Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-101
This is the official text of Ark. Code Ann. § 2-1-101, part of Arkansas’s Code Ann — part of the compiled statutory law of Arkansas, published by the state as "Code Ann." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Prohibition against center pivot irrigation discharge on interstate
Official statutory text
(a) It is unlawful for a person, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation that engages in irrigation of any farm or agricultural lands to intentionally permit or cause any center pivot irrigation water to be discharged onto the traveled portion of any interstate or state highway. (b) (1) A first violation of this section shall cause a warning to be issued. (2) Upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, the offender shall be guilty of a violation and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). (c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the discharge of center pivot irrigation waters onto an interstate or state highway resulted from winds of such intensity that no mechanical device that is intended to prevent spray from reaching the roadway could have prevented the spraying or that the discharge resulted from excessive rainfall that contributed to flooding of the roadway. Acts 2001, No. 1753, § 1; 2005, No. 1994, § 2.
(a) It is unlawful for a person, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation that engages in irrigation of any farm or agricultural lands to intentionally permit or cause any center pivot irrigation water to be discharged onto the traveled portion of any interstate or state highway.
(b) (1) A first violation of this section shall cause a warning to be issued. (2) Upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, the offender shall be guilty of a violation and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(1) A first violation of this section shall cause a warning to be issued.
(2) Upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, the offender shall be guilty of a violation and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the discharge of center pivot irrigation waters onto an interstate or state highway resulted from winds of such intensity that no mechanical device that is intended to prevent spray from reaching the roadway could have prevented the spraying or that the discharge resulted from excessive rainfall that contributed to flooding of the roadway.
Acts 2001, No. 1753, § 1; 2005, No. 1994, § 2.
(a) It is unlawful for a person, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation that engages in irrigation of any farm or agricultural lands to intentionally permit or cause any center pivot irrigation water to be discharged onto the traveled portion of any interstate or state highway.
(b) (1) A first violation of this section shall cause a warning to be issued. (2) Upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, the offender shall be guilty of a violation and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(1) A first violation of this section shall cause a warning to be issued.
(2) Upon conviction of a second or subsequent offense, the offender shall be guilty of a violation and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the discharge of center pivot irrigation waters onto an interstate or state highway resulted from winds of such intensity that no mechanical device that is intended to prevent spray from reaching the roadway could have prevented the spraying or that the discharge resulted from excessive rainfall that contributed to flooding of the roadway.
Acts 2001, No. 1753, § 1; 2005, No. 1994, § 2.
Status: in_force
Need a lawyer in Arkansas?
Find a Arkansas lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.