Tennessee House Bill HB2842

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/31/24
• Refer: 3/11/24
• Refer: 3/19/24
• Refer: 3/27/24
• Refer: 4/17/24
• Chaptered: 5/13/24
• Passed: 5/13/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4; Title 5; Title 6; Title 7; Title 11; Title 13; Title 43; Title 44; Title 64; Title 66; Title 67; Title 68 and Title 69, relative to agriculture.

Impact

The bill's implementation will alter how rock harvesting is defined and regulated under Tennessee state law. The amendment to the existing statute will establish clearer parameters on what constitutes rock harvesting, thereby providing additional guidance for operators engaged in these activities. This could potentially improve compliance with state regulations and lead to more efficient management of mineral resources, aligning operational practices with updated legal frameworks.

Summary

House Bill 2842 aims to amend several sections of the Tennessee Code Annotated regarding agriculture, specifically focusing on policies related to the definition and regulation of rock harvesting. The intent behind the bill appears to be to clarify existing definitions and potentially streamline regulations in this sector, suggesting that rock harvesting holds significance within the state's economic framework. As such, it may reflect a growing recognition of the implications of mineral extraction and land management practices in Tennessee's agricultural sector.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 2842 appears to be mixed, as it engages with important agricultural and resource management issues. While proponents may view it as a necessary update to ensure that agricultural practices are regulated accurately in relation to modern needs, opponents may express concerns over the environmental implications and the potential lack of oversight regarding mineral extraction activities. The discourse around the bill highlights the tension between economic development and environmental stewardship.

Contention

Notable points of contention arose during discussions about the bill's implications for local communities and environmental sustainability. Critics of the bill could argue that the amendments might favor commercial interests at the expense of ecological considerations. Points of contention specifically related to the definitions introduced, and the exemptions clarified in the bill, may lead to broader disputes regarding land use planning and environmental protections.