Louisiana House Bill HB177

Louisiana 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/12/12
• Refer: 3/12/12
• Report Pass: 4/2/12
• Engrossed: 4/9/12
• Refer: 4/10/12
• Report Pass: 4/17/12
• Enrolled: 4/26/12
• Chaptered: 5/4/12
• Passed: 5/4/12

Caption

Provides for a tonnage fee for agricultural liming materials (EN +$1,747 SD RV See Note)

Impact

The implementation of HB 177 is expected to have significant implications for state regulation of agricultural materials. By instituting a tonnage fee, the bill aims to enhance the financial resources available for the management and regulation of agricultural practices, particularly pertaining to liming materials. This could lead to increased scrutiny and standards within the industry, potentially improving product quality and environmental outcomes. The minimum fee of ten dollars per quarter ensures that even smaller manufacturers contribute to this initiative.

Summary

House Bill 177, introduced by Representative Anders, amends existing legislation concerning agricultural liming materials in Louisiana. The bill provides for a tonnage fee of ten cents per ton of agricultural liming materials sold, offered for sale, or distributed within the state. This new fee structure is intended to create a revenue stream that will be beneficial for regulatory oversight and maintenance of agricultural standards. The fee will be collected quarterly alongside the mandatory tonnage reports that manufacturers are required to submit to the commissioner.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 177 appears to be mostly positive among agricultural stakeholders and lawmakers, as it provides a mechanism for financial support to regulate the agricultural sector effectively. The support reflects a broader commitment to maintaining agricultural integrity in the state. However, there may be concerns regarding the additional cost burdens that fees might place on smaller manufacturers, potentially impacting their operations and pricing strategies.

Contention

While HB 177 is generally viewed as a proactive step towards better agricultural management, some points of contention could arise regarding the fee structure itself. Manufacturers may argue that the implementation of a new financial obligation could be challenging, particularly for small-scale producers. The discussion on this bill highlights a tension between the need for regulatory funds and the economic realities faced by those in the agricultural industry, emphasizing the balance that must be struck to foster both compliance and growth.