speaker 452
Speaker 453
Speaker 454
Speaker 348
Speaker 455
Speaker 456
Speaker 460
Kathy Downs
Unverified
Speaker 464
Speaker 472
Speaker 477
Speaker 22
Beth Art
Unverified
Richard Mays
Unverified
Speaker 494
Speaker 496
Speaker 500
Speaker 506
Speaker 510
Alyssa Dixon
Unverified
Speaker 366
Speaker 137
Senator Ricky Hill
Unverified
Speaker 461
Speaker 523
Speaker 526
Speaker 537