House committee approves bill to give Legislature oversight of watershed moratoriums; opponents warn for Buffalo River and Lake Maumelle

At a hearing of the Arkansas House Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development Committee, lawmakers voted to give Senate Bill 290 a do-pass recommendation after several hours of testimony and questioning from farmers, conservation groups and state agency officials.

Representative Dan Bautch (District 87) introduced SB 290 as a measure to restore legislative review of moratoriums placed on permit activity in state watersheds. “We’re not trying to get rid of a moratorium. It’s just setting up a policy,” Bautch said, adding the bill would return review authority to lawmakers so they can “represent our people back home.”

Supporters of the bill argued it protects private property and agriculture from what they described as agency overreach. Mark Lambert, director of state affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said the legislation would give “elected officials a voice in the rule making process” and warned that singling out one industry in a watershed could have a chilling effect on other farm sectors. Several farmers and farm‑industry witnesses, including Travis Payne and Bob Shoffner, told the committee SB 290 would protect property rights and local economies in rural counties within affected watersheds.

Opponents said the bill is unnecessary and could weaken protections for drinking-water sources. Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and a longtime farmer in Newton County, urged the committee to consider that Ark. Code “ten-three-three 0 9” already requires legislative review of rule changes and called SB 290 “redundant” and a new layer of authority. Richard H. Mays, an attorney who represented the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance in litigation over a hog operation, said the existing moratoriums for the Buffalo River watershed and Lake Maumelle were based on scientific study and public hearings and are meant to protect water used for drinking.

State officials told the committee the current administrative and rulemaking processes already provide opportunities for legislative review. Shane Coring, representing the Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment, said Rules 5 and 6 currently include moratorium language and that those rules — and any pending amendments — are subject to legislative review. Wes Ward of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture said the department shares concerns that the bill’s language is broad and could affect permit terms unrelated to moratoriums. Shay Lewis, secretary of the Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism, warned that weakening moratorium authority could jeopardize tourism tied to the Buffalo National River and Lake Maumelle, which the state relies on for recreation and regional economies.

Committee members questioned witnesses about the scope and effect of SB 290. Representatives asked whether the bill would dissolve current moratoriums immediately (witnesses said it would not) and how the proposal would change the length or review schedule for moratoriums. Bautch said his bill would require moratoriums to come before the legislature for review within a set period and be reexamined on a schedule; opponents said the added review could create delays and reduce transparency because the bill creates a new process outside ordinary rulemaking.

After public testimony from more than a dozen speakers — including farmers, county residents and agency officials — the committee moved a do-pass recommendation for SB 290. The committee recorded the action in the hearing transcript and announced the bill would be advanced with a recommendation that the General Assembly consider it.

Votes at a glance (committee business recorded in the same hearing) • SB 290 — Committee recommendation: do pass (committee moved and approved a do-pass recommendation; roll call recorded in the transcript). Outcome recorded as approved by the committee. • HB 1900 — Committee action: motion to pass was made; transcript records a roll-call and later indicates the bill failed to pass the committee. • SB 550 — Committee action: do pass recommendation recorded; bill advanced without roll call recorded in the excerpt. • SB 464 — Committee action: do pass; bill advanced (raw‑milk/ dairy provisions described in testimony). • HB 19801 — Committee action: do pass; committee advanced clarifying liability language for tramway/mountain‑bike lift rules.

What happens next SB 290 will be reported out of committee with a do-pass recommendation and be scheduled for further consideration by the full House. Any change to moratorium authority would require additional action by both chambers and the governor to become law.