Good morning Arkansas! We're posted up a bit early in Senate Ag, where, at long last, it's game day for #SB290 (the new version of #SB84). In general, the bill prevents state agencies from issuing moratoriums against Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in watersheds. This has been an interesting case; the Governor is staunchly opposed to the original bill (the Waltons like the Buffalo as is) but we're hearing there might be an amendment carving out the Buffalo and Maumelle watersheds. However, the Farm Bureau wants the original bill - no carveouts. And this isn't going to split on party lines at all, especially given the Governor's support for Buffalo protections. People across party lines (and indeed, outside the state!) LOVE the Buffalo, and it brings in a huge percentage of tourism dollars to the state. Nobody wants to float a stinky river. On the other hand, ag in Arkansas is obviously massive and the *other* biggest driver of revenue in Arkansas. Farm Bureau doesn't want the carveouts in an effort to ensure consistency across the state. So, to sum: there's a possibility 290 gets amended to continue to protect the Buffalo and Maumelle Watersheds. Sponsors of the bill don't like those carveouts, but there's a high chance of a veto from the Governor if there's no carveouts. Should be an interesting day! #arkleg #arpx And we are gaveled in! Hearing no to the amendment, so no carveouts for Buffalo and Maumelle watersheds. Absolute chaos this morning! Tiny Senate Ag room is completely packed, standing room only. Sen. Johnson just arrived; Sen. Gilmore just pulled Dismang out of the room for a moment. As a reminder, if #SB290 doesn't run today, it'll go on the deferred list and we'll get a two-day heads up before it comes back. Starting with a bill from Sen. Penzo. SB305 is the marijuana testing bill Penzo tried to run last week; he amended it to work around the prerolled marijuana product question Sen. Hickey has. Bill passes. arkleg.state.ar.us
arkleg.state.ar.us
Sen. Dees up next w/ SB361. It's a development bill that would expand definitions of port authorities; obviously port authorities have to be next to waterways, so this would expand port authorities to "industrial development authorities" that aren't as limited. arkleg.state.ar.us
arkleg.state.ar.us
Scott asks about feedback from current Port Authority officials; they did indeed! (We love to see stakeholder input) Hickey asks about bond issuances + abatement - who determines the percentages of abatement for long term bonds? A: locality - city council or county officials. This is a long bill - 29 pages - with a lot of tax implications. Caldwell is asking Dees to pull it down so they can all study it a little more, but he gets an answer and they carry on. Dees closes; it passes. Sen Crowell up with SB388 It repeals a minor report from Econ Development Commission offices that hasn't been requested in over 30 years. It passes. arkleg.state.ar.us
arkleg.state.ar.us
He's also presented HB1516. Aside from some technical corrections, it increases the law enforcement capacities of Dept. of Agriculture. They're having problems ensuring people properly vaccinate their animals. arkleg.state.ar.us
arkleg.state.ar.us
Specifically, they have some farmers that are refusing to give their horses a Coggins Test, which is required yearly. It tests for a fatal equine disease that has no cure, but is easily spreadable. Hickey is pushing back against the LEO from Dept. of Ag - the LEO is saying these new teeth are just for compliance; Hickey points out that's not really how the law works. It would *require* a fine to be levied, not just warnings. Dismang now concerned about drafting procedure - the bill does a lot of different stuff; adds a legal cause of action, makes some technical corrections, and allows Dept. of Ag LEOs to keep their service weapons upon retirement. Most of the time you have to limit bills to one topic. It passes! Sometimes the leg is goofy, y'all. Gilmore up next with SB281, which creates a bill of rights for ag producers at commodity checkoffs. arkleg.state.ar.us
arkleg.state.ar.us
You can read more about the broad idea behind checkoff programs here: Chairman Caldwell says he's received some calls opposed to this bill. nationalaglawcenter.org
nationalaglawcenter.org
SB281 fails. And we're now to #SB290. He claims that this is just adding a process; there's "no justification for the public to say that moratoriums would no longer be in place." Says it's just a legislative checkoff. Hickey with a question. His question is moot; there's no emergency clause attached to the bill, which would have messed with the timeline laid out in the bill. Onto public testimony. Caldwell says he's happy to hear folks speak, but asks people to not repeat each other. Limiting testimony to 90 seconds. Unreal. These people have come down here up to 7 times now, for 90 seconds?? Come on. Brian Thompson with the Ozark Society. They've defended the river for years and years. Adding CAFOs to the area would be hugely detrimental - pathogens, toxins, smell. Too many unknowns. Okay they're boosting time to 3 minutes. Yippee. This guy used to be a chicken farmer, FYI - and he's still against CAFOs. From a purely economic standpoint, this will absolutely murder tourism and the Gov's outdoor investment campaigns. A bit of quick math btw - some of these folks have made the drive up to 7 times. Roughly 7 hours per round trip; that is 49 hours for 3 minutes of testimony. That's how much people love the Buffalo. Speaking for is Mark Lambert from the Farm Bureau. Chuckles from the crowd. Predictably, the FB supports this; they're also trying Blake's strategy of "oh this is just adding legislative oversight!" He tries claim these moratoriums have a "chilling" effect on farms, then proceeds to cite how many farms we have and how much money Ag makes. Which is it?? Can't be both Whitman Harris defers his time to more expert testimony. John Fletcher up next, from Ark. Canoe Club w/ 1300 members. He's also a business attorney. The scope of this bill is unclear and nebulous. Watersheds cover most of the state, so without careful definition, this could be statewide. State agencies routinely include prohibitions in their regs; is every one a "moratorium"? The bill doesn't say. He says he pulled five agency rules that may be affected by this bill. Gilmore with a question - is moratorium defined anywhere in statute? He doesn't think so. Speaking for the bill is Megan Allen, also from Farm Bureau. She says it's about protecting Arkansas's farmers. Legislators are closer to the people, so they should have the power to impose moratoriums. She also claims that CAFOs wouldn't be allowed without due process. We can't be restricting agriculture. Again, this is the state's largest industry! Not sure what the problem is?? David Petersen up to speak against. He taught applied math, including hydrology, at UCA. He's discussing the physics of phosphorus pollution; it is distinctly over my head, but suffice to say that phosphorous is very bad for water quality. Caldwell cuts him off and Peterson jokes "we'll leave E Coli for another day." Missed the name, but a farmer is up in support of the bill. He's taking the "private property rights" angle. Sorry man, that argument holds less water when it comes to clean water we all have to use. I'm also not convinced by this guy's argument that "outsiders" are against this bill. All Arkansans deserve access to the River, and out of state tourists do too. Land is a public good, and you're still farming. Liz Fletcher, a litigation attorney for Farm Bureau (? may be a former litigator for them, missed the specifics), but she's not convinced this bill is good. The moratoriums aren't hurting her farming operation at all. The lack of definitions in the bill make it sloppy, she says. No questions from the committee; she closes with "I can assure you y'all will catch a lot of litigation with this." Don Hubble speaking for the bill, cattleman from Independence County. Also doing the private property angle. When your stewardship of private property affects the public... ... I fear the private property angle matters a whole lot less. Fun fact! I (Sam) used to do water quality research in this watershed a decade or so ago. It was poor even then; moratoriums have improved it greatly. Personal history! Gordon Watkins of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance speaking against. He's a farmer and real estate guy from the area. Believes the bill is, among other things, redundant. Rules still have to come before Legislative Council to be approved! The bill requires moratoriums to be re-upped every two years, so even if we're protecting the Buffalo this year, what's to stop the ALC to slap it down next time around? The vagueness also might affect tons of other kinds of moratoriums. Dismang nodding along with this testimony, btw. Suspect he's a no vote. Watkins notes that as a good farmer himself, his rights end at his fencerow (PREACH IT BROTHER). Good farming is stewarding for your neighbors too. Dismang with a question: You are correct about the vagueness of this bill; 4 members of the Leg could control the moratorium process. He thinks this bill would actually be unconstitutional in some respects; the exec branch has been delegated the rule making power. Travis Payne up next, speaking for the bill, from Conway Co., 3rd gen cattle farmer. He's doing the same private property argument, won't waste all our time repeating it (stay tuned for a forthcoming blog post). Sam Cook speaking against, board member of Friends of the White River, farmer/timber guy. He notes that the farmers' and Farm Bureau are misrepresenting the Arkansas Procedures Act, which governs rulemaking. They're claiming state agencies can unilaterally impose moratoriums, but that's incorrect. John Ray, speaking against as a Fayetteville resident. He notes that roughly 1.5 million people use the River each year as the Jewel of the Ozarks. Last time there was a CAFO near the river, there was an EColi and Nitrate outbreak that was solved by, you guessed it, state government. He notes the irony that farmers are willing to pollute the water they rely on to, uh, farm. He compares the situation to Iowa and the Carolinas; they imposed similar bans on moratoriums in watersheds and now those rivers are unusable. River clean up is expensive and dangerous. That seems to be the end of public testimony. Gilmore has some questions for Johnson; he has some concerns as the bill is written. Wants to know what Johnson thinks of the point about APA and ALC; thinks that was a good point! (note: APA=administrative procedures act, not arkansas procedures) Johnson tries to say that this process is *prior* to the rule-making process? Gilmore points out the bill doesn't actually say that and that doesn't answer his question. He also wants to know why this is so broad; why *not* just limit it to Dept. of Ag and Env. Quality? Finally, Gilmore notes that the chapter of Code this is placed in is odd. Johnson throws BLR under the bus. Sen Scott: I've never been to the Buffalo, but I've received over 250 constituent contacts on this. She asks how this bill protects sensitive ecosystems? Johnson: it doesn't! Those state agencies have to beg the legislature to protect them. Scott: Is there a mechanism here to allow state agencies to respond promptly to an environmental threat? A: Legislative committees would have to meet to approve those. Hickey: broadly in favor of what you're trying to do, but the Admin Procedures Act is a real concern. He's got lots of concerns about the structure bill. There's a better way to do this, he thinks. Johnson pulls it down, and we're adjourned. #SB290 lives to fight another, but there will be some amendments. @unroll.skywriter.blue unroll