A needless law

Act 10 redundant

Our new state law, Act 10 of the Second Extraordinary Session of 2018, which limits when the public can comment on permits previously issued to farms (animal factories), wasn’t necessary because it needlessly codified existing Department of Environmental Quality regulations.

A proposed bill (floated before Act 10 was passed) had been actively pushed by the Farm Bureau soon after the agency denied the controversial C&H Hog Farms a revised permit to continue operating in the karst-riddled Buffalo National River watershed. That piece of special legislation wisely was rejected.

While some legislators insist its unnecessary act doesn’t directly pertain to C&H, it does limit the public’s ability to officially express views about such meat-producing factories once our state awards a Regulation 5 operating permit, even though such restrictions already were in force.

In plainest English, nothing significant has changed. Meanwhile, C&H’s denied application for a Regulation 5 permit is pending appeal.

I asked Gordon Watkins, head of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, for his thoughts.

“While I commend legislators who voted no on Act 10, I’m trying to gain a better understanding of reasons why someone would vote ‘present,’ or ‘excused’ as their conviction on such an important matter,” he said.

Was this lawmaking exercise simply a diluted effort to pacify the politically influential Farm Bureau whose original bill (shepherded by Rep. DeAnn Vaught) somehow aimed toward protecting C&H? Some believe so. Legislators who voted against Act 10 must have realized that it, because of its obvious timing and content, was spurred by the C&H matter and overtly suppressive of the public’s ability to address relevant concerns even after an official comment period closed.

“As we well know after over its five years of operation, because we did not comment when C&H was first issued its permit (due to ADEQ’s practically non-existent public notice) under existing regulations,” Watkins continued, “we were repeatedly denied the right to challenge anything other than occasional (Reg. 6) permit modifications. Act 10 just restates that fact as law. It was only when C&H applied for an entirely new (Reg. 5) permit, finally triggering a fresh public comment period after five years, that we finally were able to address the full extent of the permit.

“What’s concerning to me is that the new law now codifies suppression of the public’s right to challenge a permit that may be causing damage because of siting or location issues. For instance, let’s say years after a permit is issued, something changes that reveals a problem. Perhaps new technology emerges, enabling better detection of environmental impacts. Maybe geological features are found which pose a risk unknown when the permit was issued. … This act makes it impossible to address those problems through official public comments. One would expect ADEQ to step in if violations occur. But excuse me if I lack full faith and confidence in ADEQ’s willingness to properly address permit problems. As we’ve seen with C&H, it took the public to convince ADEQ to deny the revised permit application.”

Watkins said Act 10 was vastly different from the initial Vaught draft bill, much to the disappointment of its special-interest sponsors. “But, as reported, [the lawmakers] had to do something to assuage concerns of bankers and permit holders who had been unduly stirred up by Farm Bureau. I’m sure the change was due to public outcry over the initial overruled attempt to craft legislation that would protect C&H. That was something cooler heads understood was unconstitutional and would be successfully challenged in court. “Mostly I think Act 10 is a waste of the Legislature’s time and taxpayers’ money. At least a handful could see that and voted against it.”

Attorney Richard Mays of Heber Springs, who represents the watershed alliance, said legislators opposing the act apparently took time to read it and exercise their own judgment rather than relying solely on the representations of the bill’s sponsors.

Because so many Arkansans are concerned for the welfare and future of our first national river and the insistence of our compliant Legislature to enact even a needless law, I decided to list and salute those with the moxie not to support Act 10, as well as those not voting or voting “present.”

Senators against: Will Bond, Linda Chesterfield, Joyce Elliott, Keith Ingram, Uvalde Lindsey and David Sanders. Not voting: Eddie Cheatham, Jonathan Dismang, Missy Irvin and Bryan King. Excused from voting: Stephanie Flowers and Gary Stubblefield (the bill’s Senate sponsor).

Representatives against: Eddie Armstrong, Andy Davis, Greg Leding, Rebecca Petty, Warwick Sabin and David Whitaker. Not voting: Charlie Collins, Joe Farrer, Vivian Flowers, Michael John Gray, Tim Lemons, Reginald Murdock and John Walker. Voting present: Fred Allen, Stephen Meeks, Clarke Tucker, Charles Blake, Milton Nicks Jr., Monte Hodges, Clint Penzo, Fredrick Love, Laurie Rushing, Stephen Magie, George McGill, James Sorvillo and James Sturch.

I’d suffer through with an excruciating hangnail rather than be excused, vote present or not even vote on a matter as important as being on record protecting Arkansas’ golden goose.