Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Arkansas Advocate
A bill that would make it harder to protect Arkansas watersheds from possible pollution from large animal farms finally got a hearing Tuesday after weeks of deferrals.
Sen. Blake Johnson’s proposal drew questions from lawmakers on the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee, support from agricultural interests and opposition from environmental advocates. The Corning Republican ultimately pulled his bill for revisions.
Johnson originally filed his proposal as Senate Bill 84 in January, but he filed Senate Bill 290 in late February, which expanded on the earlier version and was the subject of Tuesday’s discussion.
The bill drew public interest, especially as it relates to the Buffalo National River and follows an abandoned legislative discussion of permit moratoriums for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) on watersheds late last year.
According to recent data from the National Park Service, the Buffalo National River saw nearly 1.7 million visitors in 2024, the second highest number of annual visits since it was established in 1973.
Environmental advocates have routinely traveled long hours from their rural hometowns to Little Rock hoping that Johnson’s bill would be heard in committee, as it was frequently listed on the agenda. When it finally came time to testify on Tuesday, speakers were limited to three minutes.
Six people spoke against the bill, sharing concerns about potential pollution and conflicts with the Administrative Procedures Act; five spoke in favor of it, primarily citing personal property rights.
Per state law, the Administrative Procedures Act gives state agencies, boards and commissions the authority to adopt rules regarding procedures. The law states an administrative agency must make rules or other written statements available for public inspection.
As outlined in SB 84, the bill heard Tuesday would also prohibit state agencies from instituting a moratorium of permits on any Arkansas watershed. But according to SB 290, a state agency could institute a watershed moratorium if it first obtained legislative approval from the Senate and House agriculture committees. If lawmakers approved an agency’s request, the moratorium would then be reevaluated every two years, according to the bill.
Instead of eliminating existing moratoriums, as SB 84 would have done, Johnson said he “tried to thread the needle with a legislative process for all future possible moratoriums” under SB 290.
Approval for existing moratoriums would follow the same procedure under the proposed legislation, with a 30-day timeline for approval starting upon the bill’s effective date to remain enforceable. Without legislative approval within the set deadline, the existing moratorium would be deemed unenforceable, according to the bill.
After the legislative approval, the state agency would then resume the existing process to promulgate related rules and seek approval through the Arkansas Legislative Council, Johnson said.
Johnson described SB 290 as a “strictly legislative check-off before these sorts of things are placed on us.”
Concerns about conflicts with the Administrative Procedures Act ultimately caused Johnson to pull down his bill for revisions. Republican Sens. Ben Gilmore of Crossett and Jimmy Hickey of Texarkana questioned elements of Johnson’s bill after hearing public comment.
“I’m in favor of what you’re trying to do — so let’s just get that out there on the table,” Hickey said. “I am 100% worried about the structure of this with the Administrative Procedures Act. … I’m no attorney, but I don’t know how it holds up.”
Tuesday’s speakers brought a nearly even-numbered debate during testimony. Bill supporters told lawmakers the legislation prioritized protections for farmers and ranchers across Arkansas, while opponents called the bill confusing, too broad and a “solution in search of a problem.”
Many supporters were farmers themselves and said they operated farms near a waterway. Representatives from the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation made a case for the proposed law, as did members of the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association.
“The authority to either approve or deny moratoriums should rest with the Legislature, which is close to the people and not the administrative branch of government, specifically state agencies and commissions,” said Magen Allen, a farmer in Bismarck who also serves on the Board of Directors for the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation.
Don Hubble, a commercial cattle producer in Independence County and second vice president for the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association echoed Allen’s statements, and said ensuring watersheds are clean and healthy is a top priority for cattle producers.
Hubble said he used tactics like riparian buffers — an area near a waterway composed of trees and shrubs that provide conservation benefits — to stop erosion and runoff into creeks along his property.
“These practices, which are common among cattle producers, are driven by our desire to care for the land that sustains our livelihoods and ensures its preservation for future generations,” Hubble said.
The bill also earned the support of the state cattlemen’s association because it upholds the fundamental rights to private property, he said.
In contrast, environmental advocates and local tourism business owners said the bill was overly broad and didn’t define key words like moratorium, permit or watershed.
Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said the bill “seems to be just an effort to make this an onerous process.”
Watkins said the proposal likely violates the Administrative Procedures Act’s requirement for public input on rules, and asked about the precedent of a 10-year moratorium on the Buffalo River watershed. He questioned what type of permits the bill referred to and whether it extended beyond agricultural distinctions to building, fracking and crypto mining permits.
“As a farmer and a good neighbor myself, I know that my rights end at my fence row,” Watkins said. “The right to farm does not confer unrestricted rights. Some sites are simply inappropriate for industrial scale — CAFOs. … State and federal regulations, such as moratoriums, are meant as guardrails to protect landowners and the public against environmentally damaging activities.”
Brian Thompson, leader of The Ozark Society, said the proposed legislation would adversely affect the tourism sector by allowing feedlots near the scenic rivers. The society is a nonprofit that prioritizes the preservation of natural areas.
“It would put a nail in the coffin of Gov. [Sarah Huckebee] Sanders’ outdoor economy,” Thompson said.
Sanders has prioritized outdoor tourism in Arkansas during her governorship, and First Gentleman Bryan Sanders leads the Natural State Advisory Council.
The group works in tandem with the Natural State Initiative to “further establish Arkansas as a leader in the outdoor economy and a destination for outdoor enthusiasts from around the world,” according to the governor’s office.
Thompson spoke highly of the Buffalo National River and claimed Johnson’s bill “is a message to outsiders that we do not value our God-given unique natural resources, resources only found in our state, resources that draw visitors by the millions.”
Democrat Gazette
March 11, 2025 by Josh Snyder | Updated March 11, 2025
A bill that would require state agencies seeking moratoriums on permits in watersheds to first obtain approval from the House and Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development committees was pulled from a panel’s consideration by its sponsor on Tuesday.
Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, withdrew Senate Bill 290 from consideration by the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development committees to address concerns from lawmakers about the requirement. Johnson’s decision to withdraw his bill came after nearly an hour of discussion and public testimony for and against the bill.
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ office said said in a statement Tuesday evening that Sanders “would not support legislation that doesn’t protect the Buffalo National River” but added that she looked forward to working with Johnson to develop a workable solution.
The bill states an Arkansas agency cannot institute a moratorium on the issuance of permits in a watershed “including without limitation the Buffalo River Watershed” or other body of water without first obtaining approval from both the Senate and House committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development.
A swine farm moratorium was issued in the Buffalo River watershed roughly a decade ago — by the then-Department of Environmental Quality — to protect the watershed.
“This is simply a legislative process that the departments have to come to us before they implement a moratorium, and if that moratorium is in place then they would have to go and do that rulemaking through that process and then through the (Arkansas Legislative Council) with that rule,” Johnson said of his bill.
Moratoriums that receive approval under the bill would be “valid until June 30 of the second year following the approval of the moratorium,” SB290 states.
The bill states that, by Nov. 1 of each even-numbered year, a state agency that obtains approval to institute a moratorium “shall provide a report on each moratorium in existence at the time of the report” to the Senate and House committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development.
Existing moratoriums would also have to undergo the approval process that would be established by SB290.
“A moratorium related to a watershed, including without limitation the Buffalo River Watershed, or other body of water instituted before the effective date of this act that does not receive legislative approval within 30 days of the effective date of this act as required … is unenforceable,” the bill states.
In late January, Johnson filed Senate Bill 84, a bill that similarly took aim at watershed-specific moratoriums. That bill would have eliminated the existing swine farm moratorium in the Buffalo River watershed and would have prohibited future watershed-specific permit moratoriums without approval by the Arkansas Legislative Council. Rules changes already require review by the Arkansas Legislative Council, however, and SB84 has not left the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee.
Johnson’s new bill does not reference the Arkansas Legislative Council. He said on Tuesday that he “tried to thread the needle on the legislative process” in presenting SB290 and described his bill as “strictly a legislative check-off.”
Sen. Ben Gilmore, R-Crossett, asked Johnson why SB290 would require the approval of the Senate and House committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development when the Arkansas Legislative Council already has to approve rules proposed by agencies.
Johnson said his bill includes those additional requirements “because this body creates the laws that creates those departments.”
“This body, the Senate Agriculture Committee and the House Agriculture Committee, have more subject-level expertise in agriculture than the whole body,” he said.
Gilmore also pointed to language in the bill that singles out “a state agency, including without limitation the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy and Environment,” asking if that meant the bill would also cover agencies beyond the Agriculture and Energy and Environment departments. Johnson answered in the affirmative.
Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Searcy, said SB290 “delegates the authority to control and hold moratoriums with as few as four members.”
“Those four members could essentially just sit on their hands and prevent a moratorium from taking place,” Dismang said.
Sen. Jimmy Hickey, R-Texarkana, said that he was “having a struggle here because of the way the bill itself is written” and expressed concern “about the structure of this” and whether it would clash with the state’s Administrative Procedure Act. He asked Johnson if he would be willing to remove the requirement that rules go before the two committees, and Johnson agreed to pull his bill.
Nearly 15 members of the public signed up to speak on SB290, and committee chair Sen. Ronald Caldwell, R-Wynne, allowed them to do so for up to three minutes each.
Mark Lambert, director of state affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said his organization supported the bill because “discriminatory language” against a single industry could have a “chilling effect on every farm in the state.”
“We would argue that this isn’t about a single watershed,” Lambert said. “This is about private property rights, a private individual’s right to farm and being a good neighbor.”
Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said the bill was “redundant and unnecessary” and that the two-year renewal requirement creates an “onerous process.”
State and federal regulations, such as moratoriums, establish “guardrails to protect land owners and the public against environmentally damaging activities,” he said.
Johnson did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the changes he intended to make on his bill.
When asked for comment on SB290, governor’s office spokesman Sam Dubke said in an emailed statement, “Governor Sanders appreciates Senator Johnson’s leadership and dedication to Arkansas agriculture, but she does not support legislation that doesn’t protect the Buffalo National River and looks forward to working with the Senator to craft a solution that is a win for farmers and conservation.”
Information for this article was contributed by Ainsley Platt of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
Arkansas Times
Bill targeting hog farm moratoriums near Buffalo River fails in committee Tuesday, sponsors will amend and try again
by Phillip Powell
Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning) pulled his bill to prohibit farming moratoriums in state watersheds without legislative approval from consideration after a dramatic hearing in a Senate committee on Tuesday revealed bipartisan opposition to the measure.
The bill in question, Senate Bill 290, has stalled in committee for weeks, even while it has continued to attract heavy public interest from farm groups and environmentalists. The Arkansas Farm Bureau and Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association showed up in full force to support the bill, while environmental groups and outdoor recreation advocates urged legislators to shoot it down through 40 minutes of public testimony during Tuesday’s Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development hearing
If SB290 becomes law, it would effectively neuter the ability of state agencies to place moratoriums on commercial farming operations near watersheds, such as the Buffalo National River or Lake Maumelle. Agencies, like the Division of Environmental Quality, would have to make a case to legislative committees as to why a moratorium is warranted.
Johnson pulled the bill for further amendments after it was clear it did not have enough support from both Republican and Democrat committee members to pass.
Environmental groups have been advocating for a permanent moratorium on industrial hog farming, known as CAFOs, in the Buffalo National River watershed for years, but opponents, like the Arkansas Farm Bureau, viewed efforts by state agencies to place a permanent moratorium on the Buffalo watershed as “violating the right to farm.”
“We wholeheartedly support this bill, this is about protecting farmers and ranchers across our entire state,” Magen Allen, a farmer and member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau Board of Directors, said. “The authority to approve or deny moratoriums should rest with the Legislature, which is closer to the people and not the administrative branch of government. Senate Bill 290 is about whether a state agency or commission should be able to impose a permanent moratorium anywhere in the state. And this bill does not prevent moratoriums from being proposed.”
If the proposed legislation doesn’t pass, some farmers who testified said they were concerned that state agencies would enforce moratoriums that could negatively affect their businesses.
Johnson’s bill would only allow a moratorium to go into effect if it first cleared the agriculture committees in the state Legislature. Afterward, the state agency would be able go through the proper rule-making process to put the moratorium on a particular body of water into effect. Existing moratoriums, like the one in effect on the Buffalo River, would have to be reviewed by the legislature to stay in place. The temporary moratorium on the Buffalo River, which has been in place for about a decade, is also specific to CAFOs.
As Allen and others noted, CAFOs still need to receive regulatory approval to set up operations in general in Arkansas. Though a moratorium, like the one on the Buffalo River, was intended to prevent permit applications for new CAFOs in that specific area.
“There is no place more iconic in our state, and more deserving of our protection, than the Buffalo River,” Ozark Society President Brian Thompson said. “If we can’t protect it, then I don’t think we can protect anything.”
The conflict over whether the Buffalo River’s temporary moratorium against CAFOs should become permanent blew up in the state Legislature last year after the state Department of Agriculture and state Department of Energy and Environment moved to enshrine the farming moratorium into their rules governing CAFO permitting. But after that effort stalled, and state lawmakers went back into legislative session in January, Johnson introduced a bill to strip state agencies of their power to impose a farming moratorium on a watershed.
In a sudden twist, Johnson said Tuesday that the [Arkansas] Farm Bureau authored the controversial bill.
Toward the end of the hearing, Sen. Jimmy Hickey (R-Texarkana), Sen. Jonathan Dismang (R-Searcy), and Sen. Ben Gilmore (R-Crossett) seemed to be leaning against Johnson’s bill. All three of the legislators had concerns about giving the state Legislature’s agriculture committees the power to review moratorium proposals by state agencies, when another committee in the state Legislature already exists to approve or reject rules.
Dismang said in his questioning of Buffalo Watershed Alliance President Gordon Watkins that the bill would effectively give four people on the Senate agriculture committee the power to stall a moratorium proposal indefinitely.
Dismang made the point after Watkins said that the bill introduced bureaucratic redundancies, as the Legislature already has the power to review and approve all proposed rules by state agencies. Watkins also said that, as a farmer, he didn’t understand the concern from the Arkansas Farm Bureau that state agencies might begin placing permit moratoriums in watersheds around the state.
The permitting moratoriums have only applied to the Buffalo River and Lake Maumelle in various forms over the last several years, he said.
If the three Republicans joined with the two Democrats on the eight-member committee on a vote, the bill would have failed.
After Hickey expressed his opposition, saying that he wouldn’t support the bill unless it was amended, Johnson asked to remove the bill from consideration and the hearing was called to an end.
Last week, the Arkansas Times reported that Johnson was in conflict with Gov. Sarah Sanders on the bill, and that their negotiations were stalling its potential advancement in the state Legislature. Sanders has made growing the outdoor recreation and tourism sectors an economic development priority, and the Buffalo River brings over a million visitors annually, according to the National Park Service.
CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations, have long been a subject of controversy, especially around the Buffalo River. The operations concentrate hundreds of livestock together for feeding, and can produce a substantial waste footprint that can pollute nearby waterways with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, fertilizer and chemicals. The C&H hog farm permitted in the watershed stirred widespread controversy from local residents until former Gov. Asa Hutchinson made moves to shut it down and buy the farm out.
by Phillip PowellMarch 4, 2025 2:07 pm
A bill that could make it harder for state agencies to prevent industrial hog farming in the Buffalo National River watershed continues to stall in a legislative committee as its sponsors negotiate key provisions.
Senate Bill 290, sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning) and Rep.DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), would require state agencies, like the Arkansas Department of Agriculture and the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, to obtain legislative approval to implement a moratorium “on the issuance of permits in a watershed, including but without limitation, the Buffalo River watershed, or other body of water.”
These agencies would have to come before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development and the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development to obtain approval for a moratorium.
Johnson did not appear before the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee Tuesday to present the bill. Sen. Ronald Caldwell (R-Wynne), chair of that committee, said Johnson would need to present the draft legislation during another meeting next Tuesday or it would be taken off the agenda.
“In reality, Sen. Johnson was supposed to run his bill today, but he and [Gov. Sarah Sanders] are behind closed doors trying to come to an agreement on that,” Caldwell said.
When asked by the Arkansas Times, Caldwell said he could not disclose what the bill’s sponsors were discussing with Sanders, citing “privileged information.”
Requests for comment from the governor’s office have not been returned as of publication of this story. Johnson also did not return a request for comment.
The Buffalo River has been a massive draw for outdoor tourism in recent years, and Sanders’ administration has made growing the tourism industry a major economic priority for the state. The Walton family also has development interests around the Buffalo River, with the Runway Group, a development firm founded by Walton family members, working to invest in outdoor businesses in Northwest Arkansas.
The proposed legislation comes as the Department of Agriculture has been considering a rule concerning the Buffalo National River watershed as well as the permitting rules for concentrated animal feeding operations – essentially large-scale factory farms – across the state. There has been discussion of creating a permanent moratorium on issuing permits for commercial hog farms near the Buffalo River after a temporary halt to such operations was enacted in 2020 due to public outrage over an industrial hog farm that was built there.
Dozens of environmentalists from groups, like The Ozark Society, Sierra Club and the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, have been traveling to the state Capitol for weeks to provide public testimony. Those opposed to the legislation said they are concerned that the bill would unleash the permitting of industrial hog farms. Concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, have large pollution footprints from the waste the animals produce.
Arkansas Farm Bureau, a supporter of SB290, said in a statement to the Arkansas Times that the legislation “does not allow for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) within any watershed, including the Buffalo River watershed, without regulatory approval and due process. The proposed pieces of legislation do not prevent moratoriums from being imposed. There are some who are making these irrational and emotionally charged claims, which are not truthful or based in fact.”
SB290 would require the state agriculture department and the energy and environment department to provide reports on approved moratoriums every other year to the legislative committees for review. Additionally, approved moratoriums would be valid “until June 30 of the second year following the approval of the moratorium.”
But crucially, should SB290 pass, any existing moratorium related to a watershed, including the Buffalo National River watershed, would have to go through an approval process within 30 days of SB290 becoming law “to remain enforceable” and any moratorium instituted before this legislation went into effect “that does not receive legislative approval within 30 days of the effective date of this act is unenforceable.”
Last year, Arkansas Farm Bureau urged the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality and the state Department of Agriculture not to adopt new regulations imposing a permanent moratorium on hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed. They opposed the rules on the grounds that it violated the “right to farm.”
NW Democrat Gazette
Buffalo National River deserves better from lawmakers
February 11, 2025 at 1:00 a.m.
by Fran Alexander
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
-- Gideon John Tucker
American lawyer, newspaper editor, 1866
It's likely readers familiar with Arkansas' environmental challenges are sick and tired of the whiplashing threats to the state's best-known natural wonder, the Buffalo River. The issues seem constant, and perhaps that's part of a wearing-down effort by those opposed to the Buffalo's role as a river instead of a sewer.
For review on today's docket of the Arkansas Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry is Senate Bill 84 to "prohibit a moratorium on the issuance of permits in watersheds and other bodies of water." Its sponsors are Sens. Blake Johnson of Corning and DeAnn Vaught of Horatio, both listed as farmers.
Creation of a permanent moratorium on permitting large- or medium-sized swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed has been an ongoing effort of environmental organizations and individuals. Their exhausting seven-year battle to close a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) finally succeeded in 2019, but no permanent protection has been enacted. SB84 is the backlash to counter a permanent protection effort.
What most Arkansawyers probably don't know is what goes on, or doesn't, behind the scenes in the sausage making of legislation. The toll and toil extracted from citizens trying to stay informed, to show up in numbers and to have input is enormous. Traveling to Little Rock to attend meetings with the hope of speaking (if allowed) on bills can take distant attendees seven or more driving hours in a day or cost an overnight stay, plus meals, gas, parking and time away from work.
Today might be the fourth or fifth time the SB84 sponsor has not shown up to run his bill, which places it on the committee's deferred list. If opponents give up and finally stop showing up, the bill might appear to have no opposition. It's easy for a legislator to find out if there are many attendees from the public in the room where his bill is scheduled and find an excuse not to appear.
The Rules Committee also did what seemed like a bait-and-switch routine a couple of times on this issue in late 2024 and never reviewed it. However, opponents spent hours contacting people, urging comments be made, notifying media what was afoot and some traveled to Little Rock. All these volunteer efforts were costly and futile.
Individuals and organizations have worked since the early 1960s to secure protections for this spectacular waterway, which carves a path through part of the Ozarks. The Ozark Society was founded in 1962 by Dr. Neil Compton of Bentonville to protect this river. After 10 years of effort to prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from damming one of the few remaining free-flowing rivers in the country, activists secured its federal recognition as the Buffalo National River, the nation's first, in 1972.
There were issues over the years, of course, but perhaps the most threatening was the discovery in 2013 that a feeding operation for hogs had been permitted and built in the river's watershed. That intensified concerns that run-off of manure from fields and its leaching through the karst limestone underground might be feeding nutrients into the watershed of the Buffalo.
Among the consequences of poop washing into a watershed is the growth of algae, which has the potential to produce cyanotoxins. Those can be harmful to humans and animals, and such warnings discouraged swimming in the middle and lower parts of the river. This is not an appealing feature for tourism, a multi-million dollar industry. Yet still the Buffalo remains at risk.
Knowing that doing the same things in the watershed and expecting different results would not be smart, river protectors promoted the moratorium as a solution. Farming interests have opposed this as somehow interfering with their right to farm. Surely that does not -- and should not -- include a right to pollute.
After a total of 63 years of free labor by hundreds of volunteers through multiple generations, our legislators and governor owe the people of Arkansas explanations. Why are you continuing to risk one of the state's greatest assets? What do you want that's more important? Which of these risks do you not understand or want to ignore? How will you fix the river once it's poisoned? Can you ever fix it? What do you expect of us? What will you do if people ever quit their Save the Buffalo efforts?
Inquiring Arkies deserve to know.
Arkansasonline
January 22, 2025 at 6:39 p.m.
A bill that would eliminate an existing moratorium on swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed and prohibit future watershed-specific permit moratoriums without legislative council approval was filed Tuesday in the Arkansas Senate -- something one advocacy organization called an "obvious effort" to circumvent the rulemaking process.
The filing comes after the Division of Environmental Quality moved last year to make a temporary swine farm moratorium in the watershed permanent. The rulemaking the moratorium is contained in, Regulation 6, received hundreds of public comments from supporters and opponents. It was set to be heard by the rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council for approval in December, before it was abruptly pulled from the agenda the day before by the agencies, who cited procedural issues that necessitated the removal.
Senate Bill 84, if passed, would prohibit state agencies from instituting "a moratorium on the issuance of permits in a watershed, including without limitation the Buffalo River Watershed, or any other body of water" unless it gets approval from the Arkansas Legislative Council first.
Additionally, SB84 would render existing moratoriums -- such as the one on medium- and large-size concentrated animal-feeding operations in the Buffalo River watershed -- "unenforceable." The bill was referred to the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee.
Farm interests were staunchly opposed to the moratorium. Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, who introduced the bill, did not respond to a request for comment. Johnson is a farmer, as is the House sponsor Rep. DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio.
It is unclear whether the legislation, if passed, would result in any meaningful difference in current procedures. The current, temporary moratorium is part of the Division of Environmental Quality's rules, which already require Legislative Council review and approval for any changes.
[LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR: Catch up on this week's meetings » arkleg.state.ar.us/]
The most obvious impact would be the end of the animal-feeding operation moratorium in the Buffalo River watershed, which has been in place for the better part of 10 years after outcry over the issuance of permits to C&H Hog Farms.
The Division of Environmental Quality's predecessor began the process of instituting the moratorium in 2014, in response to the controversy with the C&H Hog Farm in the watershed. That moratorium, however, was temporary, with language that it had to be made permanent in five years or deleted from the rule.
The Division of Environmental Quality, which proposed the rule amendment, tried to make the moratorium permanent in 2020 in accordance with the temporary moratorium's language. It made it through the administrative process but was ultimately shot down during legislative review in the face of opposition from agricultural interests and skepticism from lawmakers.
The division brought it back to the commission last year as part of a group of amendments to Regulation 6, which governs the state's administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, with the stated purpose of preserving the status quo in the watershed.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau, in public comments last year, said the moratorium wasn't supported by science and that it could lead to further restrictions on agricultural activity within the watershed. Department of Environmental Quality staff disagreed, saying that the impact of swine farms on the Buffalo River had been "an ongoing concern in Arkansas."
Watershed advocates were against SB84, with Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, saying his organization was disappointed but not surprised by the bill, and that removing the protections against concentrated animal-feeding operations in the watershed was "a recipe for a repeat" of the C&H Hog Farms "debacle."
"It's an obvious effort to circumvent those rule makings," Watkins said. He called the idea that the moratorium was a "slippery slope" to further agricultural prohibitions in the watershed a red herring, noting that the moratorium has been in place for nearly 10 years. "We haven't seen any efforts to expand that to other types of agriculture or to other parts of the state. ... I don't think anyone is interested in trying to stop agriculture in the state of Arkansas, that's just ridiculous."
Meanwhile, Ozark Society President Brian Thompson called the potential removal of the moratorium "a betrayal" after the millions of dollars the state of Arkansas spent to shut down C&H Hog Farms. He urged Arkansans to write to their representatives about the matter.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation said it was monitoring the bill.
Support journalism that digs deeper into topics that matter most to Arkansans. Donate today to preserve the quality and integrity of local journalism.
by Phillip PowellJanuary 22, 2025 1:55 pm
Two state lawmakers filed a bill Tuesday that would prevent the state from banning hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed or other Arkansas waterways without specific clearance from a legislative panel.
Senate Bill 84 is sponsored by state Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio) and state Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning), who are both farmers. Vaught’s biography on the House of Representatives website says she is a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and the Arkansas Pork Producers Association.
The bill targets a pair of proposed rules from the state Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy and Environment that would make permanent a temporary moratorium on hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed. Environmental groups have been pushing for such a ban for years, sparked by the state’s 2013 approval of a hog farm in the Buffalo area that has since closed down. A legislative committee held a hearing on the proposed rules in November but did not make a decision; in December, the state agencies said they wanted more time to work on the rules and take public input into consideration.
But the bill from Vaught and Johnson would go beyond the Buffalo River, and prevent state agencies from placing a moratorium on permits for farming in any watershed or other body of water in the state unless they first obtained approval from the Arkansas Legislative Council.
Vaught and Johnson could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
The Farm Bureau, an industry group, strongly opposes the Department of Agriculture’s proposed moratorium, saying it violates the “right to farm.”
As one of the United States’ only national rivers, the Buffalo River draws millions of tourists every year and is seen as one of the natural treasurers of Arkansas. There’s been recent talk from a group connected to the Walton family of upgrading its status to a national park preserve. Local environmental groups such as The Ozark Society, The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Audubon Delta, and chapters of the Sierra Club have led public campaigns against farming in the watershed for years.
Those groups are particularly concerned about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — industrial-scale farms which produce an immense amount of liquid animal waste that can pollute waterways with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and other materials and chemicals. CAFOs confine large numbers of animals in a controlled environment to efficiently produce meat, dairy, or eggs. The controversy over hog farming in the Buffalo River area began with the granting of a permit to C&H Hog Farm in 2013, which caused public outrage and eventually led to then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson to place a temporary moratorium on CAFOs in the watershed in 2020. The moratorium language still stands today, making it government policy not to approve permits in the watershed, though the Legislature has not yet approved that language.
CAFOs must receive waste disposal permits to operate. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (which is now part of the Department of Energy and Environment) used to issue those permits to farms, until a 2023 law transferredpermitting authority to the Department of Agriculture. That legislation, which was seen as a win for agriculture interests, was also sponsored by Vaught.
The new proposed rule by the Department of Agriculture would place a permanent moratorium on “swine Confined Animal Operations” in the Buffalo River Watershed. But it would also limit public notice of new permit applications elsewhere in the state, effectively removing Arkansans’ ability to object to proposed CAFOs coming to their area. That has led environmentalists to oppose the rule and file dozens of public comments expressing their concern.
The Department of Agriculture dismissed those concerns, saying in a reply to public comment that “the notice process provided within the rule is sufficient.”
The rule proposed by the Department of Energy and Environment would also place a moratorium on swine CAFOs in the Buffalo River watershed, but it would apply to farms seeking a different type of waste disposal permit that regulates pollution sent directly into waterways. According to the most recent Environmental Protection Agency data, none of Arkansas’s 776 CAFOs have this type of permit.
The Bitter Southerner
Click the link above to read the full article by Boyce Upholt with outstanding photographs by Rory Boyle.
Boyce Upholt is a “nature critic” whose writing probes the relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world, especially in the U.S. South. His work has been published in The Atlantic, National Geographic, Oxford American, and Virginia Quarterly Review, among other publications. He was awarded the 2019 James Beard Award for investigative journalism. His stories have been noted in the The Best American Science & Nature Writing and The Best American Nonrequired Reading series. He lives in New Orleans. Rory Doyle is a working photographer based in Cleveland, Mississippi, in the rural Mississippi Delta. Born and raised in Maine, Doyle studied journalism at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont. In 2009, he moved to Mississippi to pursue a master’s degree at Delta State University. Doyle has remained committed to photographing Mississippi and the South, with a particular focus on sharing stories from the Delta.
Boyce Upholt is a “nature critic” whose writing probes the relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world, especially in the U.S. South. His work has been published in The Atlantic, National Geographic, Oxford American, and Virginia Quarterly Review, among other publications. He was awarded the 2019 James Beard Award for investigative journalism. His stories have been noted in the The Best American Science & Nature Writing and The Best American Nonrequired Reading series. He lives in New Orleans.
Rory Doyle is a working photographer based in Cleveland, Mississippi, in the rural Mississippi Delta. Born and raised in Maine, Doyle studied journalism at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vermont. In 2009, he moved to Mississippi to pursue a master’s degree at Delta State University. Doyle has remained committed to photographing Mississippi and the South, with a particular focus on sharing stories from the Delta.
The Madison County Record
Proposed rule changes regarding a moratorium for hog farms in the Buffalo National River watershed and the skirting of public notice requirements are set to be addressed in December by a subcommittee of the legislative council.
Posted Wednesday, November 20, 2024 9:45 am
By Ellen Kreth, Record Publisher
Decisions on whether to continue a moratorium on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, known as CAFOs, in the Buffalo National River watershed and to change public notice requirements pertaining to hog farms was postponed until December after the Arkansas Legislative Council’s Administrative Rules Subcommittee refused to suspend the rules to take action at its meeting on Nov. 14.
The required materials were not placed on the committee’s agenda by Oct. 15, forcing it to either vote to suspend the rules or take no action.
Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, made a motion to suspend the rules, but the motion failed to get a second.
Two regulations affecting hog farms in the watershed and the rules requiring public notice are being rewritten by the Arkansas Department of Agriculture and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
One rule would make permanent a moratorium on hog farms in the watershed while the other removes a majority of public notice requirements.
“We were surprised that it even showed up on that agenda because it took some finagling to bend the rules because they missed the normal deadline,” said Gordon Watkins of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
Watkins thinks legislators would like this issue decided before the Regular General Assembly of 2025 convenes in January, he said.
“But I think that, and this is just my supposition, they realized this could be a political football and they wanted to get it resolved before the session began so it wouldn’t be a distraction,” he said.
“We believe that there was almost certainly coordination to not introduce the rule, though we don’t know why,” said Brian Thompson, President of the Ozark Society.
“Perhaps it was because of the increasing level of public concern in regard to removing all public notification for super-sized hog farms. Whether it is a noisy data center, a prison, or a 10,000 head hog CAFO, all citizens in our beautiful state deserve the respect of appropriate public notification.”
The committee heard testimony concerning the proposed changes even though no action was taken. When called on by the chair, others in the committee room said they preferred to wait to speak until the committee takes up action on the proposed rules in December.
Notice requirements and the moratorium have been debated and discussed for years after C&H Hog Farms began operating a CAFO in the watershed in 2012. Many neighbors in the watershed near the farm complained of lack of notice about the farm.
In 2019, the state paid $6.2 million in a settlement agreement to close C&H Farms and give the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, a part of the Division of Arkansas Heritage, a conservation easement to the property, which is near Big Creek, 6.6 miles from where it flows into the Buffalo National River.
In addition, then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson issued a moratorium banning large-scale swine operations in the watershed.
During the Regular General Assembly in 2023, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill that transferred the permitting process from ADEQ to the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, which was tasked with reviewing and promulgating rules for liquid animal waste permits.
That bill, along with a companion bill exempting information about nutrient management plans or poultry litter management plans from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, were sponsored by DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio, a hog farmer.
One regulation would take public notices out of newspapers as well as doing away with the requirement of sending notices via certified mail to adjoining landowners, county judges, school superintendents and mayors.
The proposed regulation would require notices to be posted on the department of agriculture’s website.
Critics of the proposed rule testified before the committee that merely posting on a website is inadequate because it forces people to check the website everyday in order to make sure they don’t miss any applications.
A lack of broad public notice limits community engagement and input, they contend.
Bill Rector, Real Estate broker and former co-owner of the Daily Record, a legal publication, spoke against the proposed changes to the proposed CAFO public notice requirements.
The prime example of the effectiveness of public notice, Rector said, is C&H Hog Farms, “Where no notice was published anywhere but the DEQ website.”
The lack of notice cost millions of dollars in legal fees and millions to buy the land in addition “years of consternation,” he said.
“I will guarantee you that there’s been more money spent on that pig farm than there will be spent on public notices during the next 10 years by the State of Arkansas,” Rector told the rules committee members.
He said the issue could have been solved by putting a $50 ad in the newspaper in Newton County, where C&H Farms operated.
“Fifty dollars would have saved millions. Public notice is important,” Rector said.
Watkins said he would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when the decision was made to dilute the public notice requirements “from what it was even before the C&H thing.”
“As you know the legislature stepped in in 2014 and improved those notice requirements after the C&H controversy. They recognized that was a weak link and they stepped in,” Watkins said.
“So for the legislature to now step in and approve the bill that has really diluted notice requirements doesn’t make sense,” Watkins said.
Others testified that a continuing implementation of the current moratorium is needed to preserve the Buffalo National River water quality.
Former president of the Ozark Society David Peterson testified that studies show CAFOs damage the river and its water quality.
Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation is against a moratorium in the watershed. Representatives from Farm Bureau attended the committee meeting to speak against it but opted to offer comments at the December hearing.
“We’ll see what happens in December,” the bureau’s spokesperson Steve Eddington told The Record. “The committee acts at its own discretion. We remain opposed to the permanent moratorium.”
Watkins said even though the items are scheduled to be heard in December, the committee could choose to not take action.
“My hope is that it will come back to the committee in December and they’ll hear it and make a decision at that point. It needs to be resolved,” Watkins said.
November 14, 2024 at 7:56 p.m.
by Ainsley Platt
A motion to suspend procedure so members of the Arkansas Legislative Council's rules subcommittee could make a decision on changes to a Pollution Control and Ecology Commission rule making a prohibition on swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed permanent failed to receive a second, preventing the subcommittee from taking action on it this month.
The lack of a second also meant that a rule regarding liquid animal waste from the Department of Agriculture, which also contained language making the moratorium permanent, couldn't be considered by subcommittee members. That rule generated separate oppositions from environmental advocates after certain public notice requirements that were formerly required in state law were removed, despite their support for other parts of the rule relating to the swine farm moratorium.
The suspension of procedure was required because rules proposed to be considered by the subcommittee have to be submitted by a specific deadline in order to make it on the agenda. The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette previously reported that the request to suspend procedure from both departments came after two still-unnamed legislators asked department staff to make the request, after the deadline for November's meeting had passed.
A letter sent by both departments said that the sped-up timeline would be "beneficial" to facilities the permits apply to "because it would provide clarity on pending permitting matters." The letter did not provide information about what those pending matters were.
The hearing room was full at the start of the subcommittee meeting, with many audience members having travelled long distances in order to make comment on both rules.
Sen. Missy Irvin made the motion to suspend procedure, but no one seconded it.
Since the motion failed to get a second, no vote was taken on the rules themselves, which means they can be taken up at next month's rules subcommittee meeting.
With the failed motion, there was a brief debate between legislators over whether members of the public could give comment on something that was, technically, not being considered by the subcommittee.
Ultimately, some ended up making their comments, while others stated that they would make their planned statements at December's rule subcommittee meeting.
One of the people who reserved their comments for next month was Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, who had previously been vocal both in his support of the permanent moratorium and in his opposition to the removal of certain public notice requirements from the liquid animal waste rule.
He said in an interview afterward that the lack of a motion gives his organization more time to prepare the comments it will give before the subcommittee.
"We knew coming in that anything could happen," Watkins said. "I had hoped that they would (take the vote) just to keep it rolling, but it was a surprise to us that it was even on this month's agenda. ... We were scrambling to get prepared, so this gives us a little more time to prepare our comments."
Watkins said that while it was "disappointing" that the proposed rules weren't considered despite the large number of people who drove to give public comments, he believed there might be even more who show up for December's meeting.
David Peterson, who is a former president of the Ozark Society, expressed surprise.
"I'm mystified by the whole process of this legislature," Peterson said. "I was surprised that the suspension of (procedure) was missing."
Peterson said that the result was that it was "less likely that we'll have a full discussion of the issue."
The failure of the motion is the latest in a decade long saga that started with the opening of the C&H Hog Farms within the Buffalo River watershed, unbenownst to the farm's neighbors due to what many said was insufficient public notice. That started a years-long effort to both improve public notice requirements and shut down the farm, which advocates said posed a massive environmental risk to the watershed and groundwater.
After the public backlash to the farm, state environmental regulators adopted a temporary moratorium on medium- and large swine farms in the watershed. That temporary moratorium had language mandating that the moratorium be made permanent, or removed from Regulation 6 after five years.
Years of back-and-forth between the Department of Environmental Quality, now called the Division of Environmental Quality, and the farm ended with a state buyout of the farm in 2019, but the moratorium faced scrutiny by legislators when the division attempted to make the moratorium for the watershed permanent in 2020. The permanent moratorium was ultimately rejected, but a loophole in the language of the temporary moratorium kept it on the books.
The division introduced a rule change this past summer to once again try to make the moratorium permanent, this time alongside other, unrelated changes to Regulation 6 as a whole that staff said were required to comply with federal environmental regulations.
Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture was working on its own version of liquid animal waste rules, which fell under the division's authority until a 2023 law change shifted the responsibility for those permits to the agriculture department.
That law enabled the department to exclude notification requirements from the rule by striking language passed into state law in 2017 that required regulators to give notice within 120 days of its proposed actions when it received an application or modification for a liquid animal waste permit.
Act 824 of 2023, which transferred the authority over liquid animal waste permits from the Division of Environmental Quality to the Department of Agriculture, removed that language from state law.
The lead sponsor for the act was Rep. DeAnn Vaught, who is a hog, dairy and chicken farmer and vice chair of the rules subcommittee.
The Division of Environmental Quality, when it was in charge of liquid animal waste permitting, required that local governments receive notice and that permit applications make reasonable efforts to inform landowners adjacent to an area where the permit would be in effect of the application. Under the Department of Agriculture's rule, public notice would only be required to be posted on its website.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us