Arkansas Advocate

Arkansas panel defers vote on rule that would limit public notice of CAFO permit applications

Critics of the rule have supported a separate rule banning CAFOs from the Buffalo River watershed

BY: TESS VRBIN - NOVEMBER 14, 2024 

Arkansas lawmakers deferred action on two proposed rules regarding large livestock farms from Thursday to next month.

The Arkansas Legislative Council’s Administrative Rules subcommittee heard public comment from several individuals who criticized a state Department of Agriculture rule that would limit public notice of new permit applications for livestock and poultry farms to the department’s website.

The department promulgated the rule as part of the enactment of Act 824 of 2023, which gave the agency regulatory authority over large livestock farms, often known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) previously held this authority.

Environmental advocates told the Arkansas Times in September that ADEQ’s transparency policy regarding livestock farming permits included notifying local news outlets, elected officials and school districts.

This level of transparency is the “minimum” a community deserves if a business seeks to start a CAFO nearby, said Allan Mueller, a wildlife biologist who spoke to the Rules subcommittee on behalf of the Arkansas Audubon Society.

Rules subcommittee members did not second a motion to suspend its rules, which was necessary in order to take up the proposed rule because the Agriculture Department submitted it two days after the subcommittee’s Oct. 15 agenda deadline.

Rep. DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio, said after the meeting that she could not predict whether the lack of action on the rule would lead to any changes before the December meeting. Vaught is a Southwest Arkansas livestock farmer, the House vice chair of the Rules subcommittee and a sponsor of Act 824.

The subcommittee also did not vote on a rule from the Department of Energy and Environment that would place a moratorium on CAFOs in North Arkansas’ Buffalo River watershed, a move that environmental advocates have praised.

The energy department’s rule is a response to Act 46 of 2023, which exempted property owners’ associations from certain permit actions related to water pollution.

Brian Thompson, president of the conservation group The Ozark Society, pointed out to the Rules subcommittee that the energy and environment department’s rule requires applicants for CAFO permits to notify property owners adjacent to the proposed farm site, as well as city and county leaders and school district superintendents. He said the agriculture department’s rule should have the same criteria.

“Everyone deserves the respect of appropriate public notification,” Thompson said, mentioning recent public outcry from Franklin County residents about the state’s $2.95 million purchase of 815 acres to build a new prison.

Mueller noted that CAFOs often cause pollution, odors and excessive noise.

“The technical requirements prepared by the Department of Agriculture address many of these issues, but they do not create confidence that these regulations by themselves are enough to avoid damages to surrounding communities and property values,” Mueller said.

Residents of an area where a CAFO is proposed can “identify characteristics and issues that otherwise would not be considered in the application process,” he added, and communication between locals, businesses and the state can “result in an operation that meets the needs of the agricultural community and local interests.”

People who want to be aware of the existence or progress of CAFO applications would have to check the Agriculture Department’s website every day and instead should rely on the department to contact them directly, Mueller said.

The third voice in opposition to the rule was Bill Rector, former publisher of the Daily Record, a Little Rock law and business news outlet that publishes public notices.

Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said he would save his comments for the subcommittee’s Dec. 19 meeting. Thompson also said he would be back next month.

Thompson said after the meeting that he hoped the lack of a vote on the Agriculture Department’s rule meant it would be amended.