Arkansas lawmaker will revise bill regarding watershed moratoriums

Don Hubble, an Independence County beef producer and second vice president of the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association, speaks in support of a bill affecting permit moratoriums in state watersheds to the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. The bill sponsor pulled the bill down for revisions. (Screenshot from Senate livestream)

Senate panel members, opponents express concern about rule-making law; farming interests support measure

By Mary Hennigan, Special to the Arkansas Advocate

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.”

‘Nail in the coffin of Gov. Sanders’ outdoor economy’
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.”

The Arkansas Advocate is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization dedicated to tough, fair daily reporting and investigative journalism that holds public officials accountable and focuses on the relationship between the lives of Arkansans and public policy.