By Mike Masterson
Posted: December 22, 2013 at 2:25 a.m.
 
Since many who love the Buffalo National River might be wondering on this Sunday before Christmas (when visions of spiral-sliced ham could be dancing in so many heads), I can report there is a development in that federal lawsuit filed in connection with C&H Hog Farms. The factory that was so inappropriately, and quietly, plopped down last fall near Mount Judea in the river’s watershed. You probably thought I’d plum forgotten about that matter. Fat chance.

In its response to the civil suit filed earlier this year against the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Department of Agriculture by Earthrise Law Center, and Arkansas attorney Hank Bates along with Earthjustice (on behalf of three Arkansas conservation and environmental organizations and the National Parks Conservation Association), the Department of Justice actually conceded to several of the plaintiffs’ accusations.

I find that unusual since it’s routine in most suits for the defendant to simply blanket-deny every allegation.Hannah Chang, senior associate attorney for Earthjustice, told me some of those admissions were worth noting.

◊The environmental assessment report submitted by the USDA Farm Service Agency in connection with it sloan guarantee for the hog factory does mistakenly identify the National Park Service as a “cooperating agency.” The park service contends it knew nothing about the farm being permitted until after the state had done so.

◊The FSA issued its assessment without further communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after that agency said that threatened and protected species did indeed exist in the watershed. More on this later.◊The SBA failed to prepare a required National Environmental Policy Act analysis regarding its approval of the loan-assistance guarantee.

◊And the FSA did not seek to confer with the park service (overseers of the Buffalo National River) during the approval process even though they are located in the same federal building in Harrison.

Chang said the FSA wrote in its assessment that it had obtained clearance on any endangered species in the watershed from “Arkansas Fish and Wildlife,” even though no such agency even exists. Under the Endangered Species Act, the FSA is required to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chang said.

In paragraph 100 of the answer, the government claims its reference to “Arkansas Fish and Wildlife” actually was meant to be a reference to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, which, even if true, is irrelevant because the agency isn’t required to obtain determinations from the state’s game and fish department, she added. Yet then, in paragraph 113 of its response, the government claims, again inconsistently, that actually their reference was intended to be to the “U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,” she said.

Chang said her next move will be to file an amended complaint Monday and wait until January for another government response. The briefing schedule stretches on until at least March, when the plaintiffs will move for a summary judgment in the case. By that time, I suspect the factory will be up to full steam, generating many thousands of tons of waste to be spread on fields surrounding Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo six miles downstream. Ah, the wheels of justice do grind on and on.

Meanwhile, I sent my new email friend Michael Martin, a communications executive for Cargill, another message the other day. I wanted to know what’s new with that multinational corporation and the factory it sponsors. He responded: “Until we see, and have a chance to evaluate, whatever the final plan is from the governor’s office and University of Arkansas, we really can’t comment. We will likely have some questions, and suspect there will be follow-up discussions involving a variety of stakeholders. As far as Cargill is concerned, nothing has been taken off the table.” I’m betting especially not that spiral ham.