HB 1064: What It Means in the Field
Community Question That Sparked This Discussion
This FAQ was prompted by a question from Aaron Molargik of Molargik Farms Aerial Ag in Garrett. Aaron shared:
“I just read about house bill HB1064 in an article on the front page of The Hoosier Farmer. The bill makes repeated operation of a UAV over private property a nuisance with both civil and criminal penalties, including an increased penalty if it involves agricultural property. I have not read the Bill in full but thought that verbiage could hinder our operations just by a simple complaint from a neighbor bordering a field we spray. Would this be something you would consider posting on your page to help bring knowledge to those of us unaware?”
This is a thoughtful and practical concern that many agricultural drone operators are asking as HB 1064 works its way through the Indiana legislature.
We also encourage readers to check out and follow Molargik Farms Aerial Ag on Facebook and support operators who help elevate shared industry concerns.
Why This Question Is Being Raised More Broadly
The language that Aaron quoted comes directly from the bill as introduced, which proposes that the repeated operation of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) over private property could be considered a nuisance with both civil and criminal penalties, including increased penalties if it involves agricultural property.
Recent agricultural news coverage has quoted lawmakers describing the intent behind the bill in terms of addressing unauthorized drone use. For example, one article quotes State Representative Kendell Culp discussing the bill’s focus:
“Basically, if you have a drone on someone else’s property without permission, and you’re flying over a livestock facility — including farmers and their animals — that becomes a felony with higher penalties.”
Another report notes:
“What this bill does is it creates penalties for trespass. There are harsher penalties if it involves agriculture.”
These statements have circulated in the agricultural press and highlight why operators are paying attention — not because the bill bans ag drone use, but because its language touches on private property, nuisance, and penalties when agriculture is involved.
What This Could Mean in Practice for Ag Drone Operators
HB 1064 does not prohibit agricultural drone operations. Instead, its wording underscores the importance of how operations are conducted. While federal aviation rules govern navigable airspace and drone safety, state nuisance and trespass concepts can sometimes apply in ways that overlap with operational practices.
Rather than focusing on legal interpretation, ISDA emphasizes practical habits that reduce confusion and conflict in day-to-day operations.
Clear Landowner Permission Is Essential
Agricultural drone work is treated differently from unauthorized use when the operation is:
• Requested by the landowner
• Conducted for a legitimate agricultural purpose
• Performed with the landowner’s knowledge and approval
Having clear permission from the landowner where the work is being performed remains one of the strongest safeguards against nuisance concerns later on.
Communication With Neighbors Matters
Many complaints stem from surprise or misunderstanding, not actual harm. A neighboring landowner who sees repeated drone activity near their property may assume the worst when they lack context.
Good communication practices may include:
• Discussing field operations with adjacent neighbors (when appropriate)
• Notifying nearby property owners when feasible
• Posting signs during application periods
• Being available to explain operations respectfully if questions arise
Proactive communication can prevent concerns from arising in the first place.
Documentation Helps Tell the Full Story
Proper documentation helps show that an operation was:
• Intentional
• Authorized
• Part of normal agricultural activity
Useful documentation includes:
• Field locations treated
• Dates and times of operation
• Purpose of the flights
• Notes on landowner acknowledgment
Keeping clear records helps provide clarity in the event of questions or concerns later.
Repeated Flights Alone Do Not Equal a Nuisance
Agriculture is inherently repetitive. Spraying, planting, and other field applications involve repeated activity.
Nuisance considerations generally look at:
• Authorization
• Purpose
• Reasonableness
Repeated flights conducted with permission and for legitimate agricultural purposes are not automatically improper. Context and intent matter.
Data Collection Should Remain Job-Focused
HB 1064 also includes language relating to unauthorized data collection. For agricultural operators, this reinforces the best practice of limiting data collection to what is necessary to complete the job and ensuring that any imagery or mapping aligns with expectations from the landowner.
How ISDA Is Carrying These Concerns Forward
ISDA isn’t just reporting on HB 1064 — we’re actively working to ensure that real operational realities are part of the conversation.
Through our professional relationship with Albertson Drone Services, ISDA has established lines of communication with policymakers. Kyle Albertson will be traveling to Washington, D.C. in the coming weeks to engage directly with legislators on issues impacting agricultural UAV operations.
Our role is to serve as a pipeline for questions, concerns, and real-world experiences from the field so that those perspectives can be represented accurately in ongoing legislative discussions.
What Comes Next
This will not be the final update on this topic.
ISDA will continue reaching out to trusted industry partners, legal and regulatory experts, and lawmakers to seek further clarification as HB 1064 progresses. As new information becomes available, additional updates will be shared on this page and through our social channels.
Questions like Aaron’s help guide these conversations, and we encourage operators to continue raising thoughtful concerns as this discussion evolves.
