Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Democrat Gazette
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.
Support journalism that digs deeper into topics that matter most to Arkansans. Donate today to preserve the quality and integrity of local journalism.
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.
Arkansas Times
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 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 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.”
Arkansas Advocate
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.
“They tend to pollute way beyond their footprint,” Johnson said.
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.
by Phillip PowellMarch 4, 2025 2:07 pm
A bill that could make it harder for state agencies to prevent industrial hog farming in the Buffalo National River watershed continues to stall in a legislative committee as its sponsors negotiate key provisions.
Senate Bill 290, sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning) and Rep.DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio), would require state agencies, like the Arkansas Department of Agriculture and the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, to obtain legislative approval to implement a moratorium “on the issuance of permits in a watershed, including but without limitation, the Buffalo River watershed, or other body of water.”
These agencies would have to come before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development and the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development to obtain approval for a moratorium.
Johnson did not appear before the Senate Agriculture and Forestry Committee Tuesday to present the bill. Sen. Ronald Caldwell (R-Wynne), chair of that committee, said Johnson would need to present the draft legislation during another meeting next Tuesday or it would be taken off the agenda.
“In reality, Sen. Johnson was supposed to run his bill today, but he and [Gov. Sarah Sanders] are behind closed doors trying to come to an agreement on that,” Caldwell said.
When asked by the Arkansas Times, Caldwell said he could not disclose what the bill’s sponsors were discussing with Sanders, citing “privileged information.”
Requests for comment from the governor’s office have not been returned as of publication of this story. Johnson also did not return a request for comment.
The Buffalo River has been a massive draw for outdoor tourism in recent years, and Sanders’ administration has made growing the tourism industry a major economic priority for the state. The Walton family also has development interests around the Buffalo River, with the Runway Group, a development firm founded by Walton family members, working to invest in outdoor businesses in Northwest Arkansas.
The proposed legislation comes as the Department of Agriculture has been considering a rule concerning the Buffalo National River watershed as well as the permitting rules for concentrated animal feeding operations – essentially large-scale factory farms – across the state. There has been discussion of creating a permanent moratorium on issuing permits for commercial hog farms near the Buffalo River after a temporary halt to such operations was enacted in 2020 due to public outrage over an industrial hog farm that was built there.
Dozens of environmentalists from groups, like The Ozark Society, Sierra Club and the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, have been traveling to the state Capitol for weeks to provide public testimony. Those opposed to the legislation said they are concerned that the bill would unleash the permitting of industrial hog farms. Concentrated animal feeding operations, known as CAFOs, have large pollution footprints from the waste the animals produce.
Arkansas Farm Bureau, a supporter of SB290, said in a statement to the Arkansas Times that the legislation “does not allow for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) within any watershed, including the Buffalo River watershed, without regulatory approval and due process. The proposed pieces of legislation do not prevent moratoriums from being imposed. There are some who are making these irrational and emotionally charged claims, which are not truthful or based in fact.”
SB290 would require the state agriculture department and the energy and environment department to provide reports on approved moratoriums every other year to the legislative committees for review. Additionally, approved moratoriums would be valid “until June 30 of the second year following the approval of the moratorium.”
But crucially, should SB290 pass, any existing moratorium related to a watershed, including the Buffalo National River watershed, would have to go through an approval process within 30 days of SB290 becoming law “to remain enforceable” and any moratorium instituted before this legislation went into effect “that does not receive legislative approval within 30 days of the effective date of this act is unenforceable.”
Last year, Arkansas Farm Bureau urged the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality and the state Department of Agriculture not to adopt new regulations imposing a permanent moratorium on hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed. They opposed the rules on the grounds that it violated the “right to farm.”
NW Democrat Gazette
Buffalo National River deserves better from lawmakers
February 11, 2025 at 1:00 a.m.
by Fran Alexander
"No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session."
-- Gideon John Tucker
American lawyer, newspaper editor, 1866
It's likely readers familiar with Arkansas' environmental challenges are sick and tired of the whiplashing threats to the state's best-known natural wonder, the Buffalo River. The issues seem constant, and perhaps that's part of a wearing-down effort by those opposed to the Buffalo's role as a river instead of a sewer.
For review on today's docket of the Arkansas Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry is Senate Bill 84 to "prohibit a moratorium on the issuance of permits in watersheds and other bodies of water." Its sponsors are Sens. Blake Johnson of Corning and DeAnn Vaught of Horatio, both listed as farmers.
Creation of a permanent moratorium on permitting large- or medium-sized swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed has been an ongoing effort of environmental organizations and individuals. Their exhausting seven-year battle to close a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) finally succeeded in 2019, but no permanent protection has been enacted. SB84 is the backlash to counter a permanent protection effort.
What most Arkansawyers probably don't know is what goes on, or doesn't, behind the scenes in the sausage making of legislation. The toll and toil extracted from citizens trying to stay informed, to show up in numbers and to have input is enormous. Traveling to Little Rock to attend meetings with the hope of speaking (if allowed) on bills can take distant attendees seven or more driving hours in a day or cost an overnight stay, plus meals, gas, parking and time away from work.
Today might be the fourth or fifth time the SB84 sponsor has not shown up to run his bill, which places it on the committee's deferred list. If opponents give up and finally stop showing up, the bill might appear to have no opposition. It's easy for a legislator to find out if there are many attendees from the public in the room where his bill is scheduled and find an excuse not to appear.
The Rules Committee also did what seemed like a bait-and-switch routine a couple of times on this issue in late 2024 and never reviewed it. However, opponents spent hours contacting people, urging comments be made, notifying media what was afoot and some traveled to Little Rock. All these volunteer efforts were costly and futile.
Individuals and organizations have worked since the early 1960s to secure protections for this spectacular waterway, which carves a path through part of the Ozarks. The Ozark Society was founded in 1962 by Dr. Neil Compton of Bentonville to protect this river. After 10 years of effort to prevent the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from damming one of the few remaining free-flowing rivers in the country, activists secured its federal recognition as the Buffalo National River, the nation's first, in 1972.
There were issues over the years, of course, but perhaps the most threatening was the discovery in 2013 that a feeding operation for hogs had been permitted and built in the river's watershed. That intensified concerns that run-off of manure from fields and its leaching through the karst limestone underground might be feeding nutrients into the watershed of the Buffalo.
Among the consequences of poop washing into a watershed is the growth of algae, which has the potential to produce cyanotoxins. Those can be harmful to humans and animals, and such warnings discouraged swimming in the middle and lower parts of the river. This is not an appealing feature for tourism, a multi-million dollar industry. Yet still the Buffalo remains at risk.
Knowing that doing the same things in the watershed and expecting different results would not be smart, river protectors promoted the moratorium as a solution. Farming interests have opposed this as somehow interfering with their right to farm. Surely that does not -- and should not -- include a right to pollute.
After a total of 63 years of free labor by hundreds of volunteers through multiple generations, our legislators and governor owe the people of Arkansas explanations. Why are you continuing to risk one of the state's greatest assets? What do you want that's more important? Which of these risks do you not understand or want to ignore? How will you fix the river once it's poisoned? Can you ever fix it? What do you expect of us? What will you do if people ever quit their Save the Buffalo efforts?
Inquiring Arkies deserve to know.
Arkansasonline
January 22, 2025 at 6:39 p.m.
A bill that would eliminate an existing moratorium on swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed and prohibit future watershed-specific permit moratoriums without legislative council approval was filed Tuesday in the Arkansas Senate -- something one advocacy organization called an "obvious effort" to circumvent the rulemaking process.
The filing comes after the Division of Environmental Quality moved last year to make a temporary swine farm moratorium in the watershed permanent. The rulemaking the moratorium is contained in, Regulation 6, received hundreds of public comments from supporters and opponents. It was set to be heard by the rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council for approval in December, before it was abruptly pulled from the agenda the day before by the agencies, who cited procedural issues that necessitated the removal.
Senate Bill 84, if passed, would prohibit state agencies from instituting "a moratorium on the issuance of permits in a watershed, including without limitation the Buffalo River Watershed, or any other body of water" unless it gets approval from the Arkansas Legislative Council first.
Additionally, SB84 would render existing moratoriums -- such as the one on medium- and large-size concentrated animal-feeding operations in the Buffalo River watershed -- "unenforceable." The bill was referred to the Senate Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee.
Farm interests were staunchly opposed to the moratorium. Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, who introduced the bill, did not respond to a request for comment. Johnson is a farmer, as is the House sponsor Rep. DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio.
It is unclear whether the legislation, if passed, would result in any meaningful difference in current procedures. The current, temporary moratorium is part of the Division of Environmental Quality's rules, which already require Legislative Council review and approval for any changes.
[LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR: Catch up on this week's meetings » arkleg.state.ar.us/]
The most obvious impact would be the end of the animal-feeding operation moratorium in the Buffalo River watershed, which has been in place for the better part of 10 years after outcry over the issuance of permits to C&H Hog Farms.
The Division of Environmental Quality's predecessor began the process of instituting the moratorium in 2014, in response to the controversy with the C&H Hog Farm in the watershed. That moratorium, however, was temporary, with language that it had to be made permanent in five years or deleted from the rule.
The Division of Environmental Quality, which proposed the rule amendment, tried to make the moratorium permanent in 2020 in accordance with the temporary moratorium's language. It made it through the administrative process but was ultimately shot down during legislative review in the face of opposition from agricultural interests and skepticism from lawmakers.
The division brought it back to the commission last year as part of a group of amendments to Regulation 6, which governs the state's administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program, with the stated purpose of preserving the status quo in the watershed.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau, in public comments last year, said the moratorium wasn't supported by science and that it could lead to further restrictions on agricultural activity within the watershed. Department of Environmental Quality staff disagreed, saying that the impact of swine farms on the Buffalo River had been "an ongoing concern in Arkansas."
Watershed advocates were against SB84, with Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, saying his organization was disappointed but not surprised by the bill, and that removing the protections against concentrated animal-feeding operations in the watershed was "a recipe for a repeat" of the C&H Hog Farms "debacle."
"It's an obvious effort to circumvent those rule makings," Watkins said. He called the idea that the moratorium was a "slippery slope" to further agricultural prohibitions in the watershed a red herring, noting that the moratorium has been in place for nearly 10 years. "We haven't seen any efforts to expand that to other types of agriculture or to other parts of the state. ... I don't think anyone is interested in trying to stop agriculture in the state of Arkansas, that's just ridiculous."
Meanwhile, Ozark Society President Brian Thompson called the potential removal of the moratorium "a betrayal" after the millions of dollars the state of Arkansas spent to shut down C&H Hog Farms. He urged Arkansans to write to their representatives about the matter.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation said it was monitoring the bill.
by Phillip PowellJanuary 22, 2025 1:55 pm
Two state lawmakers filed a bill Tuesday that would prevent the state from banning hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed or other Arkansas waterways without specific clearance from a legislative panel.
Senate Bill 84 is sponsored by state Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio) and state Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning), who are both farmers. Vaught’s biography on the House of Representatives website says she is a member of the Arkansas Farm Bureau and the Arkansas Pork Producers Association.
The bill targets a pair of proposed rules from the state Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy and Environment that would make permanent a temporary moratorium on hog farming in the Buffalo River watershed. Environmental groups have been pushing for such a ban for years, sparked by the state’s 2013 approval of a hog farm in the Buffalo area that has since closed down. A legislative committee held a hearing on the proposed rules in November but did not make a decision; in December, the state agencies said they wanted more time to work on the rules and take public input into consideration.
But the bill from Vaught and Johnson would go beyond the Buffalo River, and prevent state agencies from placing a moratorium on permits for farming in any watershed or other body of water in the state unless they first obtained approval from the Arkansas Legislative Council.
Vaught and Johnson could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
The Farm Bureau, an industry group, strongly opposes the Department of Agriculture’s proposed moratorium, saying it violates the “right to farm.”
As one of the United States’ only national rivers, the Buffalo River draws millions of tourists every year and is seen as one of the natural treasurers of Arkansas. There’s been recent talk from a group connected to the Walton family of upgrading its status to a national park preserve. Local environmental groups such as The Ozark Society, The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Audubon Delta, and chapters of the Sierra Club have led public campaigns against farming in the watershed for years.
Those groups are particularly concerned about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) — industrial-scale farms which produce an immense amount of liquid animal waste that can pollute waterways with excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and other materials and chemicals. CAFOs confine large numbers of animals in a controlled environment to efficiently produce meat, dairy, or eggs. The controversy over hog farming in the Buffalo River area began with the granting of a permit to C&H Hog Farm in 2013, which caused public outrage and eventually led to then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson to place a temporary moratorium on CAFOs in the watershed in 2020. The moratorium language still stands today, making it government policy not to approve permits in the watershed, though the Legislature has not yet approved that language.
CAFOs must receive waste disposal permits to operate. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (which is now part of the Department of Energy and Environment) used to issue those permits to farms, until a 2023 law transferredpermitting authority to the Department of Agriculture. That legislation, which was seen as a win for agriculture interests, was also sponsored by Vaught.
The new proposed rule by the Department of Agriculture would place a permanent moratorium on “swine Confined Animal Operations” in the Buffalo River Watershed. But it would also limit public notice of new permit applications elsewhere in the state, effectively removing Arkansans’ ability to object to proposed CAFOs coming to their area. That has led environmentalists to oppose the rule and file dozens of public comments expressing their concern.
The Department of Agriculture dismissed those concerns, saying in a reply to public comment that “the notice process provided within the rule is sufficient.”
The rule proposed by the Department of Energy and Environment would also place a moratorium on swine CAFOs in the Buffalo River watershed, but it would apply to farms seeking a different type of waste disposal permit that regulates pollution sent directly into waterways. According to the most recent Environmental Protection Agency data, none of Arkansas’s 776 CAFOs have this type of permit.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us