Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Arkansas Advocate
New amendments to a bill that environmental advocates feared would endanger a moratorium on large animal farms in the Buffalo River watershed helped the legislation advance from a House committee on Thursday.
In a reversal, the secretaries of the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment and the Department of Agriculture said negotiations with Senate Bill 290’s House sponsor and the governor’s office yielded amendments they said will protect the existing moratorium.
SB 290 is sponsored by Rep. DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio, and Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning.
The watershed moratorium, which has been in place for 10 years, quickly emerged at the beginning of the legislative session as a flashpoint between the environmentalists who fought for the ban in the first place and agricultural interests who said it infringed on private property rights.
“It’s going to preserve the existing ones that are there,” Vaught said of the newly amended legislation. “The moratoriums going from this point forward, it establishes a clear process and procedure for our adoption of any implemented new moratoriums in the state of Arkansas.”
Energy and Environment Sec. Shane Khoury told the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee Thursday there were three things everyone could agree on: the importance of agriculture to the state’s economy, that tourism is also a large economic driver, and that the Buffalo River deserves “heightened protection.”
“I’ve always believed that these things are not mutually exclusive, that we can do all things we need to do at the same time. We can recognize the significance of agriculture, we can encourage tourism, and we can protect the Buffalo, all at the same time,” Khoury said. “In fact, I think we’ve been doing that for the past ten years; this amendment allows us to continue to do all of these things.”
SB 290 was introduced at the end of February and finally passed the Senate last week. When it was heard in the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee Tuesday, members pushed it to the full House by a narrow margin, before Vaught pulled it from the floor in order to make it more “palatable” Wednesday night.
Vaught said she didn’t have much involvement with the form the legislation took when it was moving through the Senate, but said she participated in negotiations once it reached the House.
“Yesterday, we had a meeting where we spoke with the governor for a good while,” Vaught said after the House committee voted to move the amended bill back to the House floor without audible opposition. “I got to give her my concerns about farmers that are already existing within the Buffalo River, and I want those farmers to be protected … and then she wanted to be able to protect the Buffalo River.”
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders has said repeatedly that she does not support legislation that does not protect the watershed.
“This revised bill is the result of our valuable partnership with Senator Johnson and Representative Vaught and achieves our goal of both protecting the Buffalo National River and supporting Arkansas farmers, whose success is critical to our state,” said Sam Dubke, Sanders’ spokesperson, in a written statement.
The amendments add language exempting existing moratoriums from the proposed legislation — keeping the existing moratoriums for the Buffalo River watershed and the Lake Maumelle watershed in place, while making the Legislature a bigger part of the process if another moratorium becomes necessary in the future by keeping in place language for approval of future moratoriums that was introduced while it was in a Senate committee.
“With the new version, we’re definitely going to keep it [the existing moratorium] in place, so I don’t foresee there being any future looks at the Buffalo River,” Vaught said, describing the changes as “a great compromise.”
“We should want to protect something that’s so pristine,” Vaught added.
Previous versions of SB 290 sparked strong opposition from environmental groups, who feared those versions, if passed, would end up eliminating the permit moratorium, and again allow another facility like C&H Hog Farms to open up shop in the watershed, endangering the Buffalo National River. The state of Arkansas spent $6.2 million to buy out the farm and shut it down in 2019, after years of efforts led by groups such as the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
The president of the Ozark Society, another environmental group that has been opposed to SB290, declined to comment on Thursday’s passage, saying it was too early to do so.
Multiple people spoke against the bill before the committee last week, urging lawmakers to protect “the jewel” of the state of Arkansas.
Richard Johnson, of Little Rock, said the moratorium needed to remain in place, citing pollution hazards posed by swine CAFOs, or concentrated animal feed operations.
“They tend to pollute way beyond their footprint,” Johnson said.
The moratorium was first put in place a decade ago by the Department of Energy and Environment’s Division of Environmental Protection’s (DEQ) predecessor, in response to public outcry over the C&H Hog Farms in the watershed. Environmental advocates said the runoff from the operation was polluting the watershed, which contains the nation’s first, and Arkansas’ only, national river — although advocates for farmers like Vaught and Arkansas Farm Bureau said that was not true.
Democrat Gazette
by Josh Snyder
Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signaled her support Thursday for a bill that would establish additional regulations for state agencies seeking to get or maintain permit moratoriums on certain farming operations in watersheds "and other bodies of water."
Sanders' endorsement of Senate Bill 290 by Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, came shortly after a newly amended version of the bill advanced from the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee with no audible dissent. Rep. DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio, presented the bill to the panel, flanked by three cabinet secretaries.
The latest version of the bill would preserve the state's two existing moratoriums -- on the Buffalo National River and Lake Maumelle watersheds -- while ensuring the Arkansas Legislature plays a role in the moratorium process.
In an emailed statement, Sanders said, "This revised bill is the result of our valuable partnership with Senator Johnson and Representative Vaught and achieves our goal of both protecting the Buffalo National River and supporting Arkansas farmers, whose success is critical to our state."
Vaught said in an interview after the committee meeting that they met with Sanders on Wednesday "for a good while" to discuss SB290. Previously, the governor had said that she "would not support legislation that doesn't protect the Buffalo National River," and numerous advocates had in previous weeks spoken passionately against versions of the bill that they said would damage the Buffalo National River and Lake Maumelle watersheds.
If the amended bill were to become law, it would go into effect Feb. 1, 2026.
The three secretaries who joined Vaught in speaking before the panel were Arkansas Energy and Environment Secretary Shane Khoury, Agriculture Secretary Wes Ward and Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism Secretary Shea Lewis.
Khoury told the panel all involved parties could agree upon three concepts: first, that agriculture is Arkansas' top industry; second, that tourism is a significant and growing economic driver for the state; and third, that the Buffalo National River is a "significant," extraordinary water resource that "does deserve heightened protection."
"I've always believed these things are not mutually exclusive, that we can do all the things we need to do at the same time and we can recognize the significance of agriculture," Khoury said. "We can encourage tourism, and we can protect the Buffalo all at the same time. In fact, I think we've been doing that for the past 10 years. This amendment allows us (to) continue to do all of these things."
Under the amended bill, the existing protections for the Buffalo National River and Lake Maumelle watersheds would be preserved, he said. Those moratoriums restrict large farming operations that could negatively affect water quality.
[LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR: Catch up on this week's meetings » arkleg.state.ar.us/]
Previous versions of the bill would have required action to be taken by April 1, 2026, in order to maintain those existing watershed moratoriums, putting those moratoriums before the Arkansas Legislative Council or Joint Budget Committee for consideration.
The amended bill would still establish a procedure for the adoption of new moratoriums "should the need ever exist," Khoury said. That procedure would involve an "increased review of the Legislature, which we think is important."
Future moratoriums under the bill would require the promulgation of a rule that would go before lawmakers for consideration. The bill would set an expiration date of four years for new moratoriums.
Under the bill, if a state agency wishes to continue a moratorium that is instituted after the effective date of the bill, they must submit it to the Arkansas Legislative Council or, if the General Assembly is in session, the Joint Budget Committee for review and approval.
"If any new moratoriums were to come about, (legislators) would actually get to be a part of the process," Vaught said. "We were not a part of the process the first time."
The text of the amended version also replaces a section titled "existing moratoriums" and replaces it with a section titled "existing rule."
The new section reads, "The Department of Agriculture shall utilize the current Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's rules on Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems, 8 CAR pt. 24, formerly known as Regulation No. 5, to administer the department's authority over liquid animal waste management systems under (Arkansas Code) 15-20-102 until the department adopts the final rules regarding liquid animal waste management systems."
Under the bill, a moratorium is defined as "a prohibition on the issuance of permits or any other limitation on agricultural production, including without limitation, livestock and poultry operations, contained animal feeding operations, and the cultivation of crops and orchards."
House Speaker Brian Evans, R-Cabot, said that he believed the bill would have passed in his chamber as it was originally drafted, but that the sponsors' work with Sanders "brought a better piece of legislation forward."
"It looks like we're in a good place on that," Evans said.
On April 3, the Senate voted 22-9 to send SB290 to the House for further consideration.
Johnson's bill received the endorsement of the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee on April 1, just more than two weeks after Johnson pulled an earlier version of the bill from the panel's consideration.
Support journalism that digs deeper into topics that matter most to Arkansans. Donate today to preserve the quality and integrity of local journalism.
Arkansas Times
by Phillip PowellApril 9, 2025 5:24 pm
A bill that threatens to allow industrial hog farming in the Buffalo National River watershed just hit another speedbump on its way to the governor’s desk.
Senate Bill 290, a measure championed by the agriculture industry, passed out of both the House Agriculture and Senate Agriculturecommittees on close votes after being stalled in the Legislature for months. But on Tuesday, Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio) voluntarily had the bill referred back to the House Agriculture Committee just as they were getting close to passage, saying that they intended to amend it.
In the House hearing on Monday, members of Gov. Sarah Sanders’ administration testified against the bill, but it still passed narrowly with only Republican votes. The Arkansas Times reached out to the governor’s office for comment on whether she would veto the bill or not, and did not hear back. Her office stopped short of telling the Arkansas Advocate that she would veto the bill last week as it began making more progress.
The bill would limit the ability of the state Department of Agriculture and the state Department of Energy and Environment to place a moratorium on farming in a watershed. To do so, state agencies would need to propose a rule that would require renewal every four years. Like most state agency rules, it would be subject to approval by the Legislature before going into effect.
The bill would also require the Legislature to reconsider current farming permit moratoriums, such as the bans in the watersheds of Lake Maumelle and the Buffalo River, within 90 days of the bill going into effect in January 2026. Giving the Legislature the opportunity to overturn the longstanding moratoriums on the two watersheds has drawn harsh opposition from conservation groups and proponents of outdoor recreation in the state.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau and Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association support the bill, and the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning), said in the Senate hearing that the bill was drafted by the Farm Bureau.
While farm industry groups like the bill as protecting their “right to farm” from permit moratoriums, conservationists and proponents of the growing outdoor recreation economy in Arkansas believe the bill will make it more difficult for the state to protect important public waters like the Buffalo River from polluting industrial farms like large hog concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. Groups like the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Sierra Club, and Ozark Society have been rushing to the state Capitol for weeks to make the case against the bill.
The moratorium on the Buffalo National River only applies to concentrated hog farms with more than 3,000 hogs weighing less than 55 pounds, or farms with more than 7 50 hogs weighing more than 55 pounds. The moratorium was approved by the Legislature in 2014, but new rules are needed now that the state Department of Agriculture has permitting authority over CAFOs.
The new fight over industrial farming in the Buffalo River watershed began last year when the state Department of Agriculture and state Department of Energy and Environment proposed two rules that would have made the CAFO moratorium permanent. But that effort stalled last December.
Despite governor’s opposition, GOP lawmakers advance bill to loosen hog farming restrictions near Buffalo River
by Phillip Powell April 7, 2025 9:08 pm
A bill by agriculture industry groups that threatens to undo the ban on industrial hog farming in the Buffalo National River watershed continues to progress through the Arkansas Legislature.
Senate Bill 290 passed the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Economic Development on Monday evening in a nailbiter vote after easily passing the Senate last week. Rep. Roger Lynch (R- Lonoke), the chair of the committee, had to cast the tiebreaking vote. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson (R- Corning) and Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), who are both active members of the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
Now the bill heads to a final vote in the House, even as conservation organizations warn that the bill will make it harder to protect the Buffalo from pollution.
They have an unexpected ally in the fight: Gov Sarah Sanders. Sanders has made tourism and “outdoor recreation” a priority, and the National Park Service says the Buffalo brings in over a million visitors annually to the area. But the committee passed the bill despite testimony from a string of Sanders administration officials urging a “no” vote, including Secretary of Agriculture Wes Ward.
Farm industry groups like the Farm Bureau and Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association have been pushing the bill as securing the “right to farm.” Members of both organizations have expressed concern that it’s too easy for state agencies to place moratoriums on farm permits in the state’s watersheds .
“Permanent moratoriums or bans that could impact an entire economic sector, in this case agriculture, our state’s largest industry, should be left to the General Assembly,” Magen Allen, a board member of Arkansas Farm Bureau, said at the hearing.
But the law would also require the Legislature to reconsider current farming permit moratoriums within 90 days of the bill becoming law in January 2026. Those include bans in the watersheds of Lake Maumelle and the Buffalo River. Opponents of the bill fear that its passage could allow legislators to shoot down the moratorium on industrial hog farming on the Buffalo, which has been in place since 2014.
Hundreds of Arkansans have been emailing their legislators and traveling to the state Capitol to testify against the bill this session. Opponents of the bill are concerned about concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, being permitted near the Buffalo National River watershed. CAFOs can oversaturate waterways with excess nitrogen and phosphorus that can create harmful algae blooms, as well as other chemicals from farm runoff.
In the 2010s, a CAFO called C&H Hog Farm operated in the watershed before being bought out and shut down by the state government after a public pressure campaign against the farm. Currently, there aren’t any hog CAFOs permitted in the Buffalo National River watershed.
Conservationists may not have much sway in the Legislature, but Gov. Sanders does. Three of her cabinet secretaries showed up Monday night to speak against the bill: Shane Khoury, with the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment; Shea Lewis, with the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism; and Wes Ward, with the Arkansas Department of Agriculture.
“We have a unique resource in our Buffalo River. It is the first national river, recognized in 1972, and it is also an extraordinary resource of water and it deserves heightened protection,” Khoury said. “The reasons why we urge you to oppose Senate Bill 290 are fairly simple. First of all, there is an existing process already in place that gives the Legislature full review and approval authority over all rules and regulations. And second, the language that is written is overbroad and will create unintended consequences. And third, the purpose we believe is to eliminate the current moratoriums on the Buffalo River watershed and Lake Maumelle.”
Khoury said the new rules proposed by state regulators, like the moratorium currently in place, would apply only to large hog CAFOs, meaning those operating with 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds or 750 or more swine weighing more than 55 pounds. The new rules would keep the ban in place indefinitely. He also said the current moratoriums were approved by the Legislature back in 2014.
Despite the governor’s appointees weighing in, Johnson’s bill won the day.
“Our law in Arkansas, our freedom of farming, is only if we don’t encroach on our neighbors, and that is the best protection you are guaranteed,” Blake Johnson said. “This moratorium is a moratorium that don’t allow for an agricultural producer to apply for a permit. That can be expanded into all bodies of water and all streams in the state. It’s limited right now, but this bill will protect it for the future.” He urged “a good vote for the agricultural producers of Arkansas.”
Several Republican representatives including Matthew Shepherd (R-El Dorado), Steve Unger (R-Tontitown), and Carlton Wing (R-North Little Rock) voted with Democrats against the bill.
The new fight over industrial farming in the Buffalo River watershed began last year when the state Department of Agriculture and state Department of Energy and Environment proposed two rules that would have made the CAFO moratorium permanent. The effort stalled last December, before the legislative session began. Those rules were drafted after a new law transferred permitting authority over large CAFOs to the Department of Agriculture, setting off a need for both agencies to update their rules.
An earlier version of the legislation from Johnson and Vaught stalled out for weeks in the Senate Agriculture committee. Then they filed a new version — SB 290 — which passed the Senate committee last week, and then the full Senate.
Opponents of the bill may have missed their best chance to stop it in the Senate committee. It advanced out of committee on a voice vote last week — but half of the members on that committee voted against it when it came up for a vote in the full Senate on April 3.
Those senators are Sens. Jonathan Dismang (R-Searcy), Ben Gilmore (R-Crossett), Greg Leding (D-Fayetteville), and Jamie Scott (D-North Little Rock).
8 hours, 19 minutes ago by Bill Bowden
An Arkansas Senate committee passed a bill on Tuesday that would require additional regulations for state agencies to follow to get or maintain permit moratoriums on certain farming operations in watersheds "and other bodies of water."
The bill would require action to be taken by April 1, 2026, for the state's two watershed moratoriums to remain in place.
Senate Bill 290, sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, would require a state agency wishing to continue a permit moratorium to present it to the Arkansas Legislative Council, or if the Legislature is in session the Joint Budget Committee, "for review and approval" by April 1, 2026. That's a year and 90 days after the law would go into effect.
Otherwise, the moratorium "shall expire immediately," according to the bill.
The bill puts the onus on state agencies -- with approval by the Legislature -- to keep moratoriums in the Buffalo River and Lake Maumelle watersheds, said two Little Rock lawyers who spoke against it during Tuesday's meeting of the Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee.
Such moratoriums restrict large farming operations that could affect water quality. The bill doesn't mention either watershed specifically.
Lake Maumelle provides much of the drinking water for Central Arkansas.
A temporary moratorium was placed on the Buffalo River watershed after the permitting of a large swine farm caused a controversy that ended after years of litigation and Arkansas paying $6.2 million to C&H Hog Farm's owners in 2019. The state got the land in the form of a conservation easement.
The Buffalo National River, which attracted 1.7 million visitors last year, is a "gem" that shouldn't be the location for a hog farm, said several people who spoke during Tuesday's meeting.
The Legislative Council was established by Act 264 of 1949 to collect data and information upon which legislative decisions will be made during regular session of the General Assembly. The council's members are legislators.
"It started out with a complete ban, or release of the moratorium, with Senate Bill 84," Sen. Johnson said at the beginning of Tuesday's meeting, referring to another bill he sponsored.
Senate Bill 84 is on the agenda for the Agriculture Committee's meeting on Thursday. It would end existing moratoriums and require state agencies to get the approval of the Legislative Council before implementing a moratorium.
"This bill (Senate Bill 290), it goes through the legislative process and Administrative Procedures Act and it defines moratorium," Johnson told the committee on Tuesday. It also sets an expiration date of four years for new moratoriums.
The bill defines a moratorium as "a prohibition on the issuance of permits or any other limitation on agricultural production, including without limitation, livestock and poultry operations, contained animal feeding operations, and the cultivation of crops and orchards."
"It just sets up a legislative process, oversight of the departments and where they have to come before us," said Johnson.
Richard Mays, a lawyer who represented the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance in the long-running litigation against C&H Hog Farm, spoke during the meeting.
"I think that this bill, with all due respect to Sen. Johnson, is a solution in search of a problem," said Mays. "And also I would say that with all due respect to the elevated intellect of every member of the Legislature here in Arkansas that these issues involve a lot of scientific evidence, a lot of scientific knowledge, and they require time and process to go through, and I don't know if you want to burden yourselves with hearing this type of thing."
John Fletcher, another Little Rock lawyer, expressed concern about the automatic revoking aspect of the bill.
"If we get to April 1, 2026, under this bill, and the ALC has not approved these two moratoriums, they will be revoked," he said during Tuesday's meeting. "That is the default outcome as I read this rule. And so I do think that this bill puts these moratoriums at risk. Without any act by anyone, with just the passage of time, these will be revoked. ... Approval by the ALC has to occur or these come off the books."
An amendment adding the Joint Budget Committee in addition to the Arkansas Legislative Council was made in a voice vote on Tuesday.
The bill also lays out the process for any newly proposed watershed moratoriums, which would require promulgating a rule to institute a moratorium and following the procedure under the Arkansas Administrative Procedure Act, § 25-15-201.
But watershed moratoriums have only been instituted twice and that was by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality under the supervision of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, said Mays.
"Moratoriums are not just placed willy-nilly by anybody," he told the committee on Tuesday.
The bill was returned by the committee with a recommendation that it "do pass" with the two amendments.
Bill Bowden covers a variety of news for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, primarily in Northwest Arkansas. He has worked at the newspaper for 16 years and previously worked for both the Arkansas Democrat and Arkansas Gazette.
by Phillip PowellApril 1, 2025 5:09 pm
The Senate Agriculture Committee passed a bill Tuesday that critics say will make it harder for state regulators to protect the Buffalo River, Lake Maumelle, and other watersheds from pollution from industrial farming operations, despite determined public opposition.
Senate Bill 290 passed on a voice vote, meaning the votes of individual committee members weren’t recorded. It next heads to the full Senate for consideration.
The watersheds surrounding both Lake Maumelle and the Buffalo National River have had informal moratoriums for years on permits for industrial farms called confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The most recent controversy began last fall, when the Department of Agriculture and Department of Energy and Environment proposed making the Buffalo River moratorium permanent. That effort stalled due to opposition from farming interests and legislators.
A previous version of Johnson’s bill would have required the Senate and House Agriculture committees to sign off on any proposed farming moratoriums by state regulators. The original bill failed to pass committee in early March in the face of bipartisan opposition.
Opposition to CAFOs near the Buffalo in particular led the state to buy out the C&H Hog Farm in 2019 after years of complaints that the operation could be polluting the beloved river. CAFOs concentrate livestock in small areas that produce an immense amount of animal waste that can pollute the air, soil, and nearby bodies of water.
The Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen’s Association argued that the state’s permanent moratorium proposals would violate the “right to farm.” Johnson has said the Farm Bureau authored the bill.
While farming industry groups like Johnson’s bill, a network of grassroots conservationists have been heading to Little Rock for months to speak against it.
Johnson’s bill would not strip the Buffalo River and Lake Maumelle of the farming moratoriums currently in place, but they would have to go through review and approval by the Legislature within 90 days of the bill going into effect. Environmental groups like the Sierra Club, Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and Ozark Society say that gives farming interests the opportunity to end the moratoriums once and for all.
“I had the great honor of representing the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and a number of other nonprofit organizations in litigation against the C&H Hog Farm regarding the propriety of the hog farm operating on the Buffalo River,” environmental attorney Richard Mays said at Tuesday’s committee meeting. “Moratoriums are not just placed willy nilly by anybody. And I think this bill, with all due respect to Sen. Johnson, is a solution in search of a problem.”
A representative from the Arkansas Farm Bureau argued that farmers’ livelihoods would be threatened if the state could apply permit moratoriums on any watershed. But, as Mays noted, only the watersheds near Lake Maumelle and the Buffalo River have had such a moratorium in place.
Johnson said his bill would create a process by which each moratorium could be considered on its merits.
Previously, several Republican committee members expressed opposition to Johnson’s bill. The Arkansas Times reported last month that Republican legislators said Johnson was negotiating the details with Gov. Sarah Sanders. But the “yes” votes were much louder on Tuesday’s vote, and the committee’s chair declared it had passed.
“There’s been a lot of testimony here today that should come when this bill is put in place,” Johnson said. “We are not here to debate the value of the Buffalo River or the moratorium. This is a process … that allows the Legislature the oversight over the departments that we, the Legislature, create. And it also gives us a better step in the rulemaking process to better protect agriculture production in the state of Arkansas.”
A bill that could strip away an environmental permit moratorium intended to protect the water quality of the Buffalo River watershed passed out of a Senate committee Tuesday.
Senate Bill 290, sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, passed the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee on a voice vote, with audible dissent.
The bill has gone through multiple revisions since it was introduced and has sparked strong opposition from environmental groups in the state that said removing the permit moratorium could again allow another facility like C&H Hog Farms to open up shop in the watershed, endangering the Buffalo National River. The state of Arkansas spent $6.2 million to buy the farm and shut it down in 2019, after years of efforts led by groups such as the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
Unlike previous versions of the bill, the latest version would not immediately strike the moratorium that is currently in place, but would instead require the Department of Energy and Environment’s Division of Environmental Quality and the Department of Agriculture to go through the rulemaking process again for the rules that contain the moratorium if the bill goes into law. The effective date for the bill, if passed, is Jan. 1, 2026, and agencies would have 90 days from that date to get approval for a moratorium.
The rules containing the moratorium would then go back before the Arkansas Legislative Council or the Joint Budget Committee after agencies approve them through their usual rulemaking processes. The council, according to Johnson, would be granted greater leeway to reject the moratorium once it goes before them under his bill.
Moratoriums would expire four years after their effective date under the bill, requiring agencies to resubmit them for consideration and requiring legislative council approval every four years.
Sam Dubke, a spokesperson for Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said the governor would not support legislation that did not protect the river.
“Governor Sanders appreciates Senator Johnson’s leadership and dedication to Arkansas agriculture, but she is opposed to legislation that does not protect the Buffalo National River,” Dubke wrote in an emailed statement.
Dubke did not say whether Sanders would sign the bill in its current form if it makes it through both chambers of the Legislature.
Multiple people spoke against the bill before the committee, urging lawmakers to protect “the jewel” of the state of Arkansas.
Little Rock resident Richard Johnson said the moratorium needed to remain in place, citing pollution hazards posed by swine CAFOs, or concentrated animal feed operations.
Mark Lambert, who represented Arkansas Farm Bureau, expressed support for the bill, saying that it was a “right-to-farm” issue. The bill wouldn’t take away any protections for the watershed — an assertion opponents of the bill pushed back against.
Committee members questioned why moratoriums would receive a “different threshold” for making it past the legislative council compared to other rules. Johnson said it was to return oversight to elected officials, and described the Buffalo River watershed moratorium, which has been in place for 10 years, as a slippery slope that could lead to other moratoriums.
“This is oversight of executive branch departments,” Johnson said. “The moratorium is something that’s an outlier also, in my opinion as an agricultural producer, because that’s not allowing an agricultural producer to even apply for a permit. … This is telling a producer that he can’t even attempt to use his property in the way he wants to, and this can be expanded beyond just CAFOs.”
The only other watershed-based moratorium is for Lake Maumelle, a primary source of drinking water for the Central Arkansas region.
Johnson said everyone agrees that people don’t want CAFOs in the Buffalo River watershed and he didn’t think a producer would put one there in the first place.
However, there is a long history of swine farms within the watershed beyond C&H Hog Farms — something the DEQ said explicitly in its response to the Farm Bureau’s comments on changes to Rule 6 last year that would have made the moratorium permanent.
“The potential impacts of swine farms, including farms large enough to be considered CAFOs, on the Buffalo River have been an ongoing concern in Arkansas, and the Division (or its predecessors) have taken action to mitigate the impacts of existing farms in that watershed,” the division wrote last year.
“In 1992, APC&EC Regulation 5 was adopted to address how liquid waste from swine farms should be handled. Also in 1992, the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology (the Division’s predecessor) issued an administrative notice regarding its intent not to issue permits in the Buffalo River Watershed. Following … that notice, Arkansas participated in the Buffalo River Swine Waste Demonstration Project, which was initiated in 1995, to improve swine manure management in the Buffalo River watershed.”
Beth Ardapple, a Newton County farmer, called out a “false narrative” that farmers were opposed to a moratorium when she spoke against the bill. She said the Buffalo River has served as an affordable vacation spot for Arkansans for decades and that it needed to be protected.
“I have great respect for my CAFO friends, people who own CAFOs. They love the land as I do. It’s simply that the science doesn’t support having the CAFO in the Buffalo River watershed,” Ardapple said.
Marti Olesen, the vice president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said her business on the river would not survive if a CAFO returned to the area and polluted the river.
“There is no other Buffalo River in Arkansas; it’s a national treasure,” Olesen said.
John Ray, a self-described environmentalist, said that one was not against farming if they supported protecting the state’s natural resources. Fishing and hunting businesses in the area were supportive of a permanent moratorium, he said, and tourism on the Buffalo River supports hundreds of jobs for concessioners, lodges and others who cater to those who enjoy the river each year.
“These things are not going to change every four years, and there is no slippery slope when it comes to these kinds of large CAFO moratoriums,” Ray said. “This moratorium in the Buffalo River has been in place for over ten years; there hasn’t been an avalanche of moratoriums on hog CAFOs in other areas of the state.”
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.”
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.
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.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us