Oklahoma Senate Bill SB136

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Failed: 2/24/25

Caption

Poultry feeding operations; establishing moratorium on poultry feeding operations. Effective date.

Summary

SB136 would impose a moratorium, beginning on the bill’s effective date, on the registration of new poultry feeding operations in Oklahoma. It also creates a separate moratorium on new concentrated animal feeding operation licenses for persons engaged in poultry feeding operations that are otherwise not required to register under existing law. The bill expressly exempts existing operations from the moratoriums, but allows the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry to continue reviewing, inspecting, or investigating those operations. If an existing poultry operation is found to have violated the applicable statutes, the Department would be required to stop registration or revoke the license for that operation, and it could not reissue a registration or license after revocation. The bill directs the Department to promulgate rules needed to implement these provisions and would take effect November 1, 2025.

Impact

SB136 would add two new sections to Title 2 of the Oklahoma Statutes, creating a temporary halt on new poultry operation registrations and new CAFO licenses tied to poultry operations. It would also strengthen the Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry’s enforcement authority by requiring cessation of registration or revocation of licenses for violating operations, while preserving oversight of existing facilities. The bill would affect poultry producers, concentrated animal feeding operations, and the Department’s permitting and enforcement processes.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have had limited support in committee and ultimately failed in the Senate Agriculture and Wildlife Committee by a 5-7 vote. The available record shows no committee transcript, so the public discussion is not detailed, but the vote outcome suggests the proposal was controversial or lacked sufficient backing among committee members. Overall, the sentiment reflected in the voting history is unfavorable to the bill’s advancement.

Contention

The main point of contention is the moratorium itself: supporters likely viewed it as a way to pause expansion of poultry operations and tighten oversight, while opponents likely saw it as an unnecessary restriction on agricultural development and business growth. Another likely issue is the bill’s enforcement mechanism, which would require the Department to revoke or stop registration for violating operations and permanently bar reissuance after revocation. The split committee vote indicates disagreement over balancing environmental or regulatory concerns against the interests of poultry producers and the broader agriculture sector.