Crop‑residue burning bill fails after heated testimony over smoke, liability and app controls

House Bill 10‑45, sponsored by Representative Kavanaugh, would have required people planning crop residue burns to report the burn to the Department of Agriculture, follow guidelines accessed through an app or reporting process and — if they complied — receive limited liability protection. The bill was defeated on the House floor by a vote of 33 yeas, 40 nays and 14 present.

Kavanaugh told members the measure was aimed at balancing farmers' need for a low‑cost field management tool with public health and safety concerns after several high‑profile smoke incidents disrupted traffic, canceled community events and caused quality‑of‑life complaints in parts of northeast Arkansas. He said an upgraded reporting app and built‑in meteorological checks would indicate whether conditions were favorable and that the statute would become effective July 1, 2026 to allow time for agencies and industry to implement guidance.

Questioning centered on whether the law would simply require notification or implicitly amount to prior approval. Representative Aldridge, Representative Duffield and others pressed the sponsor on contingency when winds change mid‑burn, whether the app constitutes an approval process, and whether local dispatch would be swamped by calls about permitted burns. Kavanaugh said the bill did not require formal approval; rather it created liability protection only where a burn followed the guidelines and reporting procedures. He also told colleagues the app upgrade would cost about $100,000.

Opponents, including members of farming districts, said the measure created an extra regulatory step and used mandatory language that could impose new burdens on farmers. Representative Lynch said farmers in his district opposed the bill because it added regulation and substituted a “shall” requirement where previously there had been voluntary practice.

Proponents argued the law offered legal protection for farmers who follow agreed standards and a path to reduce hazardous smoke incidents that have endangered motorists.

The House rejected the bill by roll call: 33‑40‑14. The sponsor said he intends to work with stakeholders on a narrower zone or targeted approach.

Why it matters: The vote follows high‑visibility traffic incidents in the region caused by smoke; supporters sought a framework to reduce those incidents while preserving burning as a farm practice. Opponents said the proposal would impose new obligations without finalized guidance.

Formal action: Motion to pass House Bill 10‑45 — failed 33 yes, 40 no, 14 present.