Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (14)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1149
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…amie Scott RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1149 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. REGULAR AGEN…”
|
CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION. | Vaught | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1516
Act 326
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1516 Richmond TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. | Richmond | Notification that HB1516 is now Act 326 |
|
SB305
Act 491
· 3 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…SSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER. SB305 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE CERTAIN TESTING OF PROCESSED MARIJUANA…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN TESTING OF PROCESSED MARIJUANA PRODUCTS SOLD AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA. | C. Penzo | Notification that SB305 is now Act 491 |
|
SB361
Act 576
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB361 Dees TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPAN…”
|
TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF … | Dees | Notification that SB361 is now Act 576 |
|
SB388
Act 447
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB388 Crowell TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT RELATED…”
|
TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT RELATED TO THE PROGRESS OF FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE … | Crowell | Notification that SB388 is now Act 447 |
|
HB1385
Act 374
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1385 C. Cooper TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OIL AND GAS COMMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OIL AND GAS COMMISSION; AND TO REQUIRE THE OIL … | C. Cooper | Notification that HB1385 is now Act 374 |
|
SB281
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E GARDEN PROTECTION. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle 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. |
|
SB290
Act 921
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IRE CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATED TO COMMODITY CHECKOFF PROGRAMS. 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 |
|
SB368
Act 445
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB368 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MINERAL, TIMBER, AND OTHE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MINERAL, TIMBER, AND OTHER RESOURCES ON STATE LANDS; TO REDUCE … | Irvin | Notification that SB368 is now Act 445 |
|
SB396
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB396 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING LI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS STATE … | A. Clark | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB400
Act 933
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TING OR FISHING LICENSE FOR THE COST OF A RESIDENT LICENSE. SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. Notice: Silence yo…”
|
TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM. | Irvin | Notification that SB400 is now Act 933 |
|
SB315
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OF PROCESSED MARIJUANA PRODUCTS SOLD AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA. SB315 B. Johnson TO ESTABLISH THE FARMER PROTECTION ACT. SB361 De…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE FARMER PROTECTION ACT. | B. Johnson | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB84
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…MENT OF AGRICULTURE. 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
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 6
0:14
Hi OK, OK. I just lost one. I don't have corn. I know. It's
Speaker 7
0:32
just run to the bathroom. That feels all right.
Speaker 13
1:07
OK, now the chair sees corn. Represent that Passed over. I get it. it's on your house 1149. Would you like to introduce yourself to the record, please.
Speaker 16
1:38
bought District 87. Uh So House Bill 1149. Yes, sir. OK.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:44
First, I want to apologize because I did bring a bill that I thought that it was all engrossed whenever I presented last time, y'all passed it out, and then I found out that it was not engrossed, uh, and then I started freaking out and I asked Brianne to please send it back to committee so that I could actually get the amendment really put on there, um, Senator
Hickey just pointed out that it looks as though. Um, I'm not sure if. Senator, if you'll look in section 2, line 33, maybe it's there. So. I,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
2:27
I think, and it, it could be a drafting problem. I, I think you had it correct in the previous bill before the,
before the engrossing. I don't, it's not you because you had it correct, uh, you know, about, I,
I don't remember the exact words about the weeds and things like that that was in there and I think they've unintentionally left it out
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:49
of this one. Yes, sir. You like to go back to staff and I pull it down and take it back and get it fixed. Let us know when you've got it back. We'll put it back on. OK?
Thank you. Thank you. No problem. All right, uh, Senator Gilmore's not here. Senator Johnson, are you here? right
I understand he's been in and left so. He, he knows we're. Senator Penzo. A few woodenzo, introduce yourself for the
record, and, uh, we're looking at the Senate Bill 305. Is that correct? That is correct. OK. Clint Penzo, Senate District 31.
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
3:41
Uh, and I've got amendment they're handing out.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
3:49
OK. Everybody look at amendment for a moment, see if you have any questions of Senator Penzo on the amendment. Alright,
I got to do pass in a sec do pass they taking a second centerator Scott on the amendment. All in favor say aye. All right. The amendments passed and it depends on your
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
4:13
recognized to present your bill, uh, with the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this is the, uh, the testing, uh, bill that I brought before the committee last week. There was a requested amendment to, uh, make sure
it says that it does not authorize or prohibit any specific product, including without limitation, pre-rolls, blunts, or other ready-made inhalables.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
4:34
Uh, Senator, that satisfy your question last time.
Yes OK. Any other questions on uh Senator Pinto's bill.
Speaker 38
4:54
No, I can't find a copy of it, to be honest with you. You want to have copy 305.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:09
I don't. OK, thank you. Right. Anyone, uh, no questions from the committee, uh. I want to sign up to speak for against 305 anyone in the audience wish to speak for or
against 305. So you can answerer Pino, would you
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
5:29
like to close for your bill. Uh, unless anybody's got any questions,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:34
I'll go ahead and close and ask
for a good vote. OK. That uh Uh, A motion by Senator Scott, second was Senator Leding as amended. All in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations Bill passes as amended. Thank you. Senator Dees.
D. You're recognized. Senator Des is Senate Bill 361.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
6:28
Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, uh, state Senator Tyler Dees, District 35. Hey,
Speaker 55
6:35
good morning, Clint O'Neill, executive director, AEDC. All right. Thank you, members.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
6:39
Uh, Senate Bill 361 in front of you is the Industrial Development Authority is what we're trying to create here, uh, a quick intro and then, uh, I'd love Mr. O'Neil to help, uh, on some of the background of this bill, but, uh, what we're trying to do in 1961, the state of Arkansas passed, um, legislation
to allow, um, port, regional port authorities. There's 9 regional port authorities, and this allows for economic development, um, expansion in those the regions of our ports and there's 9 across the state, um, and they've been great for our state. They're all obviously on waterways and, um, but a lot of states across the country have moved to a broader terminology of industrial development authorities not to get rid of regional port authorities, but just to expand the, the benefits and offerings across their
states that aren't necessarily on just waterways. And so that's what this aims to do. It doesn't, isn't, doesn't stop or change or touch our port authorities. It just allows Another, um, uh, possibility and capacity across our state for industrial development authorities and so that's, that's a broad stroke of what we're trying to do here, um, to create opportunities for municipalities and county judges to, to, uh, form some, um, authorities across the state and Mr. Arnell, I'd love for you to add some more context to the
Speaker 58
8:00
bill. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, committee. Yeah, as, uh, the senator said, this is just what we see is an update to a law that was passed in 1961 that would allow other municipalities and organizations to create IDAs. It makes it easier financially for an IDA to apply for a grant or to, um, To, to. issue bonds when it comes to infrastructure, when it comes to business development projects, um, you know, one example that
came up on our incentives working group is in Northwest Arkansas, close to XNA Airport, a great opportunity for industrial expansion. Uh, but rather than having a small community take that on itself to form an IDA and, and I, I believe there would be multiple uses around the state for things like this. That we'd be happy to answer
Speaker 61
8:50
any questions. There's Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
8:55
since I'm still learning some things, um, there is a port in my
Speaker 68
9:01
district. Did you receive any feedback from, is it Brian? We did,
Speaker 58
9:06
we did was feedback? Uh, so we did talk to Brian Day at the port of Littlerock about this bill, and, uh, we ended up making some slight adjustments due to his feedback. So, uh, Brian's been a great partner with us and wanted to make sure that we were not negatively impacting any existing ports. And so Brian is, is good with this bill.
Speaker 52
9:22
Yes, thank you. In fact, I would, I would argue that we, we made significant changes because we our original um style or tact
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
9:31
was to go and update the section around Port authorities, um, uh, and, uh, we couldn't get it right where we made sure that we didn't touch regional port authorities. So instead, we, we carved a new section that said right, we're not touching anything what we're currently doing, we're just making this available across the rest of the state. So yes, we definitely listen to their feedback to
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
9:54
make sure. What about, uh, we've got a note here about filing impact. I understand. On your handout sheet you said
undetermined uh impact to the property tax collections. Uh, what about state, uh, general revenue or state. Uh, obligations. What, what do we have here? Um, I, I,
Speaker 71
10:16
I would have to double check if DFNA has weighed in, but there should not be a physical impact, just due to the establishment of IDAs and the issuance of bonds or the infrastructure of
Speaker 74
10:28
the grants or they have taxing authority. I haven't read the bill entire no sir no.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
10:34
OK. Turned Hickey. Just one. Would you, would you mind, and again, it's on this DFNA sheet and somebody could, do you mind him having that
one for you. So would you just I want to make sure I fully understand this payment in lieu of the advilarium taxes, would you mind just kind of going over that, uh, so that we all have an understanding of what this will not be less than 35% of the taxes. Yes,
Speaker 71
10:59
sir. So in economic development projects, there's an opportunity for cities and
Speaker 58
11:04
counties to offer property tax abatement. The only mechanism in the state of Arkansas currently is to issue bonds, uh, the program's called the Act 9 Bond Program. And so, um, the maximum allowance is up to 30 years, up to 65% abatement of personal, real and personal property taxes. OK. So who, so who
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:27
actually determines whether it's going to be, you know, 65% or 60 or 50,
who, who determines that or are they always gonna
Speaker 71
11:38
be 65. No, sir, that, that would be the, the jurisdiction, the city council, the quorum
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
11:45
Court. OK. And they're impetus to, that would just be in a negotiation, uh, with them for that particular industry, OK. Thank you, sir. You Soon as he got follow up
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
11:56
on that, that last line in that. Uh, they could do it less, uh, with the, uh, director of Arkansas Economic Development
and Chief Fiscal Officer at state. Uh That it, it gives To, to be
honest with you I'd like to study this more instead of voting on it today, would
you allow us to do that? I'm not. I'm not opposed to your bill, but I won't understand the tax implications and then, uh, we give taxing authority to the city councils, to the, to the, to the corn courts, and yet we turn right around and say we've
got 2 officers in the state that can change that if we want to. Yes sir, that, that's that's fine, that's a little bit of
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
12:45
heartburn for me to I until I understand it. I'm, I'mer Hickey was Is that just language that is in the, uh, in this bill, or was that language that was in
Speaker 58
12:53
the, in the act itself. It's in the Act no bond. So that's uh it's incredibly rare. It's not happened in this administration, but it's not specific to, when
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
12:59
I saw that, that's the first time I've ever seen it or understood it, and it, it, uh, to me, it,
it looks like it takes a, a tax authority away from the, the, uh, city council in the courts which, which I guess it does, but it's an
act. OK, I'll withdraw my objection then. You want to have a question? Any other committee member have a question? but No one,
no one that signed up to speak for or against anyone in
Speaker 56
13:38
the audience wished to speak for or against this bill. Signon Senator Des you like clothes for you, Bill. I
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
13:46
would thank you members. I, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this. This is something that I think, um, just expands, uh, opportunities, uh, across our state and speed as we continue to grow and, and have, um, ability to, to, um, uh, really recruit opportunities from, from out of the state as well, uh, not only in my area but across, um, the entire state. So I appreciate a good vote.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
14:08
Motion to pass there and give more secondment. Church God all in favor say I all opposed. Congratulations. Thank you, members. Have a great day. crow. I had to, if you would introduce yourself for the record we are
looking at Senate Bill 388. Uh, Senator Kroll, District
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
14:41
3, Earlier this year, Senator Hester. charged the revenue and tax to go through and go through all the reports and we're going to repeal reports that were not needed. This happens to be one of them. Uh, This comes from, uh, economic development commission and this was a report that is established in 1989
and the last time they've had a question on it was
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
15:08
in 1991. Questions from the committee. no, I want to sign up to speak for or against this bill want audience wish to speak for against
this bill. So no crow, you like clothes
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
15:28
for Bill? I'd like a good vote and motion do
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
15:31
pass Senator Gilmore, all in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations. Senator Clark, should I do my
Speaker 110
15:39
house bill too that I have. Which one is that? Uh, 1516. OK. House Bill 1516. Crow, you recognize to uh
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
16:10
If you would have your guests introduce himself, please turn
Billy Black
Unverified
16:14
your mic on. Yes, sir. My name is Billy Black. I'm the chief of law
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
16:20
enforcement for the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. Thank you. Uh, this bill does a couple of different things. If you look on page one, it's, uh, some technical corrections. Uh, if you go to page 2, that's where we kind of have some new items. And uh, what this does, and I'll just give you an example. It, it, it gives them a little teeth to give some fines, and we've
had a situation where actually in, uh, representatives Richmond's district where a gentleman has spent a lot of money on getting horses and, and, and horses for rodeo and right up the road, another gentleman has horses and he chooses not to do the, there's supposed to be a yearly test for. Goggins and he won't do that, and long story short is they touch, rub each other, whatever, they pass it. He goes to a rodeo in Vegas,
passes it on, they trace it back. It comes to Arkansas, then West Ward gets a phone call and. We don't really need that and. These, uh, these gentlemen, there's 6 of them that, that, uh, take care of all kinds of things. They have many, many different layers of what they do from fire when fires start to where that's at, to, um, enforcement of Chinese property down to this kind of stuff, and this just gives them a little ability to get a fine.
Billy Black
Unverified
17:42
Yes, sir. We're not a big ticket writing agency at all. Uh, last year we, we, we got back $110 in fine money this year we're up to $280. So we're, we're, we're not after, we're not after people's money. We're after them to obey the law, you know, if, if they're supposed to uh have the coins test. This just gives us teeth to go out and, and, and 90% of the time that's going to be a warning and usually that warning uh fixes the problem and it'll get clarification for the public what is the law on the coggans. So the, the coins test is, is, is.
basically EI so basically every year, a person they own on a horse in the state of Arkansas has to get
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
18:19
what's called a cogin's test where they move it off that property or not. That is correct. OK, that's why I was. I've got 5. We, we move all the time, but everyone is required to have a correct, once a year whether they take them off their property or not. Yes sir, that's the way the law is now. OK. That's right. I just,
just, just for clarification. And uh the last thing is
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
18:39
the, just like all enforcement, this, we give them the ability to keep
their service weapon at the end of their service, and we just feel that's right
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
18:58
with as much as they do. Senator Gilmore, you have a question. OK. Hi It
doesn't matter here with this penalty, is it, if it's 1 horse or 500s. I mean, would that be, it's not per occurrence, it's just it's one fine. once a year? Is that
Billy Black
Unverified
19:10
all you're doing? No, it could be a fine, uh, until they get the, get the hog the the horse's cog and
stats done. Now, is that the way we do things? No, it's not the way we do things. So, so we're we're not gonna stack a bunch of fines on somebody because that does nobody any good. They're not gonna be able to pay it, so, you know, again, our, our main goal is compliance
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
19:31
with, with the law. That's it. And I understand that and I, I agree with what you're doing here. I just, As far as the statute itself, where does it say, where does it say that you could? find somebody once or find somebody twice because it looks like to me that it's capped at
$300. And, and that's correct. That's $300 is is the max on, on the citation that could be issued. the max on the citation or max on the individual. I mean, I'm just, I, I'm, I'm just talking about the language here, if you
Billy Black
Unverified
20:04
need a, and I understand the law. I mean, I understand what you're saying. But I understand that the way it works, my reading of, of, of that law is that it's $300 per citation. Now, if, if he, it
don't cap one time a year if if he has several horses and he he gets one done and don't get the others done, we could go back and write that citation again. But again, that's not our goal at all. Uh, again, that the goal is compliance. Just point to me where
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
20:32
it says that it's you, you said you understand the law. I'm not being disrespectful. We're making the law right here and that's what I'm saying. I don't read it that way. I mean, so if you'll point to me, maybe I, maybe I'm, no, sir, you're reading the same thing I read, you know, and, and again,
Billy Black
Unverified
20:48
I'm not saying, uh, you're wrong at all. You, you very well could be right. I think that would be a discretion of the prosecutor, prosecuting
Speaker 137
20:59
attorney in that district. No, it's, no sir, it's, it's at the discretion of what this, this legislature passes it to be So if,
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
21:07
if you think, if you think that you could. But I have multiple violations. I'm OK with it. I'm just saying I don't read it. I don't if I
don't read the, the new language that you're writing. To say that unless you can point that out to me. It just as a person. Who after notification fails to comply with the rules of the department shall be. Guilty of a violation and subject to a fine not to exceed $300. I mean, I just, I don't read it any
Speaker 138
21:39
other way. I see what you're saying. Yes, sir. I agree. So
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
21:50
What, what y'all's intent, I mean, would you want to be able to charge? I mean, it's as easy as an amendment if that's, if that's what you're doing. What I'm saying is, is that I, I've read it as, as once we pass this statute and this law that you're only
Speaker 138
22:07
gonna have 11 citation and that's not what you're saying. Right. Well,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
22:12
you come on and sit down and I know you've been out of state and, and uh uh playing in this and in DC and then hiding
during session, yeah, especially during the session, but, uh, if you would uh, since you've been gone long,
Speaker 142
22:27
reintroduce yourself to everybody, yes, sir. I, I tried to avoid any undue attention for sure. So I, I appreciate the question and certainly understand yes sir. West War from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. Uh, so, so, so our, our uh looking at on page two, a person who after notification fails to comply with the rules of the department, so we have livestock and poultry commission
rules, so it would be a a a a department of commission action for, for a violation. So it, it would work through that pro that process. The commission, that seven member commission would say this violation is per per farm is generally how we would do that. So, so it it references back to the rules of the commission. So that, that's how we would interpret it. So the commission, where is, where is that lineage, page 2 my line 13. references to comply with the
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
23:23
rules of the commission. Page what page 2 line 13. OK, so, but, but here's the thing. You've got a
new statute. You're gonna have to re, you're gonna have to repromulgate new rules. So are you gonna, so you're gonna re-promulgate new rules to show multiple violations on a statute that I'm saying only allows for one. I, I. I'm done. Thank you.
Speaker 142
23:54
Yes, sir. No, I, I completely understand your point. I think we, we do have existing rules and we would make sure that those rules are, are in compliance with what the legislature passes. So I, I'm, I'm like you, sir, like I, I would, I would say it's my reading would be the same as yours, guilty of a violation, subject to fine not to exceed $300. That, that is. That, that is the maximum. It would not be broader than that, than, than specifically what the legislature passes. I'm not doing is that, is that what you all
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
24:26
want? I mean, because if you're, if you're wanting more, then again, I, I mean, I, I don't know how everybody would vote here, but if you're wanting more, then we could do a simple amendment on the thing, allow it, allow you to do that, and then you could write your rules that way. But if you're OK
with just a single, then I'm good this way. It just, what, what was being testified in the way I was reading just didn't add
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
24:49
up. Thank you when we comment just second, just make sure you get one question ahead of you, uh, certainly, if, if you had
multiple, uh, animals out there to be tested. You're cheaper to pay the fine, you to get your animals tested. You had accomplish anything anyway. And so, uh, I'll
make that commentator Disma, you recognize her question I guess maybe
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
25:09
I'm reading a little bit differently. I mean, I would assume 2 is the real. The crux of the bill,
which is to create a cause of action against someone that does not have their animals treated. I mean, that, that I don't believe that cause of action probably exists today, and so that would be something that wouldn't be fines or penalties or criminal
or whatever it would be, um, you know, to be worked out in, in court, uh, to show what the damages were. I mean, is that not the point I'm assuming of the bill is not really the
Speaker 142
25:41
$300. It's a cause of action. OK, if, if, if I may so that. From our end, from, from a department, a livestock and poultry commission, it, it is an administrative civil process we can quarantine, we can impose a civil penalty if they continue to fail to comply, then it becomes a criminal. citation where they can so that we're not trying to be overly
burdensome with the criminal violation. There, there are administrative processes when that fails, then it it elevates Gilmore, do you have additional Senator
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
26:08
Scott, Senator Scott, do you have a question? Thank you, Mr.
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
26:13
Chair. Quick question, why would somebody not vaccinate? Is it like a vaccination? No, why would somebody not give their stock uh shot. I, I just don't know it's, it's, it's, there's a lot of people out there
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
26:25
I can answer that from a horse perspective, uh, there's a lot of people out there don't
want to do it. And it is a costly, uh, adventure. $125 per head, uh, and then the vet has, and then the Fed has to come to your, uh, uh, farm, there's another $100 150 dollars, uh, farm charge on top of that. So, uh, you, you, there is some expense involved in it. And one
Speaker 164
26:49
more question. Um, How do you, how do y'all monitor whose stock has been. Tested or not like. It's a silly question. I'm sorry, I don't know. It's, it's, it's published, uh,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
27:03
they, they, they will give you a form. You can't go to a public, uh, event, and they'll check you at the gate, uh, you can have it in printed form or on your, uh, phone, either one. And, uh, it's issued, they sent them off to a test lab, test lab. We'll, uh, email you back a uh copy of the form of showing where your horse is,
uh, tested negative. Thank you is me. Yeah, and the question is just,
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
27:27
I want to understand section 5 and how it made its way into the bill, and there's some tie-in that I Maybe that I'm not reading or
It's just kind of odd that it was in this. Bill So Every state
Billy Black
Unverified
27:40
agency, if they're going to give their officer their service weapon at the end of their. And the retirement or if they get killed in the line of duty, they have to have an amendment like. Or I have to have y'all pass that bill. So every department in state, state police, game fish, whatever, y'all pass it separately. It's not just covered under one bill. Yeah, and I was just, I
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
28:05
understand, and I'm for what it's doing. I'm just trying to understand why it's in this bill about testing of
Billy Black
Unverified
28:12
horses and I, I think this was just to clear up a bunch of different laws through the ag department. So the, the, the first bill, or the first section of this was simply for not following the rule of the agency. The, the 2nd and 3rd part, I believe, is just creating where our fine monies go. And, and what, what brought that on is through transformation in 2018, we went
from being a forestry law enforcement agency to a Department of Agriculture, law enforcement agency, and some of that language. never cleared up. So all this, all this bill is doing is fixing one, the not following the rule, giving us the teeth to do something with it. And 2, clearing up language on where the funding goes and in the last part, of course, is service weapon. So it's, it's a bunch of different uh things in one bill. I just Hm I understand probably not the
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
29:07
way that it should be drafted or presented because those things are not germane with the other, uh, I, I understand what you're doing, but I don't think we can lump everything together and say it's clean up when you're enacting new language. There's a difference between cleanup and enacting new language. But I, again, I'm not, it's not some roadblock, understand what you're doing. I just, A little curious. I thought there must be some tie-in between the feeds and allowing them to keep service with weapons that I had missed out on or was reading and it just failed to hear, but, uh, that there's not. Thank you. Any other questions?
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
29:41
See no I want to sign up to speak for or against this bill. Is there anyone audience wish, wish to speak for or against.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
29:51
See no. Would you like to close 3 bills, Senator Crow? Yes, uh, thanks, Representative Richmond for the super simple bill, and
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
29:57
I have have a due pass. I've got a motion to pass I see a second. Second from Senator Dima. All
in favor say aye, all opposed. Congratulations bill passed.
Senator Clark, are you in the room? And Irvin, in the room. Go back to Senator Gilmore. I Senate Bill 281.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
30:54
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Senator Gilmore, District one. I have an amendment that's being passed out. Get everybody. And I'll move adoption when people have had enough time, just read it.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
31:36
You might have a question on the amendment.
If not, we have a motion to, to pass Senator Crow. All in favor say aye. All opposed.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:48
Congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, we've had conversations down here before about check-off programs, what do they do, the value of them, um, not gonna get into that today. That's probably for a, um, much different and hopefully hopefully future conversation, um, But what this bill does is it
allows for some, I think, needed transparency associated with trick-off programs, um, you know, you can read some of the intent in the bill there on starting on page one over to page 2, and then you can see the, you know, where it's applicable to the checkoff programs listed on page 2. And then there's, uh, starting at the bottom of page two, producer engagement, just making sure that people understand they have access to understand what's happening within the checkoff program and the meetings, um,
again, making sure that there's a lot of visibility and transparency associated with these programs. And then there's records and reporting associated with, with the programs going down to, uh, on page 3 toward the bottom there, uh, where it talks about meeting minutes, financial reports, um, you know, non-confidential, non-proprietary research reports because again, these programs fund, uh, research related to agriculture in the state. Um, and so, um, With that, that's pretty much
the bill. Um, I think it's Basically just ensuring that we know what's happening with the checkoff programs, making sure we have transparency that I think we all want to see there. So not gonna over talk it. Happy
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
33:22
to take questions. Questions from the committee. I've got questions of Secretary Ward. Yeah And then
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
33:29
I've also got Andrew Gromeyer here who, would you come and council.
Speaker 190
33:42
Make your presentation, please. Good morning, committee members, uh, Mr. Chairman, uh, Andrew Grobmeyer with the Agricultural Council of Arkansas. We're a producer, um, industry organization, uh, producer
Speaker 191
33:55
led industry organization that represents the row crop ag sector of our ag economy. Um, this legislation is something that we see as a, a good government policy, uh, one that, that, uh. We think benefits the legislature, one that benefits
the department and the administration, and most importantly, the the producers, uh, that pay into the programs. And so it's, uh, it's aim is to, uh, take advantage of technologies that are in existence today that weren't in existence when the, when the research promotion boards were established. So I'm going back to the 70s and, and the 80s and 90s and uh now you have the internet, you have, uh, uh, cloud computing storage, uh, you have, uh, Zoom meetings and things like that. And so,
Uh, what we're aiming to do is make things more transparent through those technologies, similar to what you all do, uh, through your committee hearings and, uh, uh, we also want to increase the level of producer engagement, uh, between the boards and the, the people that pay into the, the checkoffs. And, um, that's the gist of it happy to take any questions or. Um Speak to any specifics of the bill. We adopted this proposal back in 2023 as our resolutions, uh,
which came soon after, uh, some of the recent changes that that the legislature made on the checkoff boards with Uh, the appointment processes and the transfer of the administrative duties to the department. So I felt like it's a good opportunity to, to make some of these adjustments. Well in
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
35:29
saying that I've had some of your board members call me oppose this bill too, so. Let you know that. No Uh Secretary Ward here?
See if he's outside. You would introduce yourself, please. We're talking about the uh Senate Bill 281, checkoff programs. I've got some questions with information I want to break, uh, bring forth. Uh Introduce yourself for the record? Yes sir, Westward, Arkansas Department of
Agriculture when we uh did transformation back in 2019, promotion boards, uh, let me back up in, in state so that the public will know the promotion boards, uh, are, are, uh, monies that are brought in, uh, to the boards that are, uh, voted on by the producers of that particular product. This, this is not state general revenue. This is their money and not particular tax money that the legislature or some other taxing, the body has established upon
that group. They, they, uh, uh, voted to tax themselves, so to speak, and send that in for promotion and for, uh, the research, is that correct? That's correct, yes, sir. When we, uh, uh, brought the, uh, transformation in in 2019, uh, those boards, uh, uh, at that time really were not touched. They were still remain somewhat independent, uh, I actually were housed at the farm bureau. Of Yes. That's right. And now we've moved them over to the ag department, you know, at
the time we moved them over, uh, we were told, I think you testified multiple times that there would be no need for having, uh, money from the promotion board to uh provide administration, is that correct? OK. I just want everybody to know that that's what we've have said all along and now we're coming in and trying to get this money provided to, to move over to administration, although it's not uh general
Speaker 197
37:40
revenue money. Yes, sir. That's correct. And that, that was
Speaker 142
37:44
uh directly direct conversation with the governor with, uh, I know with several
legislators that we would not add any additional costs with the
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
37:51
administration that's that's what we've said all along, and I, I know Mr. Grimeyer is bringing this bill. This is not the governor's bill or your bill or the department's bill. Am I correct on that? That's correct. I, I'm just trying to get all the facts out on the table, so people kind of know where we are and what's going on, so any other comments you want to make on this? No,
Speaker 142
38:10
sir, well, maybe just briefly that, uh, you know, certainly we're, we're doing our best to, to work through the administration of the 6 separate research and promotion boards, you know, Farm Bureau did previously administer
those. We've, we've worked very closely with, with Farm Bureau and other agencies on getting that transferred over for the administration. I think by all accounts, everything is going well, uh, and, you know, certainly if there are issues, concerns, we're happy to, there,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
38:32
there's been no real hiccups. There has not been. I'm just trying to get the facts out. Most people don't understand promotion boards,
and that's, that's why I'm trying to get this out. It's really, uh, is, uh, It's a handling service. It's, it's really not a, a, a program of the state as much as it is of
the industry itself and of the specific industry, uh, particularly we have rice promotion, soybean promotion, catfish promotion, beef promotion. I don't know who else you've got out there the wheat promotion that's right, I'm just trying to get the facts out so people can understand what's going on. Yes, absolutely. Anyone have a question of Secretary Ward? Mm, OK. Thank you, sir. Very good. She give one
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:22
Members, I'm happy to entertain any questions or we can. Move on to for and against or close. You wanna have a questioner good one.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
39:29
If not, Members, I'm, let me, let me stop
for just a moment, uh, other than Mr. Greyer, no one else signed up anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against. Seeing none, your wife close you, Bill. Thank you, members. You've heard the bill. I'm,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
39:45
I'm closed, uh, appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
39:53
Second Senator Dima, all in favor say aye. All the folks say no, no, no scary bill fails. OK. Senator Johnson, are you in today? I know y'all all here I told you that, uh, a couple of weeks ago. Oh, I'm sorry, you did show up, sneaked in behind me. did not see you.
See what sir, please introduce yourself for the record. Uh, turn your mic on, please. Senator Blake Johnson District 21. You have an amendment. Yes Everybody get a copy of that. All this does is delete Representative Vaughan and Painter and a representative, uh, excuse
me, delete Representative vault and painter and turn an award loading painter.
Changes the arrangement of this don't understand, but anyway, move too fast on that. All right, you're ready to
Speaker 206
41:06
present your bill as amended. Thank you, members and chairman. This, uh, this bill, uh, uh, originally came out with Senate Bill 84, which would eliminate moratoriums that were in place, uh, tried to thread a needle with a legislative process for, uh, all future, uh, moratorium, possible moratoriums and also
have the moratoriums that are in place, go through that, uh, within 30 days after the enactment of this legislation. So if this became effective in, uh, July, that would go in, you know, that, that would have to be done. By August, if this is in place by August, it would have to be done by September. But, uh, that justification of the moratoriums would have to go through the Senate and House Agriculture Committees. And uh and
And there is no, uh, Justification for For the public or or anyone to say that those moratoriums will not stay in place through this process. This is simply a legislative process that the departments have to uh to come to us before they implement a moratorium. And then if that moratorium is in place, then they would have to go and, and do that rulemaking process and then go through the full ALC with that
rule. So, uh, this is strictly uh a legislative uh checkoff before these, these sorts of things, uh, are, are placed on us where we more or less have to approve them, uh, if there's no law or constitutional, uh, or federal law against the moratoriums. I'd appreciate a good vote. questions from the committee. Yeah
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
43:03
Senator Hickey put turn your mic on. I just, I need to, I need to
think something through here on your Just come to my head. So on the uh On the existing moratoriums on page 2, it says that or other body of water institute before the effective date of this act shall go through the approval process under 152307 within 30 days of the
effective date of this act to remain enforceable. If we, depending on when this goes and we were assign he die, I don't remember maybe center disc Ma does. I'm supposed to remember how many
Speaker 212
43:47
days. There's no So Safe on that I was reading that as an emergency
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
43:53
clause too. I'm sorry. I thought this, I thought this was an emerg. That is correct.
I thought that was an emergency clause at the bottom under the section 2, so,
uh, that would be correct. It would, uh, it would go to, in effect, what, 60 days, 90 0 90 days we're good. I apologize again.
Speaker 3
44:12
Any other questions from the committee? Saying none, we have
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
44:22
quite a few people have signed up, uh, for time constraints. We have other meetings to go to and other things to do. I will allow people to speak. Uh, I, I don't want to get up and say the same thing time and time again
because we have a whole page full. But again, uh, uh, y'all have been coming, uh, uh, faithfully, and I do want to folks to, uh, to, uh, uh, be able to speak and uh Senator,
what do you, uh, Time frame, time limitation. For a minute and a half, OK. 1 minute and a half. OK. We, we, we will, uh, allow for, uh, uh, Bennett has to, you going to do it on your clock, please. Uh, Brian Thompson.
So, uh You would, sir, you have
Speaker 214
45:16
to identify yourself. Brian Thompson, um, Fayetteville, um, retired from 34 year career with Tyson Foods. Uh, today, I represent the Ozark Society. Now, uh, uh, forgive me, is there a cutout for these existing moratoriums because that was just listening to this red, OK. All right, thank you. So then, that being said, I'm speaking for the Ozark Society, an organization of roughly 1000
members. Uh, we prevented the Buffalo River from being damned, we wouldn't be having this conversation today if it wasn't for us. Senators today Capos run about 10,000 head. Uh, it's an economies of scale thing and if you compare this to people, it take 20 to 30,000 people to produce the same volume of waste, uh, both kinds have pathogens, in fact, hard waste is higher in pathogens, uh, but I have a little thought experiment. Uh, you know, if you had a mayor
today, uh, go to ADQ and say, you know, this, uh, Process of treating waste is pretty expensive. Uh, we'd like to spread it on our fields. Uh, they'd escort you to the door. In regard to CNH CNH spread waste along the banks of Big Creek for 7 years and at the end of that period, Big Creek was declared by ADQ to be impaired for pathogens and the buffalo was declared to be impaired for a distance of 14 miles below the mouth of Big Creek.
Was this impairment the result of CNH? Well, we don't really know because it's a nonpoint source. That it I'm going to give you a few more
Speaker 217
46:51
minutes because we were talking and you didn't get started. Go ahead.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
46:57
Thank you, sir. Yeah, Senator Caldwell, could, could I make a motion to say 3 minutes maybe yeah, I I wanna be fair whenever you first threw that out there we got time, but still, you go
Speaker 221
47:05
with the president. Thank you for that, um. We don't know if it was a result
Speaker 214
47:15
of CNH because it's a non-point source facility, which by definition means that you can't really tell if it was them or not. Uh. But they were the big operation in the watershed. From a purely economic standpoint, allowing these enormous feedlots and there are wild scenic rivers, it will kill investment. It will kill jobs. It will put a nail in the coffin of Governor Sanders' outdoor economy. It's a message to the likes of people like Johnny Morris that Arkansas does not
value your tourism or investment dollars. Uh, it is a message to outsiders that we do not value our God-given, unique natural resources. Resources only found in our state. Resources that draw visitors by the millions. Considering we've already been down this road once, it's difficult to comprehend why we suddenly decide this is now OK. It's a poke in the eye to the taxpayers and private donors to raise $6.2 million to close CNH,
um. And I, I, gentlemen, there's no place more iconic in our state or more deserving of protection than the Buffalo National River. And if we can't protect it, I don't think we can protect anything, uh, that I sincerely thank you for
Speaker 224
48:30
the opportunity to comment. And, uh, if you have a question.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
48:37
Thank you OK. Speaking for is Mark Lambert.
Speaker 225
48:53
if you would identify yourself for the record, please. Mark Lambert, I'm director of state affairs
Speaker 226
48:58
for Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. Um, good morning, Mr. Chairman, committee members, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this issue. Arkansas Farm Bureau has long standing history of advocating for Arkansas's agriculture industry, which is the lifeblood number one industry in Arkansas, contributing more than $24 billion to the state's overall economy. Our policies are derived from the grassroots input of our members who share a common goal, supporting and
promoting Arkansas's agriculture industry. Arkansas Farm Bureau strongly supports Senate Bill 290 regarding legislative oversight on moratoriums in Arkansas. The bill currently sets up an additional step in the approval process, giving elected officials a voice in the rulemaking process. Arkansas is made up of 57 major watersheds encompass encompassing all its 34 million acres, we believe, including discriminatory language against one industry within a watershed could have a chilling effect on every farm in the state.
Arkansas is home to the largest rice industry in the country. We're consistently in the top 5 for broiler and egg production in top 10 in cattle production, whether it's the rice farmer in from Keo, the poultry grower from Centerton or the cattle rancher from Clinton singling out a single industry to put others in jeopardy that Arkansas prides itself in. We would argue that this isn't about a single watershed. This is about private property rights, a private individual's right to farm and being a good neighbor. Farmers and ranchers strive to be good environmental stewards of the land so they can
pass it on to the next generation. Presently, the director can approve or deny permits on the merits of scientific and engineering studies that it that it not impose harm to the environment. We would, we would like to keep it that way and would sincerely ask the committee to support Senate Bill 290. I'm happy to take any questions the committee. may have
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
50:44
Questions Mr. Lambert. See no, thank you for your presence.
Speaker 231
51:02
Uh, is it, uh, Whiteman Harris. I the first. John Fletcher which identify your, your mic
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
51:20
is, oh, you turn it on now, OK. I'm
Speaker 233
51:23
John Fletcher and I represent the Arkansas Canoe Club. And the conservation chair, we have over 1300 members, and I'm here to speak against SB 290.
So The canoe Club is in favor of retaining the existing moratoriums, and I'm not going to repeat the substantive arguments that you're going to hear from the Ozark Society and the Buffalo River watershed. So I'm now gonna conclude, I'm gonna uh turn to speaking to this as a business attorney who's a practiced law in the state for 32 years. And I have 3, or 22 general concerns with this bill. One, What is the scope of this bill? So
It does not define three key terms, permit. Moratorium. And watershed. I do think Mr. Lambert's testimony just indicated though that watershed is every inch of ground in this state. And to talk about permits on watersheds is no limitation. Every inch of ground in this state is a watershed. So I do not know the scope of this act, and I think it's overly broad and unnecessarily vague for that
reason. Second, what is a a moratorium? What does it, it, it asks the question, but doesn't answer it. State agencies routinely include prohibitions in their regulations. Is every one of those prohibitions. moratorium. I can't answer that question. And the bill could but does not. I prepared a table that has 5. Agency rules. And I outlined how I think this
act applies to each of them. And I would love for the sponsor or someone from Farm Bureau to explain why So if you look at my table, the first rule I'm handing out is an Arkansas game and fish regulation that says it's unlawful to issue a, use a hunting license to shoot swimming deer. Why is that not applicable to this? I think this act would apply to that. I'm happy to be told why I'm wrong. Same with item number 2. On my list
Which is the ABC rule on using a cannabis license to sell pre-rolled cigarettes. I didn't pick that randomly. If those two rules apply to this act, I could give you 100 more examples of what you are affecting today. So my final comments, and then the remaining 33, prohibitions are the ones I think this rule is intended to go to. The two moratoriums on the Buffalo River watershed and the Lake Moel. So my final comment is I believe this bill is a solution in
search of a problem. What are we trying to fix here? We, I think that the bill suggests there's more legislative oversight needed for our executive authorities and state agencies. And if that's a fair concern. So why aren't we talking about the administrative procedures Act. This body has addressed this topic. With a comprehensive procedure your time and so I would suggest that we should be talking about how we should bend the guardrails of the APA. Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
54:47
you. Time out. Mr. Gil Gilmore has a question for you. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. Just a quick question, is moratorium defined anywhere in statute that you're aware of? Not that I'm aware of. So I think it could
Speaker 234
54:56
apply to any prohibition, including the two examples I put on my table. OK. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you, sir. Uh, speaking for
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
55:14
is Megan Allen. You would please, uh, introduce yourself for the record. Yes sir.
Megan Allen
Unverified
55:19
My name is Megan Allen. I'm from Hot Spring County, and I serve on
Speaker 241
55:23
the board of directors for the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation. And today I'm here representing the 180,000 member families in support of SB 290. My husband Jeremy and I raised cattle. We have a feed mill, a trucking operation, a retail farm store and a hay production business in Hot Spring and Clark County. We own and help manage over 1000 acres at the foothills of the Washita Mountains.
With every acre in Arkansas, roughly 34 million acres being in a watershed, we wholeheartedly support this bill. This is about protecting Arkansas farmers and ranchers across our entire state. The authority to either approve or deny a moratoriums should rest with the legislature, which is closer to the people. And not the administrative branch of government, specifically state agencies and commissions.
Senate Bill 290 is about whether a state agency or a commission should be able to impose a permanent moratorium anywhere in the state. And as a point of clarification, this bill does not prevent moratoriums from being imposed. Furthermore, it does not allow for concentrated animal feeding operations or KOs. Within any watershed, including the Buffalo River watershed without regulatory approval and due process.
Permanent moratoriums or bands and other actions of this magnitude that could restrict an entire economic sector. In this case, agriculture, our state's largest industry. Should be reserved for the general assembly, not a state agency or commission. Again, Arkansas Farm Bureau supports Senate Bill 290. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. You want to have a question? Ms. Allen.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
57:24
Sing Nunn, thank you very much. David Peterson. Yeah, I have a handout. It's.
Speaker 243
57:34
I'll, I'll look that I don't know if I'll allow that. Let me look at it and see. See
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
58:21
Before you begin this, uh, in debating CNH. I want you to answer one question for me. Sure. Am I on?
No, sir, turn your mind. Now you are now introduce yourself. I'm sorry.
Speaker 246
58:34
Introduce yourself. I'm David Peterson. I taught applied mathematics, including statistics, hydrology, math modeling at UCA for 34 years. OK. Now, your first question, did CNH
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
58:43
cause a significant change in water quality over a five year span. Did CNH ever have a finding?
Where they broke the law on any, uh, uh, dispersal of, of any, uh, Liquid or waste. I can't speak to that because I wasn't there
Speaker 246
59:03
all the time, but I don't believe there's any significant no I don't think there's any significant violation, you know, there are a
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:11
lot of they never had a violation and what I don't want to do is sit down here and debate, seeing whether or not they, uh, violated, uh, or, or polluted because of all the time that we've spent down here with
CNation debating that, uh, they never had a, a violation or
Speaker 246
59:29
a finding. No, to my, to my knowledge, they follow the rules set
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:32
to them by GQ. They, they went and got your permit and still, we, we put them out of business even though they've never
Speaker 246
59:39
had a violation law, so this is just, so there's, I speak to the science though ofAFOs and things like that and um there are thousands of pages of science on what happens to water quality and so forth with Cahos, and they're just, there's the local example and I'll use the local example whether you
follow rules or not. We've dealt a lot with DEQ and
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:00:01
so forth and so and I did not take away from your
Speaker 246
1:00:05
time. OK, thank you. Yeah, so. CNH is experience following the rules and so forth is not different from every other state in. Thousands of studies and 10s of thousands of scientific information that's been developed on this, and this is, this is not unusual. This isn't an example of breaking the law, but
I've called down thousands of pages of science to a few things, and one of them is nitrate. And the graph you see there is on the x-axis, it's the flow and Big Creek and Below the farm is the red dots, and above the farm is blue dots and everybody on that first page can see that nitrate below the farm was always higher than the water coming in.
It increased by 116% passing the farm. That's significant. It's statistically significant. I'll say once again, this isn't unique to CNH, it's what happens to lots ofAOs around the nation. If you turn the page the other night, uh, nutrient that's most important is phosphorus. And phosphorus is not water soluble, so the, so the data isn't so clear, phosphorus tends not to run off until and Big Creek, you got to 80 cubic feet per second.
But the blue dots are significantly higher than the red dots in this case, and the blue dots are the phosphorus level below the farm and the red dots are before they got to the farm. And there's a significant increase at 69% higher below the farm than above the farm. There was an impact of these. To Nutrients at the farm. The 3rd page is the the the well at CNH. It's 600 ft deep, which is higher than Pinnacle Mountain.
From the ground level and over the four years that they, that, uh, Brat tested the water there. You can see the nitrate level in the 600 ft deep well increased. I don't increased by 61% over 4 years. There's information, it's typical to have Um Nitrate escape from these farms. If you look at the 3rd table, 3rd chart.
There's a a femoral stream that runs past within 50 yards of the farm and the nitrate levels in that field were 7 times higher than what we're in Big Creek. So your time's up. OK. Let me ask you before
Speaker 69
1:02:44
you leave. Let me ask if you have a question. No, thank you for your testimony. OK. Relieve E.
Speaker 247
1:02:53
coli for another day. OK, uh, Bob Schaffner. Hm
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:03:06
And we shocked for a few, your mic is on if you
Speaker 252
1:03:10
would identify yourself. My name is Bob Schaffner. My wife and I operate a farm in Benton County. My extended family operates farms in Benton, Washington, Madison, and
Speaker 253
1:03:17
Newton Counties. So this is. Uh, I'm for the Senate bill, uh, I think the saying there's two different Avenues to it. One is right to farm and private property rights, and the other is the legislative body having the authority to do what they need to do to regulate laws.
In rural Arkansas, particularly in this area, yes, we have the, the buffalo is a beautiful area, and it's very scenic. As a young man, while I wore a young man's clothes, I enjoyed floating it. But as a farmer and a rancher in rural areas, farming and ranching is one of the only avenues that we have in these rural areas to be able to pay tax base to the rural school school communities and youth development. Just last week you saw 500 kids in green jackets and green shirts running around here. This is the future for us. We are a rural state without Having moratoriums or with
moratoriums, this limits the operations of of these families and these rural areas to be able to make a living. Now, some people may not like the fact that we raised beef cattle or animals for, for livestock production and for meat consumption, but that is a way that we can do in our area, and this has been part of our state, uh, that's one of the things that you have. If you ever had an operation that has been told to be shut down by somebody else by not doing any violations. Let me tell you, that's something serious. I've had that happen. Right in my domain while my grandfather's farm for a
watershed in, in the, in Washington County in the early 60s. So when you have something like that, that, that plays on you and your family when you don't have the right, when you do everything right and do not miss or do not violating any laws, and you act within your realm. The legislative control of this is this needs to go back to you as you saw a little earlier with the cognizant test if a state agency that is appointed and not elected by the Arkansans of Arkansas can misinterpret a law. This gives that regulatory body back to you, the legislators who
are voted by Arkansans. There's a lot of outside influence that wants to influence how this goes and goes forward. But I tell you, you need to listen to the people in these watersheds that have the restrictions and be able to talk to them. to have the ability to be able to do what they do on their family farms to be able to produce food, fuel, and fiber for this country, and to be able to act in a way that will support the local communities and the local schools. These areas need this type of economic avenue. The folks that come in
and fill up their car and fill up their ice chest and the more areas of the country like in Fayetteville or Little Rock, come to this area to float for a few days and then they go back home. The economic impact. Maybe for those folks that have the Outfitters and the canoe deals in which I'm all for that. Free enterprise system, but this area is an economically depressed. If you looked at the others that had Army Corps of Engineer deals like Mountain Home, Eureka Springs, Rogers, Arkansas, where they have a huge economic advantage when they
pass this to protect buffalo, which is a very scenic avenue, but the problem is those folks in this area are
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:06:18
your time is up, sir. Thank you. Let me wait a minute before you leave. Let me ask anyone have a question. If not, thank you very much. I appreciate you coming. Elizabeth Fletcher. Is my mic on,
you can hear me? You would introduce yourself Elizabeth Fletcher, I am an
Speaker 255
1:06:43
attorney. I've been a litigating for over 35 years. I am a member of Farm Bureau and we own over 900 acres that is on the White River and tributaries of the White River. Uh, when I, my problem with this bill is I can't understand the reason for it. Normally when you have a bill, there's a specific problem that you're trying to address, and we've we've heard about right to farm and this, that and the other, but we haven't heard how any of these moratoriums are specifically harming any farming
operations, and they're not harming mine. When I look at statutes and when we look at them in the courts, we're going to be looking at words and how they're defined in the statute. One of my concerns moratorium, say you have a city council that is approving cemeteries, and they say there shall be no cemeteries within a mile of a body of water. Is that gonna be swept up by the statute, State agencies.
That is not defined in this statute, that when I looked at him last night, Google their 15 of them, but it is that municipalities? Is it counties? Is it cities? If the city of Helena wants to prohibit certain industries in their in their jurisdiction because they're having a hard time getting water and they do have groundwater problems in the city of Helena. Are they going to be able to do that. And then as far as, uh, Say Baxter County wants to
prohibit landfills because they're having groundwater problems. Are they going to be able to do that. So I think what we're doing here is we're taking a net that is too wide, too vague, and too non-specific, and we don't know what we're going to catch with it, and what you probably will catch with it is a great deal of litigation. Any questions? Questions from the committee. Thank you very much.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:08:52
OK, to speak for the bill, uh, Don Hubbell. If you would sure your microphone
Don Hubble
Unverified
1:09:00
is on, introduce yourself for the record and you recognize. Thank you, Senator. Uh, my name is Don Hubble. I'm a commercial cattle producer from Independence County, uh, also served as 2nd vice president for the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association. As cattle producers, one of our top priorities is to ensure that our watersheds remain clean and healthy.
SB 290 is a key step in continuing to protect those vital watersheds while also empowering the people in this process. Like all agricultures cattle producers are committed committed to preserving the natural beauty of our state and we're taking steps to do so. On my farm, which is near the White River, I maintained riparian buffers and plant forges to stop erosion and run off into creeks that flow
through my property into the White River, uh, I use best management practices that are um That the Forestry Commission has put in place. Um The, 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, the Arkansas Cattlemen's Association fully supports SB 290 because it upholds a fundamental rights to
private property, a principle deeply embedded in our organization's policy and the Arkansas Constitution. In conclusion, SB 290 offers a balanced approach that supports environmental sustainability while protecting the rights of agricultural producers by placing land use policy decision in the hands of elected officials, SB 290 encourages thoughtful, long-term environmental stewardship that benefits both the land and the people who rely on it. Ensuring that Arkansas's
agricultural practices remain both environmentally sustainable and protected for years to come. Thank you for your time. I'll answer any questions. You want to have questions? Nunn, thank you very much. Thank you.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:11:05
Uh, next time I can't read, uh, Gordon. Was Couldn't reach your last name at the 1st 3 or 4 letters. Apologize for my handwriting, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
1:11:27
be here today. My name is Gordon Watkins. I'm the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. We've got about 2500 members across the state. And I, I've been farming in Newton County on the Little Buffalo River for about 50 years and I have a cabin rental business also, uh, on our property they've been doing for about 20 years. Uh, I'm here to speak against SB 290. And uh number one, it's redundant and unnecessary. You've heard several people say how it's important, this bill is important because it will bring uh future efforts for
moratoriums before the legislature for their approval rather than the executive branch. That's already the case, as you know better than me, any new rules have to come to the legislature to be approved. They go before the ALC or other bodies. So it's redundant in that case. Um, this bill requires a moratorium be renewed every 2 years. If let's say the Buffalo River is found to be worthy of a moratorium this year. What's going to change in two years that makes it unworthy. that this seems to be just an effort to make this an onerous process.
Uh, SB 290 is vague, uh, as some have said it refers to generic permits. Uh, not just agricultural permits, does it apply to building permits? Does it apply to mining and fracking permits, does it apply to apply to crypto mining permits, uh, or will it, will it, uh inhibit Fort Smith from dealing with a stench that's that they're dealing with right now. Uh, SB 290 is is confusing. It refers only to moratoriums initiated by state agencies. What about more, what about
rulemaking initiated by a third party, would that be exempt from this bill? Uh, SB 29 may be illegal. It says that rules which propose a moratorium must first get approval from the legislature, which may violate the administrative Procedures Act requirement for public input. On proposed rules. If the APA is being circumvented in the APA is being circumvented if a proposed moratorium is denied before the public can weigh in. You've heard them say that this would establish a precedent that
would be adopted across the state. The president said a long time ago, there's been a moratorium on the Buffalo River watershed for 10 years. There's been a moratorium on Lake Mael watershed which precedes that. There's never been any other efforts to, to that slippery slope argument just does not hold water. Um We've heard them say that it violates property rights and the right to farm. As a farmer and good neighbor myself, I know that my rights ended my fence row. The right to farm does not confer unrestricted rights. Some sites are simply inappropriate
for industrial scaleAFOs, including in cars areas of Buffalo National River. State and federal regulations such as moratoriums or men as guard rails to protect the landowners and the public against environmentally damaging activities. Um So I'll stop there and take any questions. Question. Certainty is being. Yeah No. I think it's important to go
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
1:14:25
ahead and start this conversation because I, I would say that you are correct. If you read this legislation, it
delegates the authority, uh, to control them moratorium to as many as 4 members. Those 4 members could essentially just sit on their hands and prevent a moratorium from taking place. Um, I guess, and so I would say you, you touched on and it'd be more of if you agree, I mean, the Constitution allows us to change by the people to have say over to the rulemaking. Uh, and approval, it does not delegate that authority to a specific committee, uh, to override the rulemaking process.
And in fact, we've put very stringent processes in place for us so that it's not easy to overrule a rule by the executive branch. And so my question be did you agree then that this would violate essentially the constitutional right the people gave us to approve rules and then also that would delegate the authority to as few as 4 people. Uh, in controlling a moratorium. Yes, yes, we
Speaker 264
1:15:27
have the same reading. Any other questions?
Speaker 265
1:15:34
Thank you. Thank you. Travis Payne. Travis Payne, Conway County, Arkansas. Uh,
Travis Payne
Unverified
1:16:01
Chairman Caldwell, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in
support of SB 290. Um, my name is Travis Payne, and I raised, I raised cattle in Conway County and my 3rd generation cattle farmer. At its core, SB 290 is more important than just about the Buffalo River. It is about protecting one of our most sacred rights, private property, ownership. The Arkansas Cattlemen's Association firmly believes that landowners have the right to own and manage their property without unnecessary government interference. This ride is enshrined in both federal and state constitutions
and SB 290 helps, helps ensure that Arkansas landowners not excuse me, unelected agencies retain control over their land. By requiring legislative oversight before imposing major land issue, uh, restrictions, SB 290 prevents agencies from making unilateral decisions that could limit how landowners use their property without legislative safe safeguards and landowners in Arkansas could face new restrictions that reduce their property's value and usability without just compensation.
Farmers and ranchers have spent generations stewarding their land. And they not government agencies are best suited to make decisions about its management. By prevailing regulatory overreach, SBT90 ensures that Arkansas landowners can continue using their land for agriculture production. Without fear or arbitrary restrictions. Additionally, with 57 separate watershed across the state allowing agencies to impose moratoriums without legislative input could lead to broad, unnecessary regulations that
negatively impact farmers and ranchers statewide, not just the Buffalo River watershed. SB 290 keeps these decisions in the hands of elected officials, ensuring transparency, fairness, and policymaking. Landowners Excuse me, landowners should not have to worry about sudden government imposed restrictions, devaluing their property and preventing from making a living. SB 290 defends our right to manage land, water, and other natural resources without any unnecessary interference. Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:18:10
appreciate your time and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions, Mr. Payne? Nunn, thank
Speaker 270
1:18:31
you very much for coming. Thank you, sir. Uh, Sam Cooke. I'm Sam Cooke, Batesville. I serve on the board of Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers. I Farm cattle and timber over 1800
acres in northern Independence County. Um, I don't wanna say too much more than what Gordon Watkins did, but to address the the administrative procedures Act. Which is a very extensive, uh, Uh, list of, of rules itself governing rulemaking, the rulemaking process, you know, a state agency does not impose rules or changes in rules. It proposes rules.
And then has to go through the due process of rule making in order to see that this is approved. The legislature has given ample opportunity. Through that rulemaking process through the rules committee and the legislative council. Uh, to approve or deny, uh, these rules such as a moratorium. Um, I also would like to question why 2 years is given
that period of time is given for a moratorium to be uh renewed. Why not 5. Most hog farm permits are 5 years. I have a 5-year. Renewal period Um, but basically the, the administrative Procedures Act Act is adequate and uh that's, that's the main primary reason for my opposition to this bill. Thank you. And we have a question, Mayor.
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:20:14
So, yes, sir, if you don't mind and
Of course, probably not something you want to answer, but, so, the problem with the administrative procedures Act is as it relates to the Senate and House Ag committees having that, uh, Authority
to delegated to them, is that correct? Yes, I think
Speaker 272
1:20:29
that's redundant. OK. Thank you. You. Thank you for coming. John Ray.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:20:49
You would introduce yourself, sir, your
Speaker 274
1:20:52
microphone is on. Good morning. My name's John Ray. I may fayetteville resident. I'm one of those hikers and paddlers and, uh, photographers that likes to go to Buffalo River and bring my eyes chest and leave from time to time, but I spent a lot of time in the Buffalo River watershed. I spent a lot of money there at Outfitters, cabin rentals, restaurants. Me in 1,686,348 visitors last
year as reported in the Democrat Gazette yesterday. The Buffalo River is the jewel of the Ozarks. And this entire region of the country in 2022, the latest year that we have dated the Buffalo National River brought in $78 million to the Arkansas economy and supported 864 jobs. Buffalo National River brings people to Arkansas because it is so iconically beautiful. People come from all over the country
to see its beauty. And the last time there was a large ko in the Buffalo River, as you know, the river was polluted with E. coli and excess nitrates. Fortunately, the state government with private interests and the environmental sector prevented this from becoming a nightmare situation for those that depend on the river. Now who depends on the river and the groundwater. Farmers In the area. Uh, lots of small business, concessionaires, fishermen,
fisherwomen, paddlers, hikers, hunters, everyone else, and the fish and the animals that depend on the water. We don't want the Buffalo River area to become To suffer the same fate as what's happened in Iowa and eastern North Carolina, where we have massive amounts of pollution in the rivers and creeks and streams, massive fish die-offs, affecting drinking water sources and producing harmful algae blooms that sicken
both animals and humans and resulting in multi-million dollar. Efforts to clean the water in Iowa itself, it costs about $333 million a year to clean the water because of the largeAO pollution. And I close with that. I ask you to please oppose SB 290. OK. Anyone have a
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:23:20
question? Signan, thank you very much. Uh, you're the last one on our
list, uh, Senator Johnson. Sure. or if you
Speaker 213
1:23:36
have questions for No. Or if he's willing to accept them or not,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:23:39
Senator Johnson, you want to answer questions? Yes, sir.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:23:51
OK. Serge Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you, sir, um. And I, I appreciate what you're attempting to do here for the farming and agriculture
communities, um, in the state. Uh, I do have some concerns as the bill is written. So maybe you can help address some of those. Um You, you've heard some of the discussion about the, uh, administrative procedures Act. Do you have any, do you have any thoughts or any inputs you could add to that because I do think that raises a fairly, um, good question considering that we do have ALC, we do have the, uh, rules subcommittee of ALC, um, but anyway, I'd like to hear
Speaker 206
1:24:29
your thoughts on why this was included. Well, this, uh, this process was Uh Put into this piece of legislation. Because This body creates the laws. That create those departments. And this body, uh, Senate Agriculture Committee and the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee have more subject level expertise in
agriculture, than the, than the whole body. And, uh, so, Us as, as the, uh, the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee, allowing a, uh, a moratorium process to go forward is not unreasonable, uh, and that, and that moratorium process through rulemaking would have to go to the entire body. And, uh, but this, this process
would, would be, uh, be prior to. The, uh, the rulemaking and the and the moratorium, uh, process. OK. Follow up. But I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:25:40
don't know that it clearly states what you just said there. So, uh, but I, I want to move on because I have a couple other questions. Um, on line 26. It says, including without limitation. Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy and
Environment. It lists 2, but it says without limitation. So it could be agencies beyond those two.
Speaker 206
1:26:08
Am I reading that correctly? Yes. And what, and I mean the in line 23, this is a prohibition of on moratoriums and watersheds and other bodies of water. That's the limitation. Mhm It's, you know, in testimony, everybody understands what the moratoriums are, and, you know,
they said they don't, you know, it's not but defined. But everyone is in favor of the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:26:40
moratorium. So one last follow up then I'll defer to other members. So I looked up 1523, um, so title 15 chapter 23. Uh, so you're adding a new Um, subchapter, which is 107. So in, in that title and in that chapter, it lists out Basically different bodies of
waters that are being defined, um, unless I missed it, and I may have, and I'm by no means an expert, and I don't pretend to be, but I didn't see anything in there that, that resembled anything of what we're doing in that, um,
Speaker 206
1:27:18
Chapter Well, I didn't, I mean, I was a party to, but I did not. The bureau wrote this piece of legislation and is a germane in, in this, in this area. So, uh,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:27:32
OK. I may have some follow-ups. one. Turn Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, um, so even though I've never been on the Buffalo River. I've been trying to do my research because I think I've received close to 250 calls, texts and emails about the spill, so I think it's something that's important and that we get right, so, um, no question is a silly question, so I do have a question, um. So
So how does this bill ensure protections of sensitive ecosystems such as the Buffalo watershed, if state agencies are restricted from implementing the moratoriums on permits
Speaker 206
1:28:19
that could impact water quality. So those agencies would have to go before you as a committee, and And that's where you would be in the process to either approve or disapprove the Going forward with a moratorium
or a limitation on agricultural production in those watersheds. It would go to you as a committee first and then the, they would have to promulgate the, the rules
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:28:52
for moratorium. OK. One more question. So what, what mechanisms are in place within the Senate Bill 290 to allow state agencies to respond promptly to unforeseen environmental threats that may require immediate um an
immediate response, like some of the, um, people that were here to testify regarding like certain permits or things
that impact public health, um. That, that's a concern of mine that was kind of echoed with some of the people that provided
Speaker 206
1:29:22
testimony. It would, uh, if they tried to do an emergency moratorium on something, then those the committee of Senate A and Senate, uh, or house ag would have to meet.
Speaker 127
1:29:38
And allow that process to go forward. OK That's it right now. So
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
1:29:45
you have a question? I did. Just let me stay here. I'm in, I'm in favor of what you're trying
to do. So let's just get that out there on the. Out there on the table. I am 100% worried about the structure of this with the administrative Procedures Act. Uh, I think that the testimony here today, and what I know about that, that, uh, uh, that's a step that And again, I'm no attorney, but I don't, I don't know how it
holds up. And I know you're presenting this bill. I know you had another bill that, uh, Did not, did not, uh, require this committee to meet, because I don't think that we can have that, you, you called it approval. I don't, I don't know how we could ever do that. Uh, so, I guess I'm having a, I'm having a struggle here because of the, of the way the bill itself is written, which I've actually been saying that a little bit on a different because of a different version, not because of the administrative Procedures Act. So,
Uh, I don't know if we could take. If you're willing to Somehow take that part out or if we could get with our staff and our attorneys to see how possibly we could do it, uh, and run it that way. So, that's just, uh, that's my take on it, and I'd just rather just say it straight up here at this table, members and chair, if it'd be all right,
Speaker 208
1:31:02
I'll pull this down and and do some work. All right, thank you. here. Uh, Senator Johnson.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:31:11
I'm coming to your committee. Don't, don't, don't run off, don't leave me. We are adjourned.
Agenda
Call to Order
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
HB1149 Vaught CONCERNING VEGETABLE GARDEN PROTECTION.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB281 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING AGRICULTURE; TO ESTABLISH THE PRODUCER BILL OF RIGHTS FOR COMMODITY CHECKOFF PROGRAMS ACT; AND TO REQUIRE CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATED TO COMMODITY CHECKOFF PROGRAMS.
SB290 B. Johnson TO PROHIBIT A MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS IN WATERSHEDS AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER.
SB305 C. Penzo TO REQUIRE CERTAIN TESTING OF PROCESSED MARIJUANA PRODUCTS SOLD AS MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
SB361 Dees TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES EXPANSION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES TO SECURE AND DEVELOP INDUSTRY AND FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
SB368 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MINERAL, TIMBER, AND OTHER RESOURCES ON STATE LANDS; TO REDUCE MEMBERSHIP OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE; AND TO AMEND THE NOTIFICATION RELATED TO LEASES AND PERMITS.
SB388 Crowell TO REPEAL THE ANNUAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT RELATED TO THE PROGRESS OF FOREIGN OFFICES OF THE ARKANSAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.
SB396 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUNTING AND FISHING LICENSES; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE ARKANSAS STATE GAME AND FISH COMMISSION TO ISSUE TO CERTAIN NONRESIDENTS A HUNTING OR FISHING LICENSE FOR THE COST OF A RESIDENT LICENSE.
SB400 Irvin TO AMEND THE FAIR-FUNDING PROGRAM.
HB1385 C. Cooper TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OIL AND GAS COMMISSION; AND TO REQUIRE THE OIL AND GAS COMMISSION TO NOTIFY MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONCERNING CERTAIN PERMITS.
HB1516 Richmond TO AMEND VARIOUS LAWS CONCERNING THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - SENATE, Mar 11, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 6
Speaker 7
Speaker 13
Speaker 16
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Senator Jimmy Hickey, Jr
Unverified
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Senator Clint Penzo
Unverified
Speaker 38
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 55
Speaker 58
Speaker 61
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 68
Speaker 52
Speaker 71
Speaker 74
Speaker 56
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 110
Billy Black
Unverified
Speaker 137
Speaker 138
Speaker 142
Senator Jonathan Dismang
Unverified
Speaker 164
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 190
Speaker 191
Speaker 197
Speaker 206
Speaker 212
Speaker 3
Speaker 214
Speaker 217
Speaker 221
Speaker 224
Speaker 225
Speaker 226
Speaker 231
Speaker 233
Speaker 234
Megan Allen
Unverified
Speaker 241
Speaker 243
Speaker 246
Speaker 69
Speaker 247
Speaker 252
Speaker 253
Speaker 255
Don Hubble
Unverified
Gordon Watkins
Unverified
Speaker 264
Speaker 265
Travis Payne
Unverified
Speaker 270
Speaker 272
Speaker 274
Speaker 213
Speaker 127
Speaker 208