Democrat Gazette

Lawmaker withdraws bill addressing watershed moratoriums

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.