Animal farm bills advance at legislative session

The Arkansas House and Senate on Wednesday approved their versions of bills that would ensure limitations on what the public can say and when on existing state animal-farm permits.

Senate Bill 8 and House Bill 1007 passed their respective chambers — SB8 by 21-7 and HB1007 by 73- 6. Four members of the Senate did not vote, while in the House, seven did not vote and 13 voted present. Today is expected to be the last day of a special legislative session dealing with a limited agenda set by Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

The companion bills, which will go to the opposite chambers today for their next vote, stipulate that “liquid animal waste management system” permits, issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, can be subject only to public comments about proposed modifications at the time they are proposed. Further, the permit holder would not be subject to review or an appeal from a third party over issues dealing with the location of the farm if those issues were not raised during the review phase of the original permit application.

The bills were spurred by fears in the agriculture community after the Department of Environmental Quality denied a new permit to C&H Hog Farms near the Buffalo National River in Mount Judea. Lawmakers said farmers were concerned that their permits could be challenged now for any reason that may be raised in a public comment period or another review.

Rep. Jeff Wardlaw, R-Hermitage, the sponsor of HB1007, has stated repeatedly that the bill would not affect C&H Hog Farms because C&H is not an existing state permit holder.

Opponents of the farm have questioned whether the language in the bill is specific enough to ensure that is true and have contended that they would want to be able to comment on existing permits if pertinent environmental issues were to emerge.

Sen. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, voted against the bill and asked during discussion on the Senate floor whether the bill’s language would prevent a third party from challenging a permit holder once they discovered a problem at the permit holder’s facility that perhaps the Department of Environmental Quality refused to pursue.

“I think what Sen. Elliott just outlined is a possible future occurrence,” said Sen. David Sanders, R-Little Rock.

Sanders voted against the bill, he said, out of concern for what passing it could mean for future legislation.

“My concern is that while authors of bill and testimony said the bill doesn’t really accomplish much, I think it does establish the precedent of rolling back third-party appeal rights, which I don’t think is a precedent the Legislature ought to set,” Sanders said.

Sanders was the lone dissenting voice vote at an earlier Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee meeting that advanced the Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch.

Earlier in the day, the House

of Representatives passed its version of the bill.

Rep. Kim Hendren, R-Gravette, said he had gotten an email Wednesday morning from someone asking why lawmakers couldn’t just add language in the bill that would ensure it would only affect existing or prospective hog farms.

“You don’t have to, Rep. Hendren,” Wardlaw said.

C&H would not be affected “because C&H Hog Farm does not hold a Regulation 5 permit,” he said.

Rep. Rebecca Petty, R-Rogers, said she was getting emails similar to the one Hendren received and asked why the bill was needed now.

Existing farms need reassurance, Wardlaw said.

“They need this clarified,” he said.

Both Hendren and Petty voted against the bill.

Before the House vote, the Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee approved on a voice vote Senate Bill 8.

Sanders, like other lawmakers Tuesday, asked repeatedly why the bill was needed if supporters said it didn’t actually change department practices.

Wardlaw repeatedly stated that the bill would ease fears among farmers and put a current practice by the Department of Environmental Quality in more precise words in the Arkansas Code. But it would not change anything, he said.

Stubblefield, speaking to reporters after the meeting, said that without the bill, permit holders could be sued.