Joint energy committee rejects bill to cap turbine height in Arkansas waterfowl areas

A joint House–Senate energy committee considered House Bill 11‑98 on proposed limits for wind turbines in areas used by migratory waterfowl and voted against advancing the measure.

The bill, introduced by Representative Jeremiah Moore (R‑District 61), would have barred turbines taller than 150 feet within a five‑mile radius of sites where 11 or more bird bands were recovered over the last 10 years and would have limited turbines on some leased sites to 50 feet. Sponsors said the measure was aimed at preventing displacement of ducks and geese that support hunting economies in eastern Arkansas. The committee voted on a motion to "do pass as amended" by voice vote; the motion failed.

Why it mattered

Proponents framed the bill as conservation legislation to protect the state’s wintering and stopover habitat along the Mississippi Flyway, highlighting local hunting and tourism revenue they said depends on waterfowl. Opponents — including wind developers, agricultural aviation representatives, and conservation groups — said the measure would amount to a near‑statewide moratorium, curtail private landowners’ ability to lease land and reduce economic development without settled science showing broad harm in Arkansas. Several witnesses urged a study bill or use of existing federal and state guidance for siting instead of an across‑the‑board height cap.

Sponsor arguments and the bill’s provisions

Representative Jeremiah Moore, who presented the bill, said the proposal was ‘‘based upon conservation’’ and rested in part on a post‑construction study from South Texas that he said showed a 77 percent local decline in waterfowl after turbines were installed. Moore said HB 11‑98 would prohibit turbines within a five‑mile radius of sites where 11 or more bird bands were collected in the past decade and would define ‘‘under construction’’ more narrowly in the amendment adopted earlier in the hearing.

Moore said the rule of 11 bands over 10 years would identify the state’s greatest concentrations of waterfowl and that the bill sought to protect small‑town economies that rely on hunting tourism. "If you look at that study, you will notice it says a 77% decrease in waterfowl in the area that the turbine site is located," he told the committee.

Opposition testimony and alternatives

Multiple witnesses representing developers and industry urged rejection or study. Emily Brummett, central region director of development for Triple Oak Power, said the company had completed multi‑year biological and engineering studies and was consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Brummett told the committee HB 11‑98 "sets an arbitrary maximum wind turbine height that effectively institutes a moratorium across the state," and recommended a study bill to allow agencies, conservation groups and industry to evaluate regional effects.

Nick Sparks, manager of business development for Triple Oak Power, said projects under development in northeast Arkansas supported dozens of landowner leases and that turbine footprints typically remove less than 2 percent of a given leased area. "If this bill passes, I will not be able to continue to develop in my home state," he told the committee.

Representatives of agricultural aviation and local landowners said the measure would create safety and operational issues for aerial applicators and reduce farm income. Cole Hartley, president of the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association, described risks from meteorological evaluation (MET) towers and turbines for low‑level application flights and urged lawmakers to seek workable solutions that protect both farm operations and safety.

Conservation groups offered differing emphasis. Glenn Hooks, policy manager for Audubon Delta, said Audubon supports wind energy when it is ‘‘properly sited’’ and that the most effective protections are avoidance, early consultation with wildlife agencies, and mitigation measures such as painting a blade to reduce collisions or using detection systems. "The height restrictions found in HB 11‑98 would hobble the deployment of clean wind energy while also proving much less effective in protecting waterfowl than proper siting," Hooks testified.

Technical and legal context cited in the hearing

Witnesses and committee members discussed several technical and legal points raised during testimony: - The sponsor referenced a study from South Texas that compared pre‑ and post‑construction waterfowl counts; he told members that study found a 77 percent decline in waterfowl in the immediate project area. - The bill’s amended language set a 150‑foot cap for turbines in the protected zones; sponsors said their intent was also to allow small on‑farm turbines for individual use. - Witnesses noted that modern onshore turbines in some projects exceed 600–700 feet in total height and that taller towers capture stronger, steadier winds. - Committee counsel and an attorney advising the panel described the constitutional contract‑impairment inquiry (the contracts clause) and said courts apply a multi‑part test to evaluate whether a regulation substantially impairs existing contracts; they noted outcomes depend on facts such as whether a contract contemplated future regulatory change. - Sponsors said projects that have already broken ground would be grandfathered; projects with only speculative leases would be limited in turbine height by the bill’s terms as described by the sponsor.

Committee action and outcome

A motion to "do pass as amended" was made and seconded; the committee voted by voice and the motion failed. Committee members expressed competing priorities in discussion: some said eastern Arkansas counties need the tax revenue and landowner income wind projects deliver, while others said the potentially permanent nature of large‑scale turbine farms justified protective limits now rather than studying impacts after construction.

What’s next

The committee adjourned after the voice vote with no further formal action recorded on HB 11‑98 at that meeting. Proponents and opponents both suggested further study and consultation could be a path forward.

Quotes (selected)

"This amendment tightens up some language...it further defines originally it was 100 square miles and I substituted that with a 5 mile radius," Representative Jeremiah Moore said when describing the amendment.

"If this bill passes, I will not be able to continue to develop in my home state," Nick Sparks, manager of business development for Triple Oak Power, told the committee.

"Our industry will face severe safety risk and economic pressures if we don't fix this issue," Cole Hartley, president of the Arkansas Agricultural Aviation Association, said of turbine siting near rice and flooded fields used for aerial application.

"If that is still your belief [an all‑of‑the‑above energy strategy], then today I ask you not to hobble the development and deployment of an emerging clean wind energy industry in Arkansas by supporting HB 11‑98," Glenn Hooks of Audubon Delta said.

Ending

HB 11‑98 did not advance from the joint select committee after a voice vote. Sponsors and several witnesses urged additional study and agency consultation; developers and some county officials urged keeping the state open to wind investment while using existing federal and state siting guidance to reduce wildlife conflicts.