Introduced
by
To clarify the scope of a current law that prohibits nuisance lawsuits against existing food processors, including but not limited to sugar beet processors. The bill clarifies the meaning of the law’s “operating under generally accepted practices” condition, and expands the law to include an processor operating with any required water permits, and one that had not been prosecuted or sanctioned for any imminent public health threat.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Tourism
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute failed by voice vote
Passed in the Senate 38 to 0 (details)
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture
Reported without amendment
With the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered
To replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described.
The substitute passed by voice vote
Amendment offered
by
To clarify certain definitions and statutory references in the bill.
The amendment passed by voice vote
Passed in the House 104 to 0 (details)
To clarify the scope of a current law that prohibits nuisance lawsuits against existing food processors, including but not limited to sugar beet processors. The bill clarifies the meaning of the law’s “operating under generally accepted practices” condition, and expands the law to include an processor operating with any required water permits, and one that had not been prosecuted or sanctioned for any imminent public health threat.
Passed in the Senate 36 to 0 (details)
To concur with the House-passed version of the bill.
