Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Moratoriums Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor withdraws moratorium-oversight bill after extended hearing and public comment
Summary
Senate Bill 290, a proposal to require legislative approval before state agencies impose moratoriums affecting watersheds, drew hours of testimony from conservation groups, agricultural organizations and local residents before sponsor Blake Johnson withdrew the bill for further work.
Senate Bill 290, which would have required state agencies to obtain legislative approval from the agriculture committees before imposing moratoriums affecting watersheds, prompted lengthy testimony Wednesday and was withdrawn by its sponsor for further drafting.
Sponsor Senator Blake Johnson (District 21) described the bill as a process change that would require agencies to present proposed moratoriums to the legislative agriculture committees before the agencies finalized rulemaking. Johnson said the idea is to place “major land-use restrictions” under closer legislative oversight and to provide elected representatives the opportunity to review moratoriums that could affect agricultural operations.
The hearing drew dozens of public witnesses on both sides. Opponents said the bill was vague, overly broad and likely to duplicate or conflict with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and existing ALC (Administrative Law Committee) oversight. They warned the proposal could sweep in a wide range of prohibitions, create unnecessary litigation, and impair the executive branch’s ability to act quickly in environmental emergencies.
- Speakers opposing the bill included Brian Thompson of the Ozark Society, Mark Lambert of the Arkansas Farm Bureau’s opponent (note: Lambert actually supported a different bill), John Fletcher of the Arkansas Canoe Club, Elizabeth Fletcher (attorney and farmer), Gordon Watkins of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and other local tourism and conservation stakeholders. Testimony from those witnesses focused on the Buffalo National River and Lake Maumelle watersheds and argued that the bill could erode existing protections and allow politically driven interference in technical permitting.
- Supporters who testified included cattle producers, representatives of the Arkansas Cattlemen’s Association and others who characterized SB 290 as protecting private property rights and preventing agency overreach.
Committee members asked detailed questions about drafting, the interplay with the APA, how the bill would define “moratorium” and “watershed,” and whether the bill would permit agencies to act in emergencies. Several senators expressed sympathy for the sponsor’s intent but raised concerns about the bill’s legal defensibility and practical consequences.
At the hearing’s close, Senator Johnson asked to withdraw the bill so staff and sponsors could rework the language. There was no committee vote on the measure.
Why it matters: The bill would have changed how state agencies and commissions can impose restrictions on land use and permitting in sensitive watersheds. Opponents argued that the change could remove an administrative safety valve designed to act on environmental threats; proponents framed the proposal as restoring legislative input on decisions that may effectively ban or limit industries in entire watersheds.
Next steps: Sponsor Blake Johnson withdrew SB 290 for redrafting; committee staff and members indicated they would coordinate on narrower statutory language and seek legal review on the bill’s compatibility with the Administrative Procedure Act.
