Energy - Joint

in a disaster that we pass over that for today, Senator Hickey. For what purpose? Questions, questions regarding uh uh quorums, roll calls, rules to that nature and I don't, I'm sure you know the Senate, Senate had passed a, uh, a motion that says that we're gonna refer anything that comes out of here. To our regular standing state agents, I mean, the our standing committee. So I just think it's uh kind of incumbent on us that we discuss that and talk about that because As one of our members has said, I don't know. what the importance of us to be here is. So I'd just like to discuss that. I thought that when I left my other position, I got rid of all the hard questions, but apparently they followed me. Apparently they followed me, uh, Senator Hickey, this, this has been brought to my attention. I'm just I'll just share what my view of it is and, and this was brought to my attention the last few days, uh, and we, I know both the Senate and the House have done some looking at what has been, what's provided by the rules and also what the custom and practice has been and then Senator Johnson just, uh, late to me what the Senate had just taken, uh. I just, my, my view of it is, and after talking with Senator Johnson is that and from from looking at the custom and practice and going back through the years is that in a joint select committee traditionally there has not been a vote by division. There could be a roll call, and we follow, uh, my understanding is we follow the Senate rules with regard to motions that there has to be a motion in a second, I guess, uh, there could be a roll call to go along with that, but that they vote. by division has not been the, the practice in the past because of the nature of a joint this joint select committee that it's, that's the committee itself doing the work in light of what of the action that the Senate took, it seems to me that's also kind of largely rendered this issue to some degree moot in that now the Senate has taken upon itself, uh, to say that anything that comes out of this committee is going to be referred to another committee and so that would be, that would be my uh. Hope, I guess, and that's the way that Senator Johnson and I had just discussed just in a few minutes ago that we would not take a uh vote by division, uh, in light of the past practice and it also in light of what the Senate the action the Senate had taken and so that's that's my approach to that and I'd love to hear anybody else's comments on that well if it's OK, I'd like to reply and, and that's fine. I just, I think from our standpoint, you know, it was going to wind up being since. It appears that y'all are gonna, you know, from the house side to uh uh put your most of your energy bills in this committee, which is fine, but it it was kind of a balance of power aspect, I believe from a lot of the uh Senate members because you know we actually have less members. We actually have less members so you know if every member of uh if every member of the Senate voted no and every member of the House voted yes, then at that point, you know, we would have something that was pushed to the Senate floor without the, without the senators here so I think I just want the public to understand too that, uh, you know, that was our reasoning for the thing, but I also think I'm not 100% sure do we need to at least have what it takes for a forum or a roll call. Or and things to that nature or we just gonna kind of sowing it, so, uh, my understanding, my understanding because I was just, we were just, just ask staff about this and I was actually asking the House parliamentarian as well. My understanding for a quorum is a majority of the of the total membership of this committee. With 25 members, it's 1313 members being present and there and then the vote if you have a quorum then you have a majority of the quorum which would be, uh, a majority of those members that are here if it's 13, then it takes 7 votes to pass something if it's 25, then it takes 13 votes and of course most of these votes would be. You know, the, the initial, initially it would be a voice vote, which is the call of the chair and then if there's a desire for a roll call, that can be taken up at that time, OK? And I guess that would, and I, I greatly appreciate you explaining that. So on a roll call, do we have anything in writing that says how many hands it actually takes in this committee for a roll call because that's something I also don't know since we don't have what's the practice in the Senate committee? I'm not sure. One. OK. I'll check on that. OK. I, I appreciate you, uh, Representative Sheriff. Thank you, um, Mr. Co-chair, um, Senator Hickey, I think we talked about this earlier today, but, but for the benefit of everyone involved, uh, there are no, there are no rules. There are no committee rules and to, to, to point out a slight difference in the Senate selection in the House selection, uh, in the Senate side, it is not a select committee. It's not appointed with the speaker. It is, uh, members by seniority pick their their committees so that's why we're, uh, we're doing a little different and and that. would potentially be a reason why, uh, the motion that, uh, uh, Senator Hester made and passed today, uh, was made uh because it's not quite so sure that that what the action of this committee could be done unless it was referred to. The fact that we don't have a joint rule or a committee rule that would address this, uh, that was a part of the reason I think that the Senate uh voted the way they did, uh, the, but the, the The bottom line is that this committee will hear testimony and assuming it's reported out, the Senate would, would, uh, refer it to a standing committee and that's important to note there's a lot of presumption that's insurance and commerce. It might be on many types of bills that would come before this committee but not necessarily so. It could be state agencies. It could be something else too, so, uh, again this is a little new ground we're plowing here and I apologize to anyone that's confused about it because like my co-chair, I was just as confused when I walked in this week looking at it, but I think we'll get through this just fine and uh Mr. Chairman, I'll turn to to Senator Hickey's question on the roll call. My position would be it would take two hands. My understanding is that in the past in these joint select committees that essentially you take the, the, what the kind of the highest burden, so to speak, for example, in the house a motion is just one member in the Senate it requires a motion in a second, so therefore we require a motion in a second. On the other hand, in a, uh, House committee, it takes 2 members, 2 hands, so to speak, versus in the Senate committee, it just takes one. And so in my view, we would take require two hands because that's the, the, uh, more, the higher threshold of the two, and so, uh, that's, that's the way I would plan to operate, and that's my understanding as to how it's been handled in the past. Uh, Mr. Co-chair, I would say I would even say, uh, I would ask unanimous consent of the committee that we operate just as you just said. Senator Clark. Hold on just a second. I have a problem With any bill or any industry having a. easier way through the legislature. Than others Uh And uh no retirement works this way and it's been a different animal. It was that way when I got here. Never questioned it. But I expect when a bill gets to the Senate floor, it has been through a Senate committee, and it's headed to a House committee if it passes or it's been through both separately. And but beyond that, In the House committee, if I take a bill to House committee and there's only 11 people there. I still have to have 11 votes. And if I take Uh bill to a Senate committee and there's only 5 people there. I still had to have 5 votes. And this committee. Would not work that way. This committee, as long as you've got 13. You could pass something out with 7 votes. That is a a big advantage for whatever for energy industry to come in here, uh. Versus going through another committee and uh I agree with the other things that Senator Hickey has brought up again, I love the Energy Committee. Wouldn't mind hearing bills here, but uh I think we've got some fundamental problems. All right. Thank you, Senator Clark. Any other, any other discussion? All right, uh, we'll move to our agenda and uh we're gonna take up House Bill 1198. I understand there is an amendment or amendments to this bill, uh. Represent more dismaying you're recognized. And would you like these amendments to be passed out at this time? Uh, yes, please. And Mr. Chair, if I may have Representative Brown come and join us as one of the co-sponsors. With without objection we'll allow it. Some more you want to go ahead and explain your amendment and we'll see if we can. get the amendment adopted to it so that you can move into the bill. Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Jeremiah Moore, District 61, uh, this amendment tightens up some language. There were some questions regarding what under construction meant, so we put that definition, uh, it also adds Representative Brown and senators Irvin and Johnson as co-sponsors and then furthermore it further defines originally it was 100 square miles. And I substituted that with a 5 mile radius which 5 miles on either side would be 10 miles and 100 square miles is, uh. 10 miles, about 10 miles. Thank you. And just for clarity, is there just, is there just one amendment? That's correct. OK. All right, is there a, is there a motion to adopt, motion to adopt by Representative Gonzalez. Is there a second, 2nd Senator McKee, any discussion? All in favor of adopting the amendment, say aye. Any opposed? The amendment is adopted. You recognize to present the bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, fellow colleagues, members of Joint Energy. I'm excited to present House Bill 1198 which to its core is a bill based upon conservation. Uh, conservation more specifically of one of our state's greatest natural resources waterfowl, both ducks and geese, um. Living in the heart of the Arkansas Delta, uh, being a pretty big waterfowl hunter myself. Uh, this is a pretty personal bill, um. And I think there's been a lot of conversations about the negative. Impact that these wind turbines have or some of you have might have been led to believe that they do not have on waterfowl. Um throughout this testimony today, I hope to prove that they do have a very adverse effect on migratory waterfowl. I want to point to a study that I've asked BLR to hand out to committee members, uh, in reference to the Laguna Madre, excuse me, project down in South Texas, uh. This area in South Texas is the primary wintering grounds for red-headed diving ducks. This is among the foremost research projects regarding wind turbines and waterfowl, uh, and how it relates to the area being studied before the project was built and then studied after the project was built. Uh, if you look at that. If you look at that study. Uh, you will notice it says a 77% decrease in waterfowl in the area that the turbine. Site is located. Um, that's pretty significant. Arkansas currently has several wind turbine projects and in that handout is a map that's provided. Two of those projects are not listed on that map. It's not a question of whether or not wind turbines negatively affect waterfowl. It's a question of just how much they do. When you litter the delta with these wind turbines from the banks of the Arkansas River to the banks of the Mississippi River. It's could potentially devastate the wintering waterfowl in this great state. I'll remind you that the economic impact of waterfowl to East Arkansas, a very poor region of the state is estimated to be over $306 million annually. Uh, if you look, there's another handout that has some notes from a few particular scientific studies that says turbines should not be placed in agricultural fields where large concentrations of ducks, geese, and other migratory birds commonly forage turbines should not be placed within 2 miles of the major roof sites, turbines should not be placed on flight corridors used by birds from roost sites to foraging fields, and this bill does exactly that. This bill essentially says within a 5 mile radius, wind turbines cannot exist or be placed where 11 or more bird bands have been collected over the past decade. As you know, bird bands are very rare and to a avid water fowler they're a prized possession, um. And that is the basis of this bill. And there's several more quotes in some of those handouts. And I would urge you to read all of them. But for the sake of time and. Saving that, um. I'll leave you to it. You don't No, I wanna thank Representative Moore and also this committee for taking time to consider this today. I don't, I mean, you can look at the reports and one of the first pieces of feedback I got was, well, show me the study. That there that this negatively impacts migratory birds. The reality is there aren't any hard and fast studies that relate back to the birds that we have coming through our area, but also they think that speaks to the reason that we need to be cautious in what we're doing, uh, we don't want to be the test subject. We don't want to prove that this is going to have a negative consequence and again one of, you know, one of our I don't know, most famous traditions here in Arkansas. If I travel out of the state, And uh I was, I was honored at one point to be able to represent Stuttgart. All over this country they knew where Stuttgart, Arkansas was because of the ducks. And I would hate for us in the name of and again it's, it's not about the power or how it's created. It's not, you know, renewables versus not, but I would hate in the name of that. To do harm to that particular area, which I do believe this will do. I mean, how, how tall, I mean I let someone speak to the height, but I mean the height of these things, they're they're incredible structures. And there's 00 chance just with your own common sense that you would think that they did not have an impact on what the birds that were coming through. And if you take a look at that map where these projects are uh supposed to exist, uh, you'll notice 2 on the White River, one on the Langi River, one directly next to Wapanaka, uh, National Wildlife Refuge, and the one on Indian Bow in Crooked Creek. These are in the heart of the waterfowl fly away. Um, the senator Dima said, let's not be the test case for why these things, uh why the. research does exist and why they don't need to be in waterfowl flyways. Any questions from the committee? So Oh OK OK. Representative. Gramli, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. I, I guess my first question is, so I understand. Within 5 an area within 5 miles radius of where duck bands have been found 11 over the past 10 years. Where can I find that data now? Like if I was still interested in a project, where could I even find that to see areas that that isn't true, that that statement isn't true, and I could actually put a wind farm in still. Does that make sense? Thank you, Representative Graham. Look, I got my dad, my data from, uh, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. OK. And then I would, I would ask like approximately what, how many square miles would that cover of the state that we'd be banning wind turbines. I do not have that direct answer for you. It would be several 100 square miles, mostly in East Arkansas, um, the Arkansas River Valley in South Arkansas around Felsenthal and then some in Southwest Arkansas. And I, I would like to point out that this is not a band of wind turbines. This is a cap on 150 ft. call in those, in those waterfowl migratory areas. Thank you. All right. Representative Cooper, you're recognized for a question. Representative Moore, do you know how tall these turbines are that are proposed to be built in Arkansas. Uh, they can be up to 70 or 800 ft in Arkansas, yeah. OK. Do you have any idea how tall the turbines are and out west, the ones we're familiar with out in Kansas, Nebraska. So the ones referenced in this study down in South Texas, those are just over 400 ft tall. OK, so these proposed in Arkansas could be close to twice that height then. That's correct. Representative Ladyman. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, which wind farm in South Texas has 400 ft turbines. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? wind farm in Texas has towers that are 400 ft tall. It is the wind turbine just outside of Padre Island. Um, I believe if you'll allow me. I'm looking through this study. Can you find the manufacturer of that turbine who manufactures that 400 ft turbine. I'm unsure. OK, I had 3 wind farms in South Texas just outside of Brownsville. And other companies had wind farms down there. At that point in time, which was a few years ago, 300 ft was the maximum height on towers. Uh, and I'd like to know what company makes a 700 ft tower onshore tower. Now, there are large towers offshore. What company makes the 700 ft tower. Uh, the company that I. No that makes a 700 ft tower would be Vestus. Vestus, you've got data to back that up as a landowner in Monroe County, Vestus has sent me a number of, uh, a number of mailers talking about wind projects in my vicinity. Uh, and if it has come from Vestus. Yes, sir. And they said they would have 700 ft towers. Yes. Um, not those mailers in particularly, but, uh, that is my understanding members of the industry have told me 690 ft. Well, offshore towers are that tall, but I don't know of any company makes onshore towers that tall. Um Normally 300 ft or maybe less, some, there are two companies that make 150 ft towers that would meet this requirement only to bestus is one of those companies. The other one is a small Chinese company, um. But you would be limiting this to basically to Two companies if you. If we pass this bill. Uh, my other question is, do you have any data? On Waterfowl kills on any wind farms in South Texas or anywhere else in the United States. So I don't have any data on actual waterfowl kills underneath the turbines themselves. This is more, uh, concerned about the displacement of the waterfowl regarding the turbines. OK. All right, thank you. Representative Torres, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, what specific data or studies support the choice of 150 ft as the maximum height for wind powered devices and bird conservation areas. I don't have any specific data or support to re, uh, to back up the 150 ft tall, uh, that was more so to allow, uh, individuals to put up their own wind turbines outside of their homes if they're into that sort of alternative energy or for cattle farmers to use wind turbines on their farms. Follow up Thank you, Mr. Chair. um, how was the threshold of 11 birds bands and 100 square mile area over 10 years determined to signify significant bird concentration. So one of the reasons that it was 11 bird bands within that square mile, uh, or square mileage is because it allows for us to determine where the greatest concentration of birds are. So as a waterfowl hunter, uh, I've killed thousands of ducks, personally, uh, in sporting, um, I have very few bird bands. But And the waterfowl biologists, um, will tell you that the number of birds per band. The, the ratio is significant, so. I chose that 11 bands or more to determine the greatest area for waterfowl, uh, migration. OK, thank you. Senator Clark, you recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair. The And this may, I'm addressing this question to y'all, it may be more of a question for Representative Ladyman. He seems to know a lot about this. Uh Why Windmills in Arkansas. At all. I'm for renewable energy. Uh, but with coal. You use the highest grade coal because you want the biggest bang for the buck. And I understand windmills in South Texas. I understand windmills in Kansas, uh, but from what I've seen. We don't have that much wind here. It didn't seem like you're getting up other than federal subsidies, why are we putting windmills here at all? That's a great question. I don't think that it was our goal to get into the discussion of renewables versus not renewables. I mean, you could make the same argument about me take a plane over East Arkansas right now and you see a lot of black fields. Um, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is alarming. Um I mean, I guess the same could be true for these. I, I would agree. I, I don't understand how you generate enough off the wind that we have unless you're trying to find yourself into a corridor that has typical winds, which is, I think, why it's in the flyway. Uh, I would assume, um, but, but again that's for someone else that's probably going to speak uh against this bill that they're probably gonna have a better answer to why this is a good thing. Uh, I did find, um, I mean, I guess it seems to me that most all of the windmills in Texas are at minimum 400 ft. That's the prep, uh, wind farm Forest Creek Wind Farm, Roscoe Wind Farm, those are 400 ft turbines, I think to reference back to your question there. We'll come to you in just a second. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Graham like, you're recognized for a question. Uh, have there been a have there been any other states that have done similar legis legislation to help with their duck populations. I believe it's actually being discussed in Mississippi as we speak. So and this, this is again there's a lot of unknowns. I mean, the first question I had, how's this, I mean, show me the study. Well, there hasn't been one, and so I think other states that are in the flyaway are also struggling with the same discussion amongst their legislature because they don't want to jeopardize, um, Again, that tradition, there's really not a better way to put it. And, and so, like, I guess, I guess, and I just. This is really to prevent the avoidance of wind turbines, uh, the ducks avoiding wind turbines, not necessarily them getting hit or slaughtered or anything like that. It's not in numbers as much as we're gonna lose ducks migrating. It's ducks are going to avoid areas where hunters typically come for that economic, that it's really a big economic development piece for Delta. Is it that's the, that's the purpose of this. That's correct because the fear is when you placed 200 7 6 90 ft tall turbines down the white river, it's going to drastically affect the waterfowl that would otherwise use that vicinity, um, and all those small towns, those diners, those hotels, uh, restaurants, they're, we'll see a negative impact when the birds. go away. And I guess, I guess one last just question um I, I, I, it's been a minute since I've hunted having kids makes things difficult, but, um, you know, when we talk about these bands and I understand there's information on the game and fish website, but. Targeting the these these circles, these, uh, 5 mile radius circles, like, how, how does that information reported? Like, when I report it, would it be duck ban collected at this specific GPS location or like how is that actually, how do we actually identify an area that we could not have turbines. So that would be part of the due diligence of the wind companies themselves, uh. For those of you that may have not reported a ban before, uh, you get a duck band. You take it off the bird's leg. There's a little serial number. You call in or go to the website, um. At US Fish and Wildlife Service, and you tell them exactly the method in which it was harvested and exactly where you where you harvested that bird. Um, and from there, It is recorded in a federal database and the reason we use bird banning specifically is because that is the best way to determine where water fell are located other than using backpacks and and transmitter data, um, we call it a backpack because they strap it on the duck's back, um, this is the ultimate way to that they study waterfowl. Representative Layman, you reckon us. Um I had a question about the, the study. Were, were there any other studies? Uh, like this done. Is this the only one you could find, or were there others? So Thank you, Representative Ladyman. If you look at that other handout, the one that's not several or 7 pages long. There's a study that from Larson and Madsen year 2000 studied the Schulman Kellert year 2005. Stewart at all 2005, um. Mason at all. Yeah my question is, and Scott Petrie who are PhDs in waterfowl biology. Were these done in South Texas? Were there any studies done in other parts of the country. So there have been studies done both in Europe and the prairie pothole region in Canada. The one in South Texas is the one that is most relatable, and it is the one that is the most damning, and with the 77% decrease in waterfowl migration in that vicinity. OK, so, but we don't know like in the, uh, in Wisconsin. Which I had a number of wind farms up there and there's Waterfowl, uh, flights through there, a lot of them. Uh we lived in Wisconsin for a while, uh. Are they affected in that area? I'm not sure if any studies have been done in Wisconsin. But there's a number of wind farms have been there for many years. Uh, so is it a regional thing or is it uh? I mean, how do we know that it's regional or not regional or how do we know there's not other Things that impact the birds. I think you're absolutely making the point. I mean, I, I, I think the, the point is no one knows. It is clear if you just. Even a quick search, no one knows because there is not enough information. And I mean, I would completely understand if this is not your part of Arkansas, if you would be willing to take that chance or risk. Uh, or maybe it isn't as big of a risk to take, but I mean, for people in this area, it is, and it's a concern, um, and I don't think You know, as as much as individuals may want to support renewables that they want to do it sacrificing. Again, the heritage of the area. So I think that's the, I think you're, you're absolutely on target. There is not enough information. I would love for some other state to go ahead and move with, you know. Turbines, if that's what they want to do and and conduct a study and let us know how it goes, and maybe we come back here, you know. 5 years from now or 6 years from now, I guess it would be better math and, and make the decision to do something different, but it doesn't exist. And where it does exist, I understand that we want, it's not apples and oranges, but it's about as close as you can get. So I think that's, that's why I'm asking these questions is that we don't know for sure. Well this is an issue or not, we've got studies that say it could be, uh, and we talk about economics, but These wind farms are going to be a lot of economics, and I'm not talking about renewable versus, I mean, I'm in all of the above guy. It's not renewable versus coal to me. It's just the facts, OK? And These would bring a lot of economic development to these areas in the delta which need it. They need economic development in these areas that these are going into. There's a lot of money goes into these construction of these operation of these and These, uh, turbans, the current design of wind turbines will operate at a lot lower wind speed. That's why they're putting them here now and they didn't put them here 20 years ago, 25 years ago, I tried to put a wind turbine in Jonesboro, Arkansas on manufacturing plant. And I found out that the average back then, it might have changed now. The, the average wind speed in Memphis, Tennessee was 11 MPH. Wind turbines back then would not operate at 11 MPH. The turbines of today will operate at 11 or maybe even lower, maybe as low as 8 MPH. That's why they're building them in places like Arkansas. 10 years ago you could not put a turban here because the technology was not good enough. That's why it's changed now. But We, we really need to look at the economics, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you letting me talk a little bit, but, uh, we, we need to look at the economics of putting these in versus not putting them in when we really don't know, as you said, Senator, we, we don't really know. We think it might be a problem. We don't know for sure. So we, we need to balance that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Beck, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, and I'm not familiar with the study that with the 70% reduction, so so so. Have you guys done anything that says, OK, if they, it went down 70%. Right. What would be the cost of the of A 70% reduction in. People hunting ducks. I, I, I've understood that duck's it's a lot of money. What would be the cost in tourism dollars and everything else that we have, uh, I mean, I think if it. It's difficult to kill a duck today unless you're in the right spot. Uh, I think to take 70% of the population out, and I'm, I'm not saying that that's what would happen in all areas, obviously. Uh, I mean, it would be dramatic. It would change everything. One thing, I mean, one of the neat things that's happening in that area right now is the revitalization of buildings, towns and communities, uh, with this new Airbnb or short term rental aspect you're seeing it kind of pop up everywhere, which is pretty incredible. You talk about new economy and what's happening. I, I think those things have opened the door to new opportunities in the air that did not exist before the technology allowed it to happen. Um I mean, I'm excited about some of the things you see when you drive through the communities and when you see the duck clubs and again, that's economic activity and, and something we should be excited about, um. But, but as far as an actual 70% reduction would be dramatic. Senator Stubblefield, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, gentlemen, what is the uh most abundant, cleanest fuel we have in the state of Arkansas. I would say natural gas, would you all three agree with that? And we have the infrastructure in place to burn that natural gas. We have the natural grass in the ground and so as long as gas prices increase, it'll become more attractive for uh future production and we have much of the infrastructure already in place because we burned it for years before green energy started coming in. And, and by the way, all of these things are done in the name of green energy. I'd argue I think there will be a moratorium on these windmills, uh, before long anyway, so. Let me just, let me just say this, uh, why aren't we burning the cleanest source of energy that we already have here in Arkansas helping our royalty owners. I would say stay tuned. He was stay tuned? Yes, sir. I, I believe that you make a very strong point, um, and I, and I hope that we're able to uh come together as a legislative body and have a bigger discussion about what we need to do, uh, in regards to the creation of new energy in Arkansas as demanded by the consumers. I certainly hope that you mean that with all your heart just center dismayville Shell area, sir, I assure you, I mean it was my heart. I know you are, and I'm from Western. Arkansas where we have an abundance of natural gas as well and we have royalty owners there that. Draw $100 every 2 months where they used to make a lot more because they shut these wells off these wells there are now are sitting there with, with the valves turned off because and while we're building solar, uh, energy fields and putting up wind turbines in areas where I know that Representative Ladyman and Representative Beck have been meetings with me where we have seen the maps, the geological maps where the wind blows down through these mountains, the Ozarks, all up through Kansas, Oklahoma, you know what the least when there was came from, where it came from. None through Arkansas. Arkansas was the least of all of them. And yet we're thinking about putting windmills here. You know, we do a lot of dumb things in this society. But some of this stuff, some of this stuff just didn't make sense. When we're sitting here on the cleanest energy, uh, some of the cleanest energy in the world and have the infrastructure and we've got enough of it to burn for 100 years. It's pretty exciting. Yes, sir. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Representative Graham like you recognize for a question. Uh, thank you. What's the economic impact of the duck tourism industry in Arkansas. According to the last report, it was a little over $306 million a year. All right, so, and so that's, that's pretty consistent. So I, I guess a couple questions, and we do talk about the economic impact of these wind, these wind companies coming in and so I guess the argument really is, is the more wind we have, we're scared of the ducks are gonna go down and as the ducks go down the tourism amount and price is gonna go down, so I guess looking at wind, um, what, what's gonna happen to projects already under development. If this were to go through. If this were to pass, current projects that have broken ground would be grandfathered in, uh, projects in which they have speculative leases, uh, which may or may not be, um. They use their due diligence period to figure out if that project's gonna be viable, uh, this would apply to them to where they could only build 150 ft tall turbines. And, OK, so if I, what it, I guess the same answer as if I've already signed contracts with landowners. But haven't actually OK, thank you. I mean, to speak to that, it's something that we reference the Fayetteville Shell. The properties leased all over. The shell area that never produced. Right, I mean, there's, there's land leases, most of those are coming to turn right now. We're just about to come to term, I mean, you know, typically 10 years, that does not mean that there's production. Uh, and the same would be true for this type of project or a solar company that goes out and leases a bunch of ground for a couple of years trying to see if it's something that's viable or not. So I mean there's no guarantee, uh, and, and I don't think it should be construed that a land lease that there's an actual intent to break ground. That that's, that is just a due diligence. Representative Blayman, you're recognized for a question. Uh, uh, if I understand this right, we're not talking about killing the ducks, right? That's not a problem. Right? This we're talking about the ducks, the the flyaway movie. Right, right. Because I've been to many wind farms we had to collect every bird and put them in a refrigerator. I've never picked up a duck on a wind farm, so I don't think that's a problem. So we're talking about moving the ducks, they may move to another area. They may, they're not gonna come through there. Where are they gonna go? So That's a very good question and hotly contested, uh, among duck clubs across the country, um. They may shortstop in Missouri. They may stay, uh, in eastern Oklahoma, uh, a lot of people say that they don't make it south of the boot hill, uh, these days, but I know that we do this. If we let hundreds if not, you know, close to 1000 wind turbines in East Arkansas, it's gonna negatively affect them and, and that's very frightening. But wouldn't you say that over time, The flyway for waterfowl changes due to whatever without wind turbines being there. I mean, Does that change? You know, up in northeast Arkansas up there, there's a company moved in to make uh decoys, and I asked the plant manager at that plant there in Corning. Why did you move from Mississippi up here. And he said, well, the flyways changing. And we're going to develop this area along the Mississippi, up in David Donaldson up in that area because they've counted the ducks and more of them are going to that area. Going more to the east right now without the wind turbines being there. So, I think these flyways change due to other. Conditions. Is that not true? Representative Lady That is, that is somewhat true, yes, uh, in fact they used to kill a lot more mallards in Louisiana than they do now. But I would say that we would be highly remiss as a legislative body as a state and as a society that if we didn't try to protect the mallard species in Arkansas. Senator Johnson, you recognized for a question. So, uh, Jack grew up in that community the same as I did. Whenever I was young, kind of like you, Jeremiah now. That that fly away was different and, and he's correct in what he says. But What happened? With that flyaway, the changes. We man-made. And resting areas were created. By large group. Groups and and wealth, uh, in the flyaway north of my area. And, and, uh, those, those changes in the flyaway in those rest areas, we had natural rest areas which Uh, Stuttgart area has and, and my area has in Dave Donaldson and Ashball. Those rest areas are natural. Uh, they have made those man-made fly uh resting areas and those birds will stay there until it's frozen and they're pushed south. And, and we just get a, a, a window of time in those, those changes are, are man-made just like this change can affect the flyaway being man-made. Uh, do you, do you agree? 100%. Thank you. Representative Torres, you recognize for a question. Yes, thanks, Mr. Chairman, uh, out of full disclosure, I'm a duck hunter, um, this may be a good question for Representative Brown. Uh, does this legislation in any way infringe upon the property rights of landowners. I mean, could this end up in court if we pass this legislation. Thank you, Represents, of course, you know, anybody can sue for anything. So, you know, could end up in court, absolutely, um, I do know that there had been some talk about whether or not this law runs afoul of the Constitution, specifically the contracts Causes of the Constitution, which says that generally a state cannot adopt a law which impairs the obligation of a contract. We have that both in our federal constitution and our state constitution. Um, however, uh, to give you the typical lawyer answer, it's not that black and white. So really the answer is it depends so under the the federal law and by analogy of the state law which we when we have situations like this where our laws are similar, we adopt the the uh federal analysis, uh, it's a three part analysis. The first question is to determine first, um, does this law actually substantially impair a contract. So notice not just impaired, but it has to substantially impair, which is actually a pretty high burden to overcome. If it does, then the next question is, is does the law have a significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation. And then if it does, then you go to the 3rd step of the analysis, which is whether or not the law is essentially of a reasonable and appropriate character to address the public purpose, uh, justifying the law, so in your example, I think the question would be is, does a property owner or a wind turbine company have a constitutional right to continue with a contract. Let me back up. First off, if a law like this is passed, any contract entered into after the law is deemed to have been taken, been made into effect, uh, with knowledge of the law and its existence. So anything that happens after. this if this bill were to passing that happens after this bill passes is not affected. So then the only question is any contracts that were entering into before like I think represented more called it the the speculative leases that maybe people have gone into. So then we have to go through that analysis on those contracts and one reason I wanted to mention the, the substantial impairment is that uh um the Supreme Court and our own Eighth Circuit in which Arkansas is, has made it clear that when you're dealing with a substantial impairment, well, number one has to be substantial, and one of the factors you look at in determining substantial impairment is, for example, is this an industry that is subject to regulation, you know, so for example, the energy industry or something like that. I mean I think essentially the just ific ation there is, is that, well, since you know you're subject to regulation, it shouldn't come to a surprise to you that regulations may change. And also kind of dovetailing into that, there's actually a, you have to look at the contract itself because many contracts will provide some language in there such as subject to state or federal law. Well, the, the, the, the Supreme Court in the 8th Circuit has held that when your contract specifically references, it can be subject to law. You are now acknowledging there could be impairment and therefore contracts clause is not invoked because you have already taken into account that your contract could be changed, you're acknowledging it, it's not an issue. Um If they're uh. It is found to be a substantial impairment. Then the next question is, is does the state have a substantial interest in trying to affect the contact that's being, that's being affected and so that would be a question for the court to make and if you notice the bill has some findings being the bill, which is essentially that the general if it passes the general assembly finds that, you know, this is a public concern, and this is why we're addressing this, and those factors to go into is do we have legitimate public concern in what we're trying to adopt. And then again, the final element is, is that is the regulation that is being imposed or law that's being imposed, is it reasonably related to affect that harm, you know, essentially is it reasonable? So ultimately that would be a decision for a court. um, however, I do want to say that for anyone who says like, well this is just per se unconstitutional, that is not the case at all. It would have to go to most likely a federal court, and they would have to make a determination that number one, there is substantial impairment, #2, um, they have to make a determination that this is not a legitimate public benefit or concern or they have to make a decision. that this is not a reasonable. Uh, accommodation, a reasonable response to that public concern. OK, follow up, Mr. Chair, you recognized, thanks, um, is it realistic to think that a lot of the areas of concern that we have are already uh contracted or leased for these. wind turbines. I'll defer you. There are significant leases, uh, in waterfowl flyways. Thank you. All right, seeing no further questions. Anything further from The sponsors. OK, we do have, uh, a few individuals who've signed up to speak for and against the bill, so we'll go to the list and we'll go back and forth, uh, the first up. And we've got uh Barry Sellers down, but then I have a note that. He had written a letter instead. I just want to make sure it's Mr. Sellers here. Do you care to speak? That OK. All right. Uh, then we have Nick Sparks has signed up to speak against. Is Mr. Sparks here? If you'd come forward, you can have, take a seat at the table. If you hit the button on the microphone, introduce yourself and, uh, and if you're appearing on behalf of anyone, uh, who you're appearing on behalf of and then you can, uh, offer your comments. All right, thank you. My name's Nick Sparks and I am a manager of business development for Triple Oak Power, who is an onshore wind developer headquartered in Portland, Oregon and uh I'm actually an Arkansas resident. And I have a short statement. I know it's been a long day for everybody, so. I'll get to that statement. Good afternoon, Chair Johnson and Chair Shepherd and members of the Joint Energy Committee. My name's Nick Sparks, and as I said, I'm a manager of business development for Triple Oak Power. I live in Northwest Arkansas, Farmington specifically, with my wife who is a lifelong Arkansan and alumni of the University of Arkansas. We have 4 children, members of Cross Church Fayetteville campus. My daughter, Aspen, just recently started kindergarten at uh Jerry Pop Williams Elementary this past year, Arkansas is home. I'm very grateful to have a job that allows me to provide for my family, develop wind projects across the central US and more specifically in my home state. I'm a developer for Triple Oak's early stage project in Clay County, uh, which is Northeast Arkansas as a lot of you are aware, prior to working as a wind developer, I spent almost a decade managing vegetation management projects. At Dominion Energy out of Virginia, Ey, Arkansas, Little Rock, and White River Valley Electric Cooperative. My background is in forest management. Uh, and I have always been rooted in stewardship of our natural resources. Additionally, starting this year, I'm volunteering on the Ozark Natural Science Center facilities and land Committee out of Madison County, Arkansas, and I respectfully am opposed to HB 1198 as drafted if this bill passes, I will not be able to continue to develop in my home state. Thank you, Nick Sparks. Any questions for Mr. Sparks? Seeing none, thank you for your, thank you for your comments on the uh four side we have, uh, Cole Hartley. You'll come forward and turn the microphone on and he may introduce yourself and who you're speaking on behalf of. OK, so my name's Cole Hartley. I'm speaking on behalf of the, uh, Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I appreciate you allowing me to speak on behalf of the Ag aviation community in Arkansas. As the impact. And as, as the impact this bill will have on Arkansas agriculture. My name is Cole Hartley. I own and operate Hardy Flying Service in Stuttgart, Arkansas. In addition to being a proud ag aviator, I currently serve as the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association president. This association represents interest of 284 individual commercial aerial applicators and 128 commercial air firms registered in Arkansas. These operators and pilots are vital to the state's agriculture and timber industry, our numbers might be small compared to other industries. If you have any row crops, rice or timber in your district. You're likely, you likely have at least one agricultural aviation operation. That contributes heavily to your local economy. As you know, agriculture contributes to 1/3 of Arkansas's GDP. Without ag aviation, our farmers will face extreme hardships in reducing these commodities. One thing that makes Arkansas ag very unique is the amount of rice we grow here. It's my young daughter proudly tells everyone we meet from out of state, Arkansas leads all other states in rice production. We produced half of the rice in the US here last year. Without the support of our industry, I feel highly confident that much of the rice ground will go out of out of production. Do they either lack of awareness or understanding structures such as wind turbines are often erected in agricultural spaces without consideration of their impact on the aerial application of crop protection products and agricultural productivity. You may have heard that other states such as Nebraska, Iowa, South Dakota, and others. He wind turbines with no issues for ag aviation operators. While some of that may be true, those states do not grow rice. Where fields are required to be flooded, and the farmer cannot take a ground rig across to spray it or fertilize. In the states that I mentioned, the farmer in most cases, can, can and will use ground rigs to spray and fertilize in and around wind turbines. In these other states, a crop will in most cases only be treated once with an aircraft during the entire growing season. Whereas I'm likely to go over a rice field outside of Stuttgart at least 6 times. All those sites such as Texas may have more ag aircraft located in their state, Arkansas is unique. Because more acres actually are flown here multiple times because of the rice factor. I would argue that Arkansas has more ag flight hours than any state in the union. The presence of wind turbines can restrict and in many cases eliminate the option of aerial application. That would be no different here and highly detrimental to our rice industry. We're also extremely concerned about the ability to safely operate an environment that puts our pilots' lives at risk, even more so than they already face daily. Between 2010 and 2022. There are 2 accidents, 10 of which were fatal, involving towers and ag aviation operators. Meteorological evaluation towers, also known as Met Towers, presenting specially pronounced risk to aerial applicators. Many of these towers are erected only temporarily to test potential sites for wind farm suitability. And can, they can be put up in what was once a familiar field in a very short period of time. In addition, Met Towers placed within operational wind farms could be challenging to spot as an aerial applicator is focused on avoiding obstacles. Sometimes the wind turbines themselves. In 2014, the wrongful death action followed by the family of a California agg aviator was settled for 6.7 million against a group of defendants representing tower manufacturing and wind energy interest for not marking or making aware of the tower location. help protect the pilot. Everyone in this room can agree that being compared to California is the last thing we want. Let's not make the mistake they did and open this industry to a rich farming ground. As an ag operator, I know my job is dangerous. But my fellow pilots and I are highly trained to do our jobs and mitigate those associated risks. Or flying just a few feet off the ground, we routinely cover 250 ft every second. I'm sure many of you have seen these planes in action. While it may look like a graceful ballet in the sky. I can assure you that each, that each of you that inside that cockpit, we're very busy working, concentrating on a guidance system that shows the path we mustry across the field within inches. We're constantly monitoring at least a dozen other things. These include a set of radios, a traffic display. To monitor and separate us from other air traffic, turbulence obstacles, temperature, wind speed and direction in neighboring crops. We're extremely busy monitoring different aspects of the job. Please do not give us one more thing to worry about or try to avoid. Last year, our industry suffered 13 fatalities across the United States. While we as A Pollock accept these risks daily our spouses, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, and parents will also be impacted by any accidents. Again, please do not give us one more thing to worry about. Wind turbine complexities and an ag aviation environment will only contribute to more accidents and deaths. I urge each of you to find a workable solution to this problem while we understand the need for new energy sources. And don't want to slow the process of renewable energy. Our industry will face severe safety risk and economic pressures if we don't fix this issue. Thank you again for allowing me to speak. I appreciate your time and consideration. I strongly urge you to pass House Bill 1198. Thank you. Thank you. Any any questions for Mr. Hartley. Seeing none, uh, thank you for your testimony. Next up we have, uh, Emily Brummit. Speaking against the bill. You'll have a seat, introduce yourself, and if you're speaking on behalf of an entity, uh, who you're speaking on behalf of. Thank you. Emily Brumme with Triple Oak Power. Uh speaking against the bill. Co-chairs Johnson and Shepherd and vice chairs McKee and Gramlich and distinguished members of the Joint Energy Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 1198. I'm Emily Brummett, Central Region Director of Development for Triple Oak Power. Triple Oak is a US-based wind energy company with projects in 22 states, Arkansas included. Triple Oak respectfully opposes House Bill 1198 as written and ask the committee not to pass the bill. I want to acknowledge that wind energy is a relatively new industry in Arkansas, and like any new opportunity, they are understandably questions about how it fits with existing regional conditions. There are decades of wind energy deployment across the US in as many decades of experience and research about its intersection with wildlife, as well as economic benefits. Triple Oak power has been developing our long grain, wind energy project in Crittenden County, Arkansas for almost 4 years. We have nurtured relationships with each of our 37 landowners representing over 23,000 acres of privately owned land, although land taken out of production once the wind farm is operating will be less than 2% of that total as each turbine's footprint is about 1 1.5. Each landowner has signed a voluntary win lease agreement, and we've worked in tandem on our design process, prioritizing their input every step of the way. We've completed multiple years of studies, both biological, um, and engineering, including avian and bat surveys, and our consulting with US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Commission on the topic of waterfowl. Long grain is poised to go to construction in late 2026 and will provide a significant new income stream to each landowner and their family, which in many cases allows these families to continue farming. Long grain and wind projects like it represent a 350 to $500 million investment in the state. And will provide tens of millions of dollars in property tax revenue that can bolster public schools, vocational technical schools and county emergency services over the life of the project. During the development and operations of our project, Triple Oak forms long term community partnerships, a common practice across the industry. In Crittenden County, Triple Oak supports two nonprofits, Families in Transition and Moms of Marion, both organizations supporting young families in need. It is our hope to continue doing business in Arkansas and bringing economic development to Curttenden County and across the state. It's important to our landowners that they preserve the ability to lease their property for energy development and for counties to generate tax revenue. House Bill 1198 sets an arbitrary maximum wind turbine height that effectively institutes a moratorium across the state barring landowners from exercising their private property rights and effectively telling the wind industry that Arkansas is not open for business. 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. A study bill would bring agencies like US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas Game and Fish Conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited, and industry stakeholders to the table to evaluate possible regionally specific effects of wind energy to waterfowl while continuing to allow economic development that maintain landowners' private property rights. Communication and collaboration between industry, conservation groups, and government agencies. have been in practice for decades and has resulted in a successful wind energy project siding while maintaining waterfowl impacts across the country while minimizing waterfowl impacts across the country. Excuse me. Importantly, game species populations, such as waterfowl, have been monitored and studied extensively for over 100 years in North America. The amount of data collected and analyzed for game species is unparalleled in the wildlife stewardship sciences. The weight of evidence indicates negligible effects on waterfowl by wind energy, either directly by collision or indirectly by avoidance and displacement behavior. For the last 13 years, companies like Triple Oak have followed the wind energy guidelines, also known as the Weggs, produced by US Fish and Wildlife after a four-year public discussion involving stakeholders, including conservation advocates and wildlife agencies. A foundational element of the Wegs is a framework for industries and agencies like Arkansas Game and Fish to engage early and often, designing studies to evaluate effects to wildlife and using study results to inform sighting decisions. This early and often stakeholder communication is a key solution to many questions about wind energy and a study bill as opposed to a moratorium could encourage that dialogue without halting economic development or infringing upon private property rights. For projects following the WAG stepwise approach to evaluating a site, there are expectations for developers and wildlife agencies to work together to design studies specific to help solve regional specific questions. I'm proud of the efforts our industry has made to be good stewards to the communities we develop in, and the work we've accomplished with government and non-government stakeholders and communities regarding wildlife over the decades. There are 75,000 operating wind turbines and all types of environments and landscapes throughout the United States and compatibility has consistently proven achievable when developers and stakeholders work together. Thank you so much for your time. Any questions? Saying no, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next up we have Charles Williams speaking for the bill. If you have a seat, uh, turn the microphone on and then introduce yourself and if you're speaking on behalf of, uh, An organization or entity who you're speaking on behalf of Mr. Chairman, members, my name is Charles Williams. I, uh, live and farm with my family, whom I represent, and Crinan County just, uh, north of Marion and Crawfordsville. Uh, I live in the house I grew up in. Haven't ventured too far. Um Our farm is the place where I've done most of all, most all of my living, my loving. That's the place I hope to die. But not too soon. 3 years ago, almost to the day I was approached by a company looking to purchase win rights on over 600 acres that we own. I listened to their proposal, but quickly came to the conclusion that the risk that windmills pose from an environmental safety and cultural standpoint. Relative to the amount of energy that they produce. is not worth taking. That for me. It would be tantamount to selling my soul for a bowl of beans. Windmills produce flicker infrasound. They're inefficient. When you look at the life cycle assessment, you see they're not nearly as green as they claim to be. They're a blight They're potentially an environmental graveyard. Not to mention the concern about the birds. And the kicker is they limit the use and therefore the value of my land. In fact, the construction of windmills in proximity to my property. Limits the use and value of my land. It said that one person's property rights and where mine begin. That does not mean. Here's the property line. You stay on your side and do what you want. I'll stay on my side and do what I want. No, that would fly in the face of many 100 years of law. In fact, We're all entitled to quiet enjoyment of our property. We're not free to live our lives in a way that endangers, harms or injures another. Whether physically, psychologically, financially, or otherwise. We should look not only to our own interests, but also the interests of others. There are many instances where states are prohibited particular land uses to promote health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if you or any of the members or stakeholders in one of these wind projects, but as I recently looked at a map of the proposed project in my area, I think I can say that a substantial chunk of the acreage we farm is within 1 mile radius of the proposed wind project. I also believe that Wapanaka National Wildlife Refuge is approximately 1 mile away from the contemplated side. Regarding Wapanaka, the US Fish and Wildlife Service website says because of its strategic location in the heart. Of the Mississippi Fireway. And diverse habitat, the refuge is a prime wintering area for migratory waterfall. Bald eagles, great blue herons, great egres, and Angus nest on the refuge. Over 260 species of birds can be seen. Congressman Rick Crawford has described farmers not as environmental activists, but as active environmentalists. We've been charged not with preserving nature pristine. But we're conserving and cultivating our natural resources. And caring for the land. I'm sorry to say that when weighed in the scales wind turbines are, are tried and found wanting. The cost to the common good is substantially more than the benefit of passive income to a few. And I just like to ask that this body um give a favorable vote to HB. 1198 and I. A comment was made. I, I just. As a side, I have to wonder how many permanent local jobs are created by these projects. How many materials are procured locally. How many local dollar turns. Uh I, I have a serious question about the tax base. Uh, are, are there tax abatements here? Act 9 funds being used. Um, these are questions that I have and I know this is uh. Not entirely on point, but while we're here. I appreciate you giving me the breadth to speak my piece. Any questions? Sing Nan, thank you for your, uh, comments. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Next speaking. Against the bill. Is Mike Freeze? You can have a seat and turn the microphone on and then introduce yourself to the committee. Good afternoon. I want to thank the committee for allowing me to to speak concerning this bill. My name is Mike Freeze and I'm co-owner of Keo Fish Farm. I have a bachelor's degree in fisheries and Wildlife Management from Arkansas Tech and a master's degree in Fishing and wildlife Man from Murray State. I'm a farmer Arkansas Game and Fish commission employee, although I have to admit to you, I was in the fisheries division, not wildlife. But I was a game and fish commissioner from 1999 to 2005 appointed by Governor Mike Huckabee, who was chairman in 2005. During that time, uh, we traveled to Canada several times at the request of Delta water fow to, to look at nesting sites of, of ducks, etc. and I, I tell you all this because I'm a duck hunter. But I don't duck hunt as much as I used to when I was younger, you know, that's a real kind of tough sport, but I'm in opposition to this bill. Keo Fish Farm has 1600 acres in South Cono County in East Pulaski, and we leased all of our farm, uh, on April 10th of 2024 to Lone Oak Wind Power LLC. This is not an issue we took lightly. Um With wind towers, a farmer can continue to farm. You can also continue to hunt. Uh, I've actually hunted along wind tires in Kansas, turkey hunted, and I was amazed by how quiet they were, and they had seemed to have no impact whatsoever on the deer and the turkey. Now I know we're talking about ducks here. But, you know, you've heard a lot about economics today. We all know our row crop farmers are in dire straits. They've lost money for at least 3 years now. In 2026 is not looking to do be any better. My neighbor Do Brantly could not be here, but if he was, what he would tell you is at leasing his land to Lone Oakin Pierre LLC may allow him to be profitable and continue row crop farming. You know, that's not an option if you put uh solar, solar panels, uh. If we don't have rice farmers, you're not going to have rice and if you don't have rice, you're not gonna have ducks. So, you know, when I, when I first heard about wind tires in the Delta, I'm probably like many of you, I'm, I was kind of like, why are they putting these wind tires in the, in the Delta? Why they put them in Arkansas? And so, you know, we talk, we talked to uh the Lone Oak Wind people, and they told us one of the main reasons is because the infrastructure that we have and by that I mean we have two coal-fired plants that are scheduled to go off, off, um, out of operation. But those transmission lines that transmit that electricity are still there, and those are extremely valuable, so if we don't put wind tires up. They're probably gonna put solar panels up or maybe they'll use natural gas. I don't know, but they're gonna use those transmission tires. Now You know, let's talk about just birds for a minute. I'm a fish farmer. I've been trying to scare birds for 40 years. And I've used everything imaginable. I've used propane cannons. I've used pop-up men. I've put vehicles out on the levees and what I'm gonna tell you, birds are pretty dang smart and they adapt. I don't, I, we've got lasers now that do patterns go back and forth. Yeah, they'll work for a little while and then as long as you have habitat and you have feed, those birds are going to return. And I've seen, you know, they talked about the study down in Texas where we were looking out in in the auditorium out there in the lobby, people were showing us, you know, pictures of ducks landing around around these wind turbines and I honestly think if they have any, any impact whatsoever, it's, it's not gonna be long term. It's going to be short term. Uh, and this bill, this bill doesn't do away with wind tires. It just sets a limit on the on the height. So how do you know they're not gonna come up with wind tires that are 140 ft tall, they're gonna be a lot louder, a lot noisier, and quote, scare the birds a lot more. Um, our tires in the Delta are going to have to be some height over 150 ft. But these wind companies, a lot of them, they haven't even done the studies yet. They haven't put up the tires to determine the exact, uh, you know, to catch the wind and measure it and see exactly how tall they're gonna have to be, so I kind of think, you know, we're getting uh the cart before the horse here, and I'm, I'm very sympathetic with Representative Moore and Senator Dismay. They're both really good people, but You know, this legislation to me what it represents is a taking of property. You know, I signed my contracts almost a year ago, and I'm already, you know, collecting, collecting rent and I'm hoping that, you know, they will put one or two of these tires on our property because that will be a, you know, a big boon economically. Ah. And with that, I, I guess I'll just see if anybody had any questions. Senator Caldwell, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, welcome, Mr. Freeze. I appreciate you, uh, being here today, uh, on your time, uh, on the game of fish, especially when you were chairman of the, of commission. I want to go back, you said 2005, that's the same year that represented more referenced with his, uh, study, uh, in, in Texas and, and Dima referenced, uh, there's a lot of unknown. Uh, while you're on the Did, did y'all have any study, any knowledge of, of the, uh, negative effects on windmills of, uh, migratory birds, uh, uh, flying over these, uh, 75,000 towers coming to Arkansas. No, sir, we hadn't had no discussion about windmill impacts on birds or the particular study and of course one thing when you talk about a study where there's a 70 77% reduction in ducks. This year we've probably had an 80 or 90% reduction in ducks in Arkansas. Now, why was that? I mean, you've got to be very careful when you do a study that you're that what you think you're measuring is what you're actually measuring, and it's not due to some other other unrelated causes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Any other questions? Sing Nan, thank you for your comments. Next up, uh, looks like we have. Mark Smith Speaking for for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Mark Smith from Marianna, Arkansas and Lee County, um, I'm a landowner and belonged to Duck Club called Warrior Hunting Club that's been around since 1941. And it's um a special place, it's a way of life. It's, um. Very historic and It's generational, uh, it's would change and impact. A lifestyle that exists and I think we're the natural state for a reason because it is natural and beautiful and wonderful. We, um, From what I understand, I've done a lot of research. There's not a tremendous amount of studies that directly impact wintering and we are in wintering spot where we. Hunt and live. And would hate to be the test case that we study it and then in 10 years we discover, hey, 70% of the ducks left. And the impact would be dramatic in eastern Arkansas Timberland has very limited value, but Our duck club is probably again it's private it's not commercial this is just for personal enjoyment in our families and friends, but. The value would go from probably $20,000 an acre to $1200 an acre. You can't harvest the timber. You can select cut it, but you can't cut it because protections from the various other entities, but it's just a dramatic impact that my neighbor can put a windmill up. And then The ducks leave our area. In one of the Met towers is about 0.5 mile from our. Um Land that they're planning on putting a wind farm there and it's just we don't want to be the test case and lose a way of life that we've had. Since 1941. And again, thank you for your consideration and I'm speaking for the bill. Many questions Senator Caldwell, you're recognized for a question. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Uh, again, I want to go back and speak, uh, uh, last year in DeWittt, uh, part of my district, we had an issue, uh, with crypto mining, and they thought that the, uh, noise and everything was going. Uh, uh, change the flight pattern and everything else. There's no, uh, Uh, uh, documentation to or studies to back that up. I duck hunt also in and I'll testify to that in a few moments. Uh, I'm getting 2 windmills, not on me, on someone else, uh, about a half mile from my duck club, but I'm not upset with it all because we're sitting up there right now, uh, I've got people literally setting up, uh, Goose decoys and hunting on windmill right now, uh, much like Mr. Freeze. So you really don't have any documentation to back up what you're saying like the, uh, uh. cryptomi people did, you, you have a, a fear, you don't want it to happen. I don't want it to happen either. But there, there's no study, no documentation to back up your fear. Am I correct on that? Um I, I'm not a scientist. I'm. Assuming you're correct, but I, I just, I have. Somewhat I think I have a little bit of common sense that some 750 ft spinning, flickering flashing lights, are you sure that that's the exact. facts that are not factual and, and, you know, uh, uh, that's again, I go back to Senator Dima, a lot of unknowns and, and, and a lot of faction figures have been thrown out in 750 ft is, is a fact. It's not a fact. And, and again, uh, uh, uh, I commercial duck hunting for 4 years, so, uh, and, and, and we, we kill lots of ducks in our little pond and, and this goes back to 1949 and, and, and to be honest with you, uh, we, uh, out of 35 members we've not. had one complaint. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Maybe You recognized. Thank you, Mr. Co-chairman, members of the committee. My name's Lauren Waldrop. I'm actually speaking on behalf of myself today. Um, while my professional work does involve, um, energy companies, uh, and consumers, some of, some of which you have testified before you today. Um, I come before you and a personal capacity to speak, um, really about what, what I see this bill as, which is land rights, uh, and the future of rural Arkansas. Um, I myself am a proud byproduct of the Mississip. to be fly away, um, some of my earliest, uh, memories as a child are hunting, and they, they take me back to my first material responsibility of pulling the jerk cord, um, actually there at, where's Mark at uh Warrior Hunting Club, um. And with my dad and my brother. So like many of you, I share, uh, concerns about declining duck numbers, and I think there are a lot of different conversations that we can have about, um, why those migratory waterfowl are, uh, waterfowl numbers are declining, um, you know, I think many of you probably watched our friends from Ducks Unlimited testify at the Mississippi hearing earlier this week, um, and, and speak to drought among some of those reasons, um, but I think Senator Dismay is exactly right that This bill has nothing to do with energy, renewable energy, um, Or even almost ducks to some extent, but this is again about land rights. We know that agriculture is the state's largest industry, um, and I really appreciated, um, many of Mr. Freeze's comments today when I first got involved in this, in this energy industry, um, because of my personal upbringing, and I had a lot of the same questions that you have today. Um, and I think those are certainly merited, um, but our farmers are the lifeblood of this state. We know that, um, they risk everything year in and year out just to put a safe and quality food supply on our tables. Um, and right now, they need every tool available for them to stay afloat. Um, I saw firsthand when I worked, I'm, I'm glad this is maybe my first, um, testimony that I did not have to be the one to say that Arkansas grows 50% of the nation's rice, um, but that's certainly something that we're proud of, um, and when I worked as executive director for the Rice Federation. Um, I saw firsthand and was able to watch some of those farmers turn to renewable energy as a market-driven solution and a way to offset rising costs, um, and sometimes just keeping their farms viable. Um, at the time, roughly 6 years ago, especially as a, as a conservative Republican, I was very confused about that in this new concept, um, but I realized that this was a tangible economic option for those folks. It was another revenue stream for them to diversify their income, um, sometimes enabling to keep their family farms in operation. Uh, we know that weather is unpredictable. Markets are volatile, margins are thin and farmers and landowners deserve to be able to choose what to do with their land. Um, and look, in light of, of next year's projected energy shortfall. We need all the power that we can get. These projects are going somewhere, and I want them in the Arkansas Delta. Um, they're also taking their hundreds of million dollars in tax revenue with them. Um, I'm honestly jealous. Many of you have probably heard about the Tunica County Project in Mississippi, um, in just the 1st 30 years of that project's life, um, Tunica County will receive $56 million just in tax revenue, not even in landowner payments, um, for that, for that project is called Delta Wind, um, for that, that is a transformational opportunity, um. Because if we pass this bill, we will no longer be able to say thank God for Mississippi. We will be in last place, um, and Mississippi did put their bill in a, in a study, which I think is um is good because As has already been mentioned today, we don't have the data for this, um, And we certainly don't want to sit here with another FedEx situation on our hands, um, you know, letting this go to another state. So let's not squander a generational opportunity for the very people who are the lifeblood of our state and the communities where they live. Thank you. Senator Johnson, you're recognized for a question. So Lauren, uh, I mean at Tunica County and Tunica is, is pretty near, I mean, fairly near me. Yes, sir. And, and they went after that little brass or golden ring of casinos. And that, that golden ring that they grabbed at last time. is an absolute, I mean, I mean, it was economic boom for a while. But it is an absolute ugly nightmare now. Do we, do we want to pattern ourselves after Uh, going after that, uh, that golden ring again in Tunica County. in, in this region of Arkansas. You're referring to the, the casino situation, Senator. I think what we saw in Tunica County with that was short term gain for long-term demise, and they certainly had poor management. It's really unfortunate that oftentimes with renewables, which happened to be the cheapest form of energy. We're, we're hearing that it's like a zero-sum game, and that's not the case. And I think there's certainly an option for responsible siding, um, and responsible. management to go along with these projects as we're, we're learning more, um, about the situation. Do you, do you feel like this region is marginal at best, for when. So it's my understanding that there's recently been new technology that does enable the turbines to go up to around 700 ft, um, which is why we're hearing more of this conversation in certain pieces of Arkansas, specifically around Crowley's Ridge. It, it does align, um, overlap with the Mississippi Flyway. Um, so that is a relatively new development. Yes, sir. Does that bring us to uh just above marginal. Above marginal. Of opportunity for this. You know, that is a great question. I know lots of businesses think that Arkansas is a good place, um, uh, to cite these projects because we don't have a lot of government overreach and red tape, um, and we, we have agricultural land and we have farmers that are interested in, in engaging in those conversations, um, I myself have not run those models and numbers, but I would leave it up to, I think our landowners and our farmers are very smart, um, and, and that if they think it pen out then So do I. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield, do you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, yes, ma'am. Can you tell me where, where are these windmills produced? I couldn't, I, again, I'm just speaking in my, my personal capacity right now, so I could not speak to. I don't. So you wouldn't know the life expectancy of of a windmill. I could not speak to it. No, sir. I I do suspect that some of the developers that are in here. OK. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. Seeing no further questions. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, we had, uh, one more signed up to speak for Charlie Spakes, but I believe maybe he left. So we have just a couple more to speak against Glenn Hooks. Mr. Hooks, you can come forward Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Chairman Shepherd, and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here with you again this afternoon. Uh my name is Glenn Hooks. I'm the policy manager for Audubon Delta. Uh, which is a regional arm of the National Audubon Society. We cover Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, uh, if you, if you're not familiar with Audubon Society, we're a science-based organization that works to protect birds and bird habitat. A big part of that involves supporting the deployment of properly sighted clean energy across our nation in order to help blunt the effects of climate change on birds and bird habitat while minimizing dangers to birds, other wildlife and habitat as well. Audubon supports wind energy. I want to be clear about that. Sometimes we hear people wrongly saying that bird conservation organizations are anti-wind energy, which is frankly not true if it's properly cited, it can be a boon for, uh, the environment and also protect birds. To be clear, I am not a bird scientist, but I work with bird scientists all across this region, all of whom worked for the nation's oldest and largest bird conservation organization, the Audubon Society. How about society's been working to conserve birds for the last 120 years. And I hope we've built up some credibility on bird science and avian issues during that time. Audubon's main concern with House Bill 1198 is that the proposed height limits will discourage potentially successful wind energy projects. Uh, there were some questions earlier about the average height, height of wind towers an average modern wind turbine tower rises to an average height of about 339 ft on average as has been testified to, uh, since the questions were raised there are some taller turbines, taller towers that are coming that surpass 600 ft or more. I took the opportunity during the Early testimony to look up, uh, some, some stats, some of the very, very tall wind towers, um, are happening in Denmark and Germany, uh, closer to 1000 ft or 364 m, uh and I wanna make it clear, although I'm sure it's clear to this committee is that why are these towers so tall? Well, the, the taller that you get, the stronger and more consistent the wind energy you have, so that's, that's the idea here so if we are limiting these towers in House Bill 1198 to lower than the average right now. I don't think we're gonna help bird or help waterfowl, and we're definitely going to produce less clean energy from these wind turbines, which is kind of the point to, uh, to have more energy, more energy for Arkansas. So This this bill as a senator Dismay mentioned is not about wind energy versus other forms of energy. It's really about ostensibly protecting waterfowl, uh, so let's talk about collisions for just a moment, um. On average, every year when I mean collisions, turbine collisions kill an estimated 140,000 to 679,000 bird deaths birds, that's all birds, not just waterfowl, uh, now that's a that's a substantial number, but it's significantly less than the amount of, uh, birds killed by collisions with buildings, collisions with power lines, and frankly house cats. Or house cats they're outside. I'd, I'd say that if the legislature is truly concerned about protecting birds, I might suggest it'd be more effective to focus our energies on efforts to limit collisions with buildings and power lines and encounters with cats. I'd also like to point out to the committee that there are numerous solutions that are already available to protect birds from wind turbine collisions collisions. Some of these are very easy and inexpensive, such as simply painting one of the blade, one blade on the turbine black to make it easier for birds to see. Studyings are being collected conducted around the world, uh, to test this low budget, low tax solution and early results are pretty promising. One study out of Norway has showed a 72% reduction in collisions. Other pretty easy solutions to avoid collisions involve using ultrasonic sound to divert birds or even software like identiflight that can deter approaching flocks that can spot them, identify them, and even shut down individual turbines until the flock is passed. There's just some easy solutions that are already being deployed out there. The number one most important factor in protecting birds from wind turbine collision is proper sighting of the turbines before they're constructed. Audubon recommends frequent and early consultation with federal and state wildlife agencies to help avoid construction in important bird areas and migratory flyways. For instance, the US Fish and Wildlife Service offers some very helpful wind energy turbine guidelines that are aimed at avoiding and minimizing impacts on birds and bird habitat. There's been some very good research provided by the American Wind Wildlife Institute, and that case they reviewed about 340 post construction studies from wind projects across the United States representing about 28% of the total wind capacity in the country. Uh, the findings suggest that while there are occasional water fowl ffa fatalities, they are pretty rare. Waterfowl collisions occur infrequently and very few wind facilities, so it makes it difficult to generate accurate widespread fatality estimates, but the early results are showing that waterfowl collisions are pretty rare. And when it comes to waterfowl specifically, the scientific debate and the concern among the bird community is really not about collisions as as much as it is about displacement. Studies indicate that waterfowl may tend to avoid areas near wind turbines reducing access to foraging and nesting sites. This displacement typically occurs within a distance of 150 to 500 m from turbines and may not result in significant population level impacts, and many species have adapted already to wind energy infrastructure over time. Bottom line is that Audubon and our bird scientists are not convinced that reliable science science supports the notion in House Bill 1198 that waterfowl are or will be significantly diverting themselves from areas of wind energy production. This legislation notes that there has already been a decline in Arkansas waterfowl in recent years, but I have to respectfully point out that none of that can be attributed to the currently virtually nonexistent wind energy in Arkansas. We have declines, we don't exactly know why, but it's not about wind. I think it's also worth noting that existing federal and state guidelines already addressed the risk of wildlife displacement and mortality. Under the migratory Bird Treaty Act, when projects are required to undergo environmental review and implement mitigation measures to minimize impacts on birds and other wildlife. Also, industry best practices such as those outlined by the wind Wildlife Research Fund, emphasized the importance of sighting turbines away from sensitive habitats and employing technologies like identiflight and many other available methods and technologies to detect and avoid bird collisions. The National Audubon Society has long advocated for responsible sighting of an onshore wind projects and our guidelines include recommendations for avoiding high conservation value lands such as native grasslands, wetlands, and forests. With the right to planning, we can ensure that wind energy development in Arkansas has minimal impact on waterfowl and other wildlife. The height restrictions found in Hospital 1198 would hobble the deployment of clean wind energy in our state, while also providing much less effective. also proving much less effective in protecting waterfowl than proper sighting, proper planning, and the use of existing anti-collision technologies. I've been before this committee multiple times over the years and over the years I've heard members of this committee advocate several times for what they call an all of the above energy strategy when it comes to electricity production, meaning that we should embrace multiple and diver diverse sources of electricity. Members, if that is still your belief, then today I ask you not to hobble the development and deployment of an emerging clean wind energy industry in Arkansas by supporting House Bill 1198. I respectfully ask this committee to either vote no on HB 1198 or support an effort to study the issue carefully and examine the science before taking action. Respectfully, this bill seeks to solve a problem that we don't truly know exists or even or ever will exist, but the solution it proposes. can create another problem entirely by harming an industry that can bring low cost, low, low cost clean energy jobs, excuse me, tax revenue and steady landowner revenues to hardworking Arkansans who could really use it. Thank you for your time and attention. I'll be happy to hear your comments and any questions. Senator Johnson, you recognize for a question. How many, how many of these migratory studies have, have you been a part of? I'm, I'm sorry, I couldn't check, OK, could you ask that question one more time, please? How many of these migratory studies have you been a part of? I'm not a bird scientist, so I've not been part of any of putting any of them together. How many times have you ever went duck hunting? I don't duck hunt. OK, uh, so the first thing in science is the question. The uh theories or results. So with, with that being said, I question everything that came out of your mouth since you hadn't had personal experience with either. May I respond to that, Mr. Chair. We ask the questions. Thank you, sir. Certainly, um, as I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony, I'm not a bird scientist, but I work for an organization that employs a lot of them and I've spoke with them about this bill and I'm reporting the things that they say, which I think is valuable. I hope it's valuable. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your comments. Thank you committee. We have no one, no one else to speak for the bill. One final uh person signed up to speak against the bill. Senator Caldwell, you're, uh, recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ronald Caldwell, uh, Senate, uh, District 10, uh, I have more duck hunting acres than anybody. I, uh, covered 10 counties in eastern Arkansas and Delta. I have majority of the rice growing acres in, in my district, uh, 4 or 5 things have come up today that I'd like to answer. I'm gonna skip around on it, uh, one was the economic impact statement of what it has. Uh, it's been tremendous. Uh, I testified at a meeting before with Senator King, where he didn't want the, the windmills in Carroll County. I asked him, please send him to Cross County. Uh, we, we, we would take them, we love them. Uh, the, the folks down there, uh, uh, have been the best, uh, corporate citizen that you could ever ask for. Uh, in win right now we're getting 32 put up when they get that finished, they're gonna go to the eastern part of the county and put up 55 more. These contracts and, and lease agreements have been in place for a year or for months, if not years, uh, but, uh, in Cross County, we're supposed to have between 18 and 20 to permanent employees, uh, uh, the fiscal impact on our county is $28 million in tax revenue, uh, that we'll get that does not count the, uh, lease payments to the landowners and the money that they will spend there, which is gonna be tremendous. I do not have a windmill. I'm so. Sad to tell you that I wished I had 30 of them, but I don't. Uh, I did make a statement earlier that, that two of these windmills are gonna be, uh, about a half a mile from my duck club. Uh, I've, I've duck hunted since I was 12 years old. And, um, uh, I have no fear of these windmills, uh, changing, uh, uh, the, the fly pattern. Most of the windmills are not even close to a duck hunting area, to be honest with you. That's one thing that hadn't been brought up. Is it so much of the uh uh land you that we're going to have, uh, is not sitting in the middle of a, of a, uh, duck hunting hole. Now, there will be some, and we've heard that testimony, but for me and, and, and, uh, 35 members in my club, have not, uh, voiced any concern over this at all. We see them and touch them and feel them, so to speak, and, and y'all just have to imagine what they look like. You do see them from a distance and if there's one downside to the story, that's it, is that you may not want to look at them on the horizon. but you do see them. But, uh, all I, uh, in my district have the 10 counties right now we're going to get, uh, uh, windmills in 3 counties, uh, Cross County, Woodruff, and Jackson. Uh, they're also a few, I think 11 are gonna go into Independence County, but I do not represent Independence County. Uh, uh, one man in Jackson County is the largest landowner in Arkansas. And uh he had signed up 40,000 acres trying to put about 90. Uh, windmills on his land. Now, as a private property owner as a Republican, one of the canons of our, uh, conservative thought process is the private property rights. And if they want to put windmills up other than the fact that we heard testimony that you have to look at them, uh, uh, you know, he, he sells duck hunting rice and windmill rights both. So, uh, but, but, uh, to be honest with you, this, this, this particular person, uh, would, would have more knowledge about, uh, uh, land use and then everyone in this room combined. And he's not afraid to go and put the windmills on, on his property. He's also a, uh, uh, uh, Person that's furnished property for solar farms. And so, But with the windmill, uh, it takes about 1.25 acre per. Location is very small footprint of the land it takes up. It, the only industry that I know that will make, uh, uh, it will cast a difficulty on is the aerial applicator and, uh, and, and those, that testimony earlier today is correct. It'll make it hard for it does not limit them. It does not stop them from doing it. They, they fly around windmills all across the, the nation today, uh, in, in, in Cross County, they've already told the farmers if you have windmills on your farm, we're going to charge. A premium to fly that, uh, that acreage. And so, uh, but they not gonna take the particular fields and, and take rice off of them and uh you take Mr. Connor in, in, in. Uh, uh, Jackson County, uh, probably far more rice than anybody, uh, in the state, he, he owns, uh, all of the Greenway, uh, John Deere equipment dealers. He, he understands what it takes to, to be an agriculturist and, and, but he's done very, very well. And so, uh, but, uh, to be honest with you, it's, it's very difficult for me to come in and support this bill when we're sitting there telling somebody, uh, that you can't use your land the way you want to now. If I were representing more and, and he, he's one of my reps. He and I get along fine. Never had a cross word, but if I were setting up here and presenting that bill, I would have to disclose from the Senate rule that I make my money, in this case, Represented Moore sells duck hunting property. And I would have to tell you that I make a vast, uh, or a portion of my income from selling duck hunting land. And, and that may be a reason he don't want us to put windmills up. I don't know, but, but there again. Uh, I am a duck hunter. I have been a commercial duck hunter 4 years. We commercial hunted and, uh, but I have, have no reservations whatsoever of having these windmills up that it's gonna affect the flight pattern of ducks. We, we heard, uh, the ladies tell us a while ago that there's 75,000 windmills in America. The ducks fly from the Arctic from the north to the south every year they fly from the south to the north going back and they fly over those 75,000 windmills, so why? Or a few more windmills is gonna make a difference. And again, all of these windmills are not going to be in an area that affects duck hunting. Uh, I did have one of the first phone calls I made was to the Attorney General's office and uh the uh attorney called him not the attorney General himself, but one of his staff members called me back and said, Senator, uh, I don't think this bill will hold up in court, and I've, I've conveyed that information to uh Representative Moore and ask him to go back and change some stuff. Now I, we, we, we heard the, the lawyer come down and give his opinion on it. I love it when two lawyers get together because you're gonna have 4 or 5 opinions they get paid for it. But uh uh this uh to, to get a written, to get a written uh response from the attorney General's office, it takes weeks if not months, so I don't have that, but it didn't take very long for her to look at the bill and call back and say we have problems with that, it won't hold up in court. Uh, economic impact uh $28 million for Cross County, uh, Woodruff County is $42 million. Jackson County, $75 million. In Pendance County $28 billion. We're starving to death up there. I want y'all to know that when was uh destroyed by a tornado two years ago. Uh, we're still down 130 water meters. We need the jobs, we need the tax revenue. Uh, in all probability, this bill is so late that that they're billing uh one project, trying to start another, it might affect another, might not. But uh there again, uh, if that landowner, uh, in, in, in the 55 towers were going on the farm that I'm very familiar with. I've been in a Duck club, deer club with the owners on that. And, uh, it's their choice if they want a deer hunt or duck hunt. And to be honest with you, they're gonna do both, uh, uh, they, they make very uh small amount of noise. Technology is different today than it was when first uh windmills came out, uh, the sound resolution on windmill today is, is about the same as standing beside a refrigerator, uh, you, you go back and look at the, uh, the noise we have around airports and airplanes and helicopters in my district. Now, this is my district alone. We have had 2 air ambulances, to medevac helicopters to be struck, to fly through a flock of geese. The geese were not afraid of the noise that the helicopter made. It crashed both of them, one in Arkansas County killed the 3 passengers on board and the other one, totaled the helicopter before it ever landed. It had a hard landing. And so, uh, you've got all these noises, the FAA reports 57,000 wildlife. wildlife strikes at airports last year, 97% of that was waterfowl. So the, the, you take the noise that a jet makes or noise at a helicopter makes and compare that to what the windmill makes and we don't have the problem. It's, it's just like the lady said a while ago, they're trying to fix a problem that we don't even know that exists. We don't have the documentation. We don't have the studies. It's just not there and, and we're gonna come back out and, and, and kill an industry that, that uh has been uh in the process of being developed for 4 years. We're gonna take the economic impact. away from the, the cities and the counties and, and the citizens because every citizen that has a uh windmill on their property gets paid so much a year for being there and then they get paid so much for the production of it. Uh And again, we don't, we, we just don't have the, uh, the information to, to make that decision. The other thing I want to say about uh habitat, uh Mr. Freeze brought that up, is that, uh, if you have the habitat, uh, and food, normally you'll have the uh the wildlife and, uh, that's what's happened to our airports, and that's why the, the deer there, the, the, the, the ducks and geese around and and the uh study that was uh referred to in 2005. There's so many outlying factors out there other than the windmill farm that could contribute to that. And so, we would have to analyze it to see if the windmills really, uh, contributed to it. But I'll go back to the fact, uh, again, He, uh, has, has listed this on, on basis of collection of bird bands and, and, and I hate it when these young people come up and they can't kill ducks with bands on it, you know, he said he wasn't a very good hunter. And I'm, I'm pulling this chain right now and he knows that. But 11 day we were hunting, uh, and we killed 31 birds that had 3 bands and so that, that's not a real good correlation to to talk about how many bands are on this place, how many bands are on that place. We know that Carroll County doesn't duck hunt in, in, in Benton County. And most of this is gonna come down through the delta. But uh To be honest with you, probably 906, 98% of the comments that have come to me has been to oppose this bill that, that economically the, the, the schools, the counties, uh, the cities want to want to tax revenue, the landowners want the income that will come off of it. And uh I would ask for a no vote if you would do that please. sorry, Representative Torres, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, do you, do you remember that or do you know the height? of the wind turbines that you have in your area, Mr. Chairman, I, I, I don't, but I do have someone in the audience that could answer that if you'd like to come to the table. That that they can go ahead and make their way to the table and then Senator Stubblefield has a question. Uh yes, sir, the, uh, uh, I, I'm, uh, Brad Lela. I'm vice president of development from Cordelia Power. And the answer to your question is the, the turbines cross county are 695 ft. OK, thank you, Senator Stubblefield, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, this last one, I don't enra Colwell said they were in bad need of revenue uh would in Cross County, would they be interested in in buying a prison. But Uh, Senator Sheffield, I've told him before that we would take to prison, uh, when the last prison went to Malvern Cross County bid on that and we would love to have it. Yes, sir. You can have and OK and all the ducks that fall within it. The, the one of the reasons I didn't ask for it is, is it could be within 60 or 65 miles of another state prison and I have two up there that would disqualify me. But again, Uh, the economic value of that, uh, has, uh, a nice impact, but, but, uh, they won't let me have it. But I would take it. Seeing no further questions, thank you for your testimony. Members that uh concludes the list of those who are who are Representative Ladyman, I've already stated that we've concluded the testimony for for and against the the that would be appropriate during the discussion and uh I would recognize representative Moore and Senator Dismaying to close for the bill. Members of the committee, committee chairman, uh, I appreciate you all being here and listening to this lengthy discussion and indulging us because this is a weighty topic. Um, words I've heard used for, from folks that oppose this legislation or words like minimizing uh or proper siding. The data and evidence from the studies around the globe, including the one from Texas, which is the most um. It, it's the, it's the most tremendous study we have on this subject all suggests that these wind turbines negatively affect waterfowl through displacement. Uh, we're not talking about the odd duck or goose getting chopped up in a turbine. We're talking about dramatically affecting the flight patterns of these birds through migratory waterfowl corridors. When you place wind turbines. And we're not talking about the one and win next to Crowley's Ridge where they don't kill ducks in the ridge. We're talking about the ones next to our wildlife refuges. We're talking about the ones next to our rivers, these bodies of water that hold a vast amount of our ducks in East Arkansas, which is one of our state's greatest natural resources. Um 695 ft. They display spurs in the direct vicinity around them. When you have 200 turbines going down the White River, you tell me what that's gonna do to the ducks that wanna go land there. Um, I do want it on record that Delta waterfowl is in support of this piece of legislation and I have a letter should any of you desire it. Um I would beg the question. What is the solution to wind turbines in East Arkansas, um, a lot of folks want to study it and wanna look at it. You tell me the solution because we have ducks. On nearly every stitch of land in East Arkansas at one point or another throughout the winter. This is where they come. We're known as the duck hunting capital of the world. Do you want ducks? To not be able to go in this vicinity, uh, on this particular on Big Creek or Little Pony Creek or Big Poney Creek, um, if you don't want ducks there, put a wind turbine there. The solution in my mind is to restrict them as we are trying to do. To waterfowl areas with great concentrations of, of birds, um. I appreciate a good vote. Uh, members and, and I appreciate Senator Caldwell's testimony. I mean, there has been prolific development of Wind turbine mines in Arkansas, and we don't know what the impact is. Lots of to his point, lots of those things are not in duck hunting areas, so maybe, uh, that it doesn't sound like they're built yet, there was some great discussion about we were not going to have 700 ft wind wind turbines in Arkansas, I guess it happened. And I, you know, just a quick research you'll find that, you know, It is because of that technology that you can have that that sates a larger wind turbine because of the lower speeds or it just doesn't simply work. Um, and again, I just, there was a question about common sense or someone said something about common sense, common sense would tell you that you've got a 700 ft tall spinning structure that it is going to divert birds, but by the way, there was also testimony and I also dislike cats, so if we need to work on legislation I'm all in. Or I'm not a cat person, I should say, um. I'm, I'm, I'm all in on that, on that deal, but If they're not diverted, then you will put diversion measures in place. You're intentionally diverting the birds away from the windmills. And so one way or another, there's going to be diversion if it's because they're, uh, you know, not smart enough or gonna hit a windmill or if that is the case, then we're going to divert them through sound and light and whatever else it may be to get them to leave an area that was the testimony. That's how we do it. Uh. And there was also one more question of and I speak it speaks a little bit to the technology and the changes and what we might anticipate in the future if we keep going along this path is where are these things manufactured? Well, I can tell you where they're not manufactured. Right down the road here we shut that down or they shut down. Do you know why they shut down? Because they're 200 ft blades weren't big enough to keep up with the new technology and demand for larger blades. That's why they shut down. So again, they're not produced in Arkansas anymore. We couldn't keep with the size that was necessary to, to follow the demand and and with that, again, back and forth, up and down, will this happen, have an impact or not? I don't want to find out. I believe it will. I think the testimony says it will. We will intentionally divert birds aways is what the testimony is, uh, with that, also appreciate a good bit. Representative More and sooner just may closed for the bill. What's the will of the committee? Of a motion do pass would be due pass as amended. OK, we have a motion for Representative Grahali to pass his amended. Is there a second? I heard a second from Representative Aker. So the motion before us is due pass as amended any discussion. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized for discussion. Yeah, there we go. Thank you. Well, I don't know where to start, and I'll try to be brief, but Where are these made? That's a good question. The blades were made here in Little Rock for many, many years, and we actually Let me start out by telling you, I worked for a wind company for 8 years. Prior to that, I worked for an energy company for 30 years, which had a division that made wind turbines for 30 years. Um The blade plant here, Uh, in Little Rock was actually a uh a foreign company originally and GE bought that uh company, and we're making blades for us at the company that I worked at in Jonesboro, uh, That plant closed because the wind business shrunk. When Soler took over as the primary green energy because of technical advantages. So there's so much science here that, that is not being discussed. Uh Um With the knowledge of that. Let me put it that way. But let me talk about economics. Um You talk about well, how much money, how much labor is involved in these. These towers when I worked in the industry, which was 300 ft towers. Uh, that was a $4 million per tower investment by that company. $4 million. Uh, sometimes we would put 100 of those on a farm. That's $400 million. There's a property tax on that, and it's a lot of money. And it would mean a lot of money for these poor counties that we have in eastern Arkansas. How many people work at these places. When we built the wind farm, we had 500, sometimes 800 people working at these wind farms because you have to build roads, you have to build infrastructure, you have to build underground, and these towers, now they're so I didn't know they were 700 ft tall, and I apologize for not knowing that. I retired in 2018, so a lot's happened since then, I guess, but um. But this is a major, you're, you're building a A city as far as power goes. So there's a lot of money spent in building these towers. And When they locate these towers, that's been discussed a lot. Uh, these meta towers we're talking about, they study these wind currents for somewhere from 1 to 2 years to make sure That the wind is consistent at a certain speed. When does it blow? When does it not blow? Um, And I've heard a number of people say, well, they don't make money on these turbans. The company that I worked for for 30 years, made turbans for 30 years. Let me tell you, if they wasn't making money on them, they wouldn't continue to make them for 30 years. So yes, they make money. The life. Somebody brought that up. What's the life of these turbans. When you buy a wind turbine, they tell you that the life is 25 years. Some of them last 30 years. Um So If we in Arkansas are open for business and we want economic development in the delta, you know, we don't need to shut out any type of industry. And I also have a question. If we're talking about just diverting birds, what do we divert them to Tennessee? Is that why we're gonna lose money or do we just divert them to East, more eastern Arkansas. I mean, you know, things happen to where economy moves things around. These birds might come up to northeast Arkansas. I don't know where they go, but it doesn't mean that they're going to move outside the state of Arkansas and we're gonna lose this money. Now it may move. And we had farmers talking, and they have different opinions of this. But I agree with what somebody said it's their property. They should be allowed to do what they want on their property. You know, that's what we talk about all the time. Uh, I think if we pass this bill, we're telling people we're not open for business because we're cutting out an industry that could bring millions. Millions of dollars to Arkansas, not only in the construction and operation, and you may have 30 people working if it's a large wind farm, you may have 30 people working there all the time, and these are people that make over 3 figures, over 6 figures. Um, so the economic impact of this would be great. And As has been said, I don't think we have enough data to know what economic negative economic impact we're gonna have. So for that reason, I, I just can't support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of Ladyman has, uh, offered discussion. Is there any other discussion, Senator Johnson, you're recognized for discussion. So, I appreciate those comments and You know, As in discussion in the, in testimony. You know, We've been talking about 1 or 2 windmills and Just like Representative Laderman said, There is opportunity for farms of windmills, and great infrastructure comes with that. And that also has an impact on that property and Also possibly. This wildlife. And, uh, you can't just, you know, Consider one or two windmills and the infrastructure that comes with it. You're talking about mass. The, you know, deporting of this, uh, possibly of this resource along this flyway. So there's a difference between 1 or 2 windmills and a farm. Of, of, of 100 windmills being put in this area at 700 ft tall and, and, uh, you know, once the study of this thing is the deployment of the product. So, can you truly Once that is deployed and you have a 30, 40 year resource out there. It's too late. So You know, we have to make a decision, uh, now based on the knowledge we have now. And, and if the resources and the technology changes, and these concerns can be alleviated. Then I would feel more comfortable with that being deployed. In the in that flyway. Uh, so I will be voting for the bill. Thank you. Senator Johnson is off for discussion. Is there any other discussion? Seeing none The question before the committee is a motion do pass as amended. All in favor, say I, and he opposed. The nos have it. Any other business to come before the committee? Committees adjourned.