Skip to content

Bills · 2015-2016 Regular Session

AB 518

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: lines transporting manure within highway rights-of-way and providing a penalty. (FE)

Fertilizer Road Street Transportation, department of — Roads

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Assembly, not reached
  3. Passes Senate, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill specifies the process for authorizing pipelines or hoses transmitting

liquid manure within or across a highway right-of-way.

Under current law, no person may excavate, fill, install a culvert in, or

otherwise alter or disturb any highway without a permit (often referred to as a

driveway permit) from the authority maintaining the highway (highway authority).

Current law also requires written consent (often referred to as a utility permit) of the

highway authority before utility lines or pipes, including water pipes, are

constructed within or across the limits of a highway.

Also under current law, upon application, if certain conditions are satisfied, the

governing body of a municipality may grant a "privilege" to place an obstruction or

excavation within a highway in a municipality. A privilege is not required to be

granted for an obstruction or excavation that is in place for less than 90 days and for

which a permit has been granted.

Under this bill, a utility permit, issued by the applicable highway authority, is

required to construct a subterranean pipe or pipeline transmitting liquid manure

within or across a highway right-of-way. A utility permit, issued by the Department

of Transportation, is also required if the pipe or pipeline transmitting liquid manure

is not subterranean but crosses or lies within the right-of-way of a state trunk

highway. A utility permit may be obtained, but is not required, for a pipe or pipeline

transmitting liquid manure that is not subterranean and does not cross or lie within

the right-of-way of a state trunk highway; however, if a utility permit is not

obtained, a driveway permit from the local highway authority is required.

Under this bill, for purposes of a driveway permit, a manure hose is defined as

a hose, pipeline, or other conduit, whether temporary or permanent, for the

transmission of liquid manure within or across a highway right-of-way to a

destination for spreading in a farm field or for storage. The bill specifies that a

driveway permit authorizing the permittee to lay out or install any manure hose

within or across a highway right-of-way may also authorize the permittee to

temporarily affix to a bridge under the jurisdiction of the highway authority hooks,

flanges, fasteners, or other devices to or by which a manure hose may be attached or

supported. The highway authority may require the driveway permit applicant to

submit, for approval, a plan specifying how the manure hose would be attached to

or supported by the bridge. The driveway permit may impose reasonable conditions

related to the authorization provided under the permit.

The bill also clarifies that, if a utility permit is issued for a pipe or pipeline

transmitting liquid manure, a driveway permit is not required and, if either a utility

permit or driveway permit is issued, a privilege granted by a municipality is not

required. The bill further specifies that a driveway permit may not be issued for a

subterranean pipe or pipeline transmitting liquid manure within or across a

highway right-of-way or for a pipe or pipeline transmitting liquid manure within

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: A. Ott (R) , Allen (R) , Czaja (R) , E. Brooks (R) , Edming (R) , Jacque (R) , Jarchow (R) , Kitchens (R) , Kremer (R) , Krug (R) , Kulp (R) , Loudenbeck (R) , Mursau (R) , Nerison (R) , Petryk (R) , Quinn (R) , R. Brooks (R) , Ripp (R) , T. Larson (R) , Tittl (R) , Tranel (R)

8 cosponsors

Gudex (R) , Harsdorf (R) , Lassa (D) , Marklein (R) , Moulton (R) , Petrowski (R) , Stroebel (R) , Vinehout (D)

Votes

Assembly: Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 13, Noes 1

Passed 13–1 Feb 4, 2016 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Assembly: Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 13, Noes 2

Passed 13–2 Feb 4, 2016 official source full page

No individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Full history

  1. Nov 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Edming, Tranel, Allen, E. Brooks, R. Brooks, Czaja, Jacque, Jarchow, Kitchens, Kremer, Krug, Kulp, T. Larson, Loudenbeck, Mursau, Nerison, A. Ott, Petryk, Quinn, Ripp and Tittl; cosponsored by Senators Petrowski, Gudex, Harsdorf, Lassa, Marklein, Moulton, Stroebel and Vinehout

  2. Nov 13, 2015 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation

  3. Dec 3, 2015 · Assembly

    Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative Edming

  4. Dec 8, 2015 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Jan 20, 2016 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Feb 2, 2016 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Feb 4, 2016 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 13, Noes 1

  8. Feb 4, 2016 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 13, Noes 2

  9. Feb 4, 2016 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Apr 13, 2016 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1