To Establish The State Action Poultry Flock Depopulation Grant Program.
Summary
SB 582 creates the State Action Poultry Flock Depopulation Grant Program within the Department of Finance and Administration. The program would allow the secretary of DFA to award grants to eligible poultry growers whose flocks were depopulated by the state, including growers whose flocks were depopulated before the bill’s effective date. The bill directs the department to adopt rules for administering the program, including how growers document losses and how grant funds are distributed.
The measure is aimed at providing financial relief to poultry producers affected by state-mandated flock depopulation, which is typically associated with disease control or other animal health actions. It also sets a timeline for rulemaking, requiring DFA to file final rules by January 1, 2026, or as soon as practicable after any required approval process if that approval is delayed.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to Arkansas Code Title 2, Chapter 33, Subchapter 3, establishing a new grant program administered by the Department of Finance and Administration. It would create a statutory basis for state financial assistance to poultry growers affected by state-ordered depopulation, including retroactive eligibility for prior depopulations. The bill would also require DFA to promulgate implementing rules and establish procedures for proof of loss and grant distribution, affecting poultry growers, DFA, and the state budget.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the available context suggests a generally supportive or at least noncontroversial policy approach focused on compensating affected poultry growers. The bill appears designed as a relief measure for an agricultural sector facing state-mandated losses, with no documented opposition in the provided materials. Because no transcripts or vote history are available, there is no clear evidence of divided sentiment.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is fiscal and administrative: the bill creates a grant program that would require state funding and rulemaking, and it extends eligibility to growers whose flocks were depopulated before the act takes effect. That retroactive feature could raise questions about cost, eligibility verification, and fairness in distribution. Another possible issue is the scope of documentation required to prove losses and how broadly the department interprets “depopulated by the state,” but no specific objections are recorded in the provided context.