Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (Edited News Release/KY3) -
Noted conservationist and Bass Pro Shops founder Johnny Morris announced the purchase of the former Dogpatch USA theme park property in Newton County, Ark.
Morris says in a statement to KY3, plans for the property remain in the early stages of exploration. He says any possible future development will be an extension of Morris’ signature experiences help families connect to nature and each other.
“We are very excited to have the opportunity to restore, preserve and share this crown jewel of Arkansas and the Ozarks so everyone can further enjoy the wonderful region we call home,” said Morris. “We’re going to take our time to restore the site, dream big and imagine the possibilities to help more families get back to nature through this historic and cherished place.”
The site is located near the legendary Buffalo National River, which flows through 135 miles of breathtaking natural scenery. One of the few remaining un-damned rivers in the lower 48 states, the Buffalo is the first river to receive special designation from the National Park Service. Dogpatch USA opened in 1967 as a theme park featuring a trout farm, horseback rides, and various amusement rides and attractions. During the height of its popularity in the late 60s, the destination attracted 300,000 annual visitors, but attendance gradually declined before closing in 1993. While there have been numerous owners, the site has been vacant for the past several years with many of the remaining structures in a dilapidated state.
The property’s next chapter will be an ode to the heritage of the Ozarks and the abundant wildlife and natural beauty found here. One top priority is restoration of the large natural spring and bringing back to life the renowned trout hatchery and many future fishing opportunities.
Hog farm strategies weighed
Agency studying ‘best path’ on ban
by Joseph Flaherty | July 15, 2020 at 3:26 a.m.
State environmental regulators are still weighing how to proceed with a proposed permanent ban on medium and large hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed, one month after the proposal was handed a resounding defeat in the Arkansas Legislature.
In an interview on Tuesday, Beck Keogh, secretary of the Energy and Environment Department, said that at this point, the department is evaluating "how that proposal can continue."
According to Keogh, officials are exploring options to determine what is required of the agency, as well as "the best path forward" regarding the permanent moratorium.
Last month, lawmakers on the Administration Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council expressed reservations about the potential chilling effects a permanent ban on industrial-scale hog farming in the prized northern Arkansas watershed might have on agriculture throughout the state, and they voted to effectively kill the proposal.
The full Legislative Council, which serves as the General Assembly's oversight body when it is out of session, affirmed the decision two days later on June 19.
The effort by state regulators to permanently ban hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed had the support of conservationists as well as Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican. But the Arkansas Farm Bureau had consistently opposed the measure.
C&H Hog Farms , a large confined animal-feeding operation on a tributary of the Buffalo River, closed in January as a result of a deal with the state. The closure followed years of controversy, as environmentalists raised concerns that hog waste stored on the property would foul water quality.
The proposed ban would have forever barred certain categories of medium and large hog farms from the watershed: those with 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or with 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds.
Keogh said the position held by regulators is that a temporary moratorium on hog farms remains in place and will stay in place until rules are modified to eliminate it.
A five-year ban on medium and large hog farms near the Buffalo River was previously approved by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in 2015. The temporary ban required environmental regulators to either make the ban permanent or abandon it after five years.
Keogh said her understanding is that as the director of the Division of Environmental Quality, she is required to take action on the hog farm measure five years after the effective date of the temporary ban, which would mean addressing the issue by September.
"That is the date we're looking at closely to make sure that we're in compliance with that rule-making," Keogh said.
Speaking to legislators last month as they considered the permanent ban, Keogh implied that if lawmakers rejected the measure, her agency would bring the proposal back using the rule-making process, if that was required.
On Tuesday, Keogh said there is still an open question as to what is required under the current regulations.
At the moment, she said, officials are still evaluating whether the agency must bring back the proposed permanent moratorium again in the fall, or if the Environmental Quality Department's efforts have already satisfied the requirement included in the 2015 temporary ban.
Asked why the agency does not know the next step at this time considering the proposed ban failed in the Legislature weeks ago, Keogh said she has asked her officials to evaluate it. She also emphasized that officials want to ensure the rule-making will be consistent with the law while respecting the General Assembly's role.
"We hope to have an answer very soon," she said, adding that she could not give a specific date when officials will know more.
"I think we can be assured that in this period of time, we still have a moratorium in place," Keogh said.
Keogh said officials involved with studying the issue include Shane Khoury, the Energy and Environment Department's chief counsel, as well as Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Administrative Law Judge Charles Moulton.
Complicating the Legislature's rejection of the permanent hog farm ban is the fact that by rejecting revisions to Rules Five and Six, which together made up the proposed permanent ban, the Legislature also rejected revisions to Rule Six related to a federal pollutant discharge permitting program.
Those rule changes included revisions needed to bring Arkansas in compliance with updated federal regulations governing pollutant discharge under the Clean Water Act, rules known as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
At some point, Arkansas will have to approve these revisions to put the state in conformity with requirements from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that allow the delegation of regulatory enforcement to the state, Keogh said.
For regulated entities that discharge pollution into water, permitting authority being held by the federal government versus the state is an important distinction, Keogh said.
She explained, "It's always been their preference, as well as the Legislature's preference, that Arkansas retain that delegation and implement the program at the local level," rather than have the EPA implement the program in lieu of state regulators, Keogh said.
Keogh said officials with the state agency's Office of Water Quality are monitoring the situation closely and are in communication with the EPA.
Despite the support of conservationists and the governor, lawmakers' recent rejection of the permanent hog farm ban appears to have sent the measure into a kind of limbo, at least until the Energy and Environment Department finalizes its strategy.
In an emailed statement provided by a spokeswoman on Tuesday, Khoury told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "While the moratorium remains in place, we continue to evaluate what's required of additional rule-making regarding the moratorium and adoption of federal requirements in Rule 6."
After legislators on the Administrative Rules Subcommittee rejected the proposal, Hutchinson in a statement said the measure "is designed to protect for generations to come one of our most important national resources."
"The rule presented by the Pollution, Control & Ecology Commission was adopted after public comment and multiple hearings and reviews," Hutchinson said at the time. "It is my hope that the General Assembly will reconsider its initial decision and approve the rule."
OPINION: Guest writer
Stand for the river Factory farms and the Buffalo
by ROBERT MOORE SPECIAL TO THE DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
Arkansas finds itself faced with a neat conundrum: Whether to take up arms (figuratively) against a ruthless and ruinous tyranny, or to do nothing and allow one of our most precious treasures to remain vulnerable to the grasping, voracious, insatiable hunger of the giant corporation.
Our Legislature has voted to not make permanent the protection of the Buffalo National River watershed from the incursion of factory hog farms and their like, possibly leading to irreversible pollution and degradation of a local and national treasure.
One needs to place this consideration within its larger context, which is the unchecked power of corporations to damage and destroy the natural world in the name of profit and with the specious argument that what they do is "for the good of the people."
I begin by quoting Mr. Wendell Berry, acclaimed poet and essayist whose writings about the natural world have placed before us a moral code which arises from a balanced, bonded, deeply respectful and nuanced relationship with the earth. In "The World-Ending Fire: The Essential Wendell Berry," he speaks of the factory hog farm and its relationship with the natural world: "Like a strip mine, a hog factory exists in utter indifference to the landscape. Its purpose, as an animal factory, is to exclude from consideration both the nature of the place where it is and the nature of hogs. That it is a factory means that it could be in any place, and that the hog is a 'unit of production.' ... [T]he explicit purpose of the hog factory is to violate nature. ... But when you exclude compassion from agriculture, what have you done? Have you not removed something ultimately of the greatest practical worth?"
The factory hog farm which placed the Buffalo River in grave danger--and which is still endangered because of the Legislature's refusal to make permanent a ban on such agriculture within the Buffalo River drainage basin--was permitted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality without geological, biological, or environmental study, without public debate, and without any consideration of its possible effects upon the Buffalo River; even the most cursory examination of the landscape in which this hog farm was placed would have revealed that it was to be built upon a geological karst formation, which is porous limestone perforated with holes, caves, and fissures which allow a free runoff and underground channeling of field waste into the surface and underground water table. Such runoff can and does travel for miles downstream, and eventually into the Buffalo River.
After little more than a year, it was already revealed that the enormous amount of hog feces sprayed across local fields, housed in large catchment basins, and aerated into the atmosphere had already impacted the river. Algae blooms of the kind which this waste produces were seen in the streams that feed the Buffalo River and in the river itself.
But Mr. Berry raises a much larger question here as well. It is a moral question about the presence of compassion in both the agriculture industry and in the regulatory bodies which provide regulations checking the influence and effect of large factory farms upon the natural environment.
Ultimately it is about the voters of Arkansas and the presence of compassion in them when it comes to protecting the Earth, and in our case, one of our most sacred and precious treasures: the Buffalo River.
Are we so blinded and hardened by our superficial political and ideological prejudices that we will allow our Legislature to continue to endanger and refuse to protect the long-term beauty and sanctity of its natural treasures? It appears that our political representatives have sold their souls to the highest bidder, whether the payment is in money or power or position. There is no lie bald-faced enough to make us believe this decision was made "for the good of the people."
Finally, I quote again Mr. Berry: "The hog factory attempts to be a totally rational, which is to say a totally economic, enterprise. It strips away from animal life and human work every purpose, every benefit too, that is not economic ... to be replaced by a totalitarian economy with its neat, logical concepts of world-as-factory and life-as-commodity."
A compassionate heart, a compassionate electorate, a body of voters whose love of nature and of the Buffalo River is great enough will not, must not, cannot allow others to rationalize about the "good-for-the-people" uses of such a farm, but will repudiate any such use of public land for the sole purpose of corporate profit.
My heart is in the river, and I am making a stand for her.
Dr. Robert Moore is emeritus professor of English at the University of Arkansas at Monticello.
MASTERSON ONLINE: Acting against our river
Proposal to ban hog farms near Buffalo River tossed out
Vote affirms panel rejection
by Michael R. Wickline
The Arkansas Legislative Council on Friday ditched proposed state rules that would permanently ban medium and large-scale hog farms from the Buffalo River watershed.
In a voice vote with no discussion and a few lawmakers audibly dissenting, the council accepted the recommendation of its Administration Rules Subcommittee not to approve revisions to Rules Five and Six proposed by the state Division of Environmental Quality.
C&H Hog Farms closed in January after the state, under Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson, negotiated a multimillion-dollar buyout deal to get a conservation easement to limit the uses of the land where that large hog farm was.
In 2012, the hog farm obtained a permit under the administration of then-Gov. Mike Beebe, a Democrat, to house up to 6,503 hogs on Big Creek, a tributary of the Buffalo River. Conservationists, fearing underground contamination from hog waste, fought for years to close C&H Hog Farms.
The proposed moratorium has been backed by Hutchinson, who said he was directing Becky Keogh, secretary of the Department of Energy and Environment, and environmental regulators to make the moratorium permanent when he announced the buyout deal.
Hutchinson said Friday in a written statement, "The rules banning medium and large hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed have been adopted by the [Pollution Control and Ecology Commission], which is the commission charged by the General Assembly with the responsibility of adopting rules to protect both our farm land and our natural heritage.
"The Commission worked hard on this rule and heard from thousands of Arkansans before it unanimously passed the rules that are limited to the Buffalo River area."
"It is disappointing that the General Assembly failed to approve these rules. We are looking at what action to take next to assure that the Buffalo River is protected and healthy for the next generation," he said.
The second-term governor was asked by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette why he thought the rules were rejected, if it shows the sway of the Farm Bureau and if it shows it will be harder for him to get proposals through the Legislature. His spokeswoman, Katie Beck, said, "That question can only be answered by the members" of the Arkansas Legislative Council.
Asked if the Legislative Council's decision reflects that the Arkansas Farm Bureau has more sway than conservationists with lawmakers, Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, said in an interview, "I don't think Farm Bureau played the role that I think some did.
"I got an email or two and I answered one back. I butt heads with the Farm Bureau all the time and we just happened to be on the same wavelength on this one. ... I think there is close to a zero chance of there ever being a medium or large hog farm up there.
"There is a much larger chance that this would have a detrimental impact to other places across the state," Rice said. He also said that while he heard that Buffalo River interests "didn't have any intention to push it into other areas, there are others that do," he said.
Keogh told lawmakers Wednesday that the proposed permanent ban would maintain protections for the Buffalo River and allow current farming opportunities.
Asked about the Farm Bureau's influence in the council rejecting the proposed rules, a council co-chairman, Rep. Jeff Wardlaw, R-Hermitage, said Friday, "To me, it was just a practical matter because ... the state is a watershed.
"We got emails the week before saying that North Fork [River] and White River would like to be added into the moratorium, so before it was ever approved, we were already seeing additional watersheds wanting to add it," he said.
"The reason for [rejecting the rules] is with our chicken industry, and hog industry around the state and turkeys and all the CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations] that we have, the last thing we want to do to shut our state down to those industries, so that ... behind the legislative intent of not doing a moratorium," Wardlaw said.
But Rep. David Whitaker, D-Fayetteville, said, "There seems to be a kind of a push-and-pull struggle between the governor's office and the Senate these days.
"I think this whole thing occurs against that backdrop," he said.
Whitaker said he voted against rejecting the proposed rules because he has been a strong proponent of the moratorium since day one.
"We can raise hogs all across Arkansas, but we only have one Buffalo River," he said.
In 2014, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission placed a temporary ban on new medium and large-scale hog farms within the Buffalo River watershed after an outcry from environmentalists because of C&H.
The temporarily moratorium was repeatedly extended, including the five-year extension granted in 2015.
Steve Eddington, a spokesman or the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said Friday, "We appreciate members of the General Assembly understanding that the moratorium on farming in a particular watershed sets an alarming precedent that tramples on landowner rights.
"We have said all along that there's a way to balance environmental issues and agricultural stewardship without additional governmental regulations," he said.
Panel rejects banning hog farms on BuffaloLawmakers cite fears of future effects
by Joseph Flaherty
A panel of Arkansas lawmakers on Wednesday rejected proposed rules that would permanently ban medium- and large-scale hog farms from the Buffalo River watershed, dealing a setback to conservationists who have pushed for the measure.
Members of the Legislative Council's Administrative Rules Subcommittee voted not to approve the proposed revisions to Rules Five and Six presented to lawmakers by the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality.
Lawmakers expressed concerns that the moratorium would create what Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, called "a chilling effect" on agriculture in Arkansas, and raised the idea that similar measures could be enacted to encompass other watersheds within the state.
"It's not that we don't want the clean water. It's just the outcome of this is going to be detrimental to the next generation," Rice said. "And they're already under such a strain right now, you're going to have some young farmers throw up their hands and go do something else."
From his perspective, Rice said, there is concern among members of the public about a lack of due process with regard to the permanent moratorium.
In her opening remarks before lawmakers, made by videoconference, Becky Keogh, the Department of Energy and Environment secretary, stressed that the proposed permanent ban maintains protections for the Buffalo River and allows current farming opportunities to continue.
Conservationists in Arkansas fought for years to close C&H Hog Farms, an operation near the Buffalo River, over fears of possible water contamination there. The hog farm was finally shuttered in January.
C&H Hog Farms first obtained a permit under the administration of former Gov. Mike Beebe to house up to 6,503 hogs on Big Creek, a tributary of the Buffalo River.
Environmental advocates said the farming operation posed a threat to water quality in the Buffalo River watershed because of hog feces applied to fields as manure and additional hog waste held in lagoons.
A popular tourist destination and natural heritage site for Arkansas, 135 miles of the Buffalo River became a national park when Congress designated the waterway as the nation's first "national river" in 1972.
In 2014, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission placed a temporary ban on new medium- and large-scale hog farms within the watershed after an outcry from environmentalists because of C&H Hog Farms. The temporary moratorium was extended repeatedly, including a five-year extension granted in 2015.
C&H Hog Farms closed in January after the state under Gov. Asa Hutchinson negotiated a multimillion-dollar buyout deal last year to obtain the hog farm's land as a conservation easement.
The proposed permanent moratorium had the backing of Hutchinson, who said he was directing Keogh and environmental regulators to make the moratorium permanent when he announced the buyout deal with C&H Hog Farms last summer.
"The permanent moratorium for large and medium sized confined animal feeding operations in the Buffalo River Watershed is designed to protect for generations to come one of our most important national resources, " Hutchinson said Wednesday in an emailed statement to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
"The rule presented by the Pollution, Control & Ecology Commission was adopted after public comment and multiple hearings and reviews," the statement continued. "It is my hope that the General Assembly will reconsider its initial decision and approve the rule."
During Wednesday's meeting, Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, highlighted what she described as a lack of infrastructure at the Buffalo River, such as poorly maintained, unpaved roads for the booming tourism. She said the state is "reaping the consequences."
Although Irvin acknowledged the hog farm's permit never should never have been granted, she said there is other work to be done to fix the situation at the Buffalo National River.
"This is not the problem," she said.
"If I believed in my heart that this was the mitigating factor, then I would absolutely vote for this, but I don't believe that because I've experienced it, I've lived it, I know it, and I see what's happening," she continued.
In some ways, the decision on whether to make the moratorium permanent is about the future of the watershed instead of any existing hog farm. There are no medium- or large-scale hog farms with permits to operate in the watershed at the moment, a fact Shane Khoury, chief counsel for the Department of Energy and Environment, explained to legislators.
The moratorium would prohibit confined animal-feeding operations with 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or operations with 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds.
Environmental advocates with the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and the Ozark Society had pushed for the permanent ban.
"I have to say, I was really disappointed that that committee can't see how the Buffalo River is unique in this state," said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, in an interview Wednesday afternoon after the meeting.
Lawmakers want to argue the "slippery slope," Watkins said. "'What river is going to be next? Pretty soon it's going to be every river in the state.' And that's just not the case."
The Arkansas Farm Bureau has consistently opposed the permanent moratorium, often with objections similar to what legislators expressed Wednesday and with an eye on the potential broad impact on agriculture around the state.
"Although a lot of the conversation was on C&H Hog [Farms], it really wasn't about C&H, it was about this moratorium in the watershed," Jeff Pitchford, director of state affairs for the Farm Bureau, said in an interview Wednesday after lawmakers voted.
"Our concern from our members and farmers across the state is, 'Well then, which watershed is next?'" Pitchford said.
When asked about the extent of the Farm Bureau's outreach to legislators urging them to vote no, Pitchford said members reached out, but noted that subcommittee members seemed to have made up their minds.
Lawmakers "agreed with our viewpoint, and really some common sense on what this would mean for agriculture across the state," Pitchford said. "The need for a moratorium in the Buffalo River is just not there, and I think you saw that with today's committee meeting."
In a sign that lawmakers were uncomfortable with the permanent ban on hog farms, members of the House and Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor committees declined to review the measures comprising the ban during meetings last week. The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission had approved the permanent ban during a May 28 meeting.
While Wednesday's decision is a blow to conservationists, there are limited avenues whereby the permanent ban could gain legislative approval.
According to Marty Garrity, director of the Bureau of Legislative Research, the Legislative Council could vote to overturn the recommendation of the subcommittee. The full Legislative Council is scheduled to meet Friday, and lawmakers could adopt recommendations from the Rules Subcommittee, including the recommendation to deny the permanent ban.
Another question is whether lawmakers will be confronted with a decision on the same proposed hog-farm moratorium again in the near future.
During Wednesday's meeting, officials from the Department of Energy and Environment acknowledged that if the permanent moratorium is not approved, the moratorium may have to go through the rule-making process again in the fall because of the parameters of the temporary five-year ban.
When the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in 2015 enacted the five-year moratorium, at the end of that period, the director of the Environmental Quality Department was required to either move to make the moratorium permanent or lift it by September 2020.
Keogh said Wednesday that her intent was to leave the moratorium in place, not delete it.
"We don't enjoy the opportunity to bring it back in September," Keogh told lawmakers. "If it's required, I will do that."
In a nod to lawmakers' concerns, Keogh said she understands rule-making can have unintended consequences.
Nevertheless, regulators are trying "to strike that balance and keep it very targeted to Arkansas as a result of this particularly exceptional watershed and river that we are fortunate to have in Arkansas, but also obligated to protect," Keogh said.
Watkins said advocates want the moratorium memorialized in regulations so that as years go by and administrations change, the Buffalo River will continue to be protected.
"They thought in 1972 that the Buffalo River was protected and that it was a done deal, and we turned around and all of a sudden we got a hog farm in the backyard," Watkins said.
Information for this article was contributed by Michael R. Wickline of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
by Joseph Flaherty | June 14, 2020 at 1:00 a.m.
A joint gathering of the state's House and Senate Interim Public Health, Welfare and Labor committees passed on reviewing a ban on medium- and large-scale hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed during a Monday-Tuesday meeting.
Without discussion, legislators approved motions from Reps. John Payton, R-Wilburn, and Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, to skip review of revisions to the rules that comprise the moratorium.
The co-chairman of the joint committee, Rep. Jack Ladyman, R-Jonesboro, said in an interview Friday that he understood the "do not review" option to be legislators' tacit disapproval of the Buffalo River hog farm moratorium.
The moratorium, which has the support of Gov. Asa Hutchinson, as well as conservation groups, now moves to the Administrative Rules Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council. The Arkansas Farm Bureau opposes the moratorium.
Despite the "do not review" vote, the Rules Subcommittee can still review the measure, which is on the agenda for its Wednesday meeting, said Michael McAlister, the deputy chief counsel for the state's Department of Energy and Environment.
The moratorium is the product of years of wrangling by conservationists to close the C&H Hog Farms on Big Creek, a tributary of the Buffalo River. The hog farm, which obtained a permit to operate in the watershed with a maximum capacity of 6,500 hogs, closed in January as a result of a buyout deal with the state.
In his announcement of the buyout deal last summer, Hutchinson endorsed a permanent moratorium on confined animal feeding operations in the watershed and directed the Arkansas Division of Environment Quality to carry out the rule-making process.
The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission approved the hog farm ban May 28.
Ladyman said he could not predict what the "do not review" vote in the committee last week augurs for the future or if Legislative Council will even take up the moratorium.
"In that group, there seemed to be a lot of people that did not agree with making the moratorium permanent," Ladyman said of the joint meeting. "That's really all I can say."
Hog-farm ban moves into lap of legislators
by Joseph Flaherty |
Efforts to make permanent a moratorium on medium- and large-scale hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed advanced Thursday with the approval of the state's environmental regulatory commission, but the measure still must clear the Arkansas General Assembly.
The next hurdle is a hearing in a joint committee meeting scheduled for June 8.
The proposed ban on medium- and large-scale animal feeding operations is the result of a protracted battle by conservationists to close a hog farm operating since 2012 on Big Creek, a tributary of the Buffalo River.
C&H Hog Farms -- the only federally classified medium or large hog farm operating in the watershed, with a permit to house up to 6,503 hogs -- was closed in January after a buyout deal negotiated by Gov. Asa Hutchinson.
Last year, Hutchinson voiced support for making the moratorium on hog farms permanent. And while the proposal easily cleared the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission last week, it's unclear whether lawmakers will be as receptive.
"It's a very emotional issue for a lot of people, both sides," said Rep. Jack Ladyman, R-Jonesboro, chairman of the House Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee.
A joint meeting of the House and Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor committees is now set to discuss the proposal. The committees were supposed to review the issue this month, but it was pulled from the agenda before the May 4 meeting.
If approved, the ban will receive consideration from the Rules Committee and Legislative Council.
During two committee meetings held near the river in northern Arkansas, Ladyman recalled, he heard from conservationists and people in the recreational industry who support the ban. On the opposite side were farmers and other locals concerned about excessive regulation.
Ladyman said Thursday that he has not made up his mind how he will vote. He is waiting to hear any new information brought up at the coming meeting, he said.
"I'm not sure where this is going to go," Ladyman said. "I know there are a lot of members of the committee that have talked to me that are opposed to it for a number of reasons."
On Thursday, with little discussion, the pollution commission approved revisions to Rules Five and Six, which compose the ban on confined animal operations in the watershed.
Nearly everyone on the commission voted yes. Commissioner Delia Haak recused herself during the vote on Rule Five, and Commissioner Robert Reynolds recused himself for the vote on Rule Six.
The pollution commission originally imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new permits for medium and large hog farms in April 2014, with repeated extensions.
When he announced the buyout deal with C&H Hog Farms last summer, Hutchinson said the moratorium should become permanent and delegated the rule-making process to the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality and Director Becky Keogh.
The ban would prohibit animal feeding operations with 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or operations with 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds.
The Arkansas Farm Bureau has consistently opposed the moratorium, pitting it against the governor as well as environmental groups such as the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and the Ozark Society.
In a letter of opposition to state environmental regulators in January, the Farm Bureau argued that scientific evidence has not demonstrated harm to the Buffalo River from C&H Hog Farms and that the moratorium denies landowners in the watershed the right to farm.
Jeff Pitchford, the bureau's director of state affairs, public affairs and government relations, said that while the organization will "continue to answer questions of legislators," bureau officials have not met with lawmakers in advance of the June 8 hearing.
Lawmakers know their position on the issue, Pitchford said Thursday.
"I don't think there's anything new," he said.
When asked if the bureau intends to file a lawsuit if the ban receives final approval, Farm Bureau director of environmental and regulatory affairs John Bailey said he is unaware of any plans. However, he acknowledged a legal challenge is "a possibility" if farmers believe the action infringes on their rights.
"I think that everything would be looked at," Bailey said.
Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River alliance, said he hopes legislators defer to the technical expertise of the members of the pollution commission. He suggested that lawmakers are unlikely to "outright deny" the rulemaking process behind the moratorium.
"I am hopeful, but like I say, every time they try to predict what the Legislature's going to do, we get surprised, so I'm hesitant to make a prediction," Watkins said.
SundayMonday on 05/31/2020
State groups weigh effects of water ruleU.S. agencies to roll back wetland, stream regulations
by Joseph Flaherty |
Conservationists in Arkansas are looking at the Trump administration's new definition of federally protected waterways to predict how the regulatory rollback will affect the state's wetlands and groundwater.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers last month published a rewrite of Barack Obama-era federal regulations under the Clean Water Act.
Farming and industry groups welcome the repeal of the EPA's current, broader definition of waterways protected under the Clean Water Act. The change has been one of President Donald Trump's priorities since taking office in 2017.
The new regulations, which will take effect June 22, replace the 2015 rule defining federally protected waterways, known as the "Waters of the United States," with the Trump administration's definition, the so-called "Navigable Waters Protection Rule."
The new, narrower definition removes federal protections for groundwater, ephemeral streams that only flow in response to precipitation, and wetlands that are not directly adjacent to a federally protected waterway.
Environmental groups including the Charlottesville, Va.-based Southern Environmental Law Center and the Natural Resources Defense Council have filed suit in federal court to block the new rule.
The primary effect in Arkansas may be a reduction in the acres of protected wetlands subject to a Clean Water Act permitting program, according to Walter Wright, an environmental lawyer at the Little Rock firm Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates and Woodyard.
Developers or construction crews that want to deposit dredged or fill material into a wetland must first receive approval from the Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act's Section 404 permitting program. Under the Trump administration's new rule, the number of wetlands that require such prior approval could be greatly reduced.
"From some Arkansans' standpoint, I think there's going to be concern that you're going to have areas developed that should've gone through permitting," Wright said. "On the other hand, you're going to have a set of people that believe that those are not the type of features that should have to go through permitting."
"So depending on your view, it's going to have a significant effect either way," Wright added.
Arkansas could see more rapid development taking place near wetlands where there is an economic incentive for growth, Wright said, noting legal uncertainty over the long-term status of the Trump administration's rule change, which the courts might strike down.
"They favor this much more narrow definition, and therefore I think there's going to be interest and pressure in taking advantage of this definition," he said.
PRAISE FOR NEW RULE
An internal slideshow prepared by the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers in 2017, which was obtained by E&E News, estimated that as much as 51% of the nation's wetlands and 18% of ephemeral streams would no longer receive federal protection under the new rule.
Industry and agricultural groups opposed the Obama-era rule. The president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau praised the Trump administration last September when the administration announced the rollback.
"No regulation is perfect, and no rule can accommodate every concern, but the 2015 rule was especially egregious," then-Arkansas Farm Bureau President Randy Veach said in a statement at the time. "We are relieved to put it behind us."
John Bailey, the Farm Bureau's director of environmental and regulatory affairs, said the new rule "provides clear and concise rules for farmers."
"Under the new rule Farmers are now able to look out over [their] own land and determine what is waters of the US without hiring costly consultants or engineers to do the work. In addition, we believe the new rules closely resemble what law makers had intended when the Clean Water Act was created back in 1972," Bailey said in an emailed statement Friday.
The 2015 rule was only in place in 22 states and was blocked in 28 others, including Arkansas, because of court rulings. Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge joined other states in challenging the Obama-era water rule and applauded its demise under the new administration.
"President Trump listened to our concerns and has kept his promise to replace the Obama-era definition of 'waters of the United States' and has given the power back to Arkansans to determine how best to protect our environment and promote economic growth," Rutledge said in a statement in January, after the Navigable Waters Protection Rule was finalized.
In an interview with The Washington Post last year, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the Obama-era regulations resulted in a "patchwork across the country."
"We need to have a uniform regulatory approach," Wheeler told the Post.
Nicole Hardiman, the executive director of the Cave Springs-based Illinois River Watershed Partnership, said one concern from her organization is the new rule's deregulation of groundwater. There are often connections between groundwater and surface-water quality, Hardiman said. Businesses and individuals around the state rely on groundwater for drinking or to irrigate crops.
Additionally, deregulating streams that only flow because of precipitation "will encompass a lot of headwaters," Hardiman said, not just in the Illinois River watershed but across Arkansas.
"Any water body that flows only due to precipitation is still ultimately collected in a regulated waterway, for the most part," Hardiman said. For example, pollution deposited in these rain-fed headwaters could eventually end up in the Illinois River, she said.
The EPA's own Science Advisory Board has raised similar concerns in a review of the agency's new water rule. The board is made of up independent scientists, many of them appointed by the Trump administration.
In commentary submitted to Wheeler on Feb. 27, the advisory board chairman said the new rule "decreases protection for our Nation's waters and does not provide a scientific basis" to support its consistency with the objectives of the Clean Water Act.
In particular, the board criticized the rule's exclusion of groundwater and nonadjacent wetlands from federally protected bodies of water. If the government includes spring-fed creeks as protected waterways, there is "no scientific justification" for excluding connected groundwater, board Chairman Michael Honeycutt wrote.
Contamination of groundwater may lead to contamination of connected surface water, Honeycutt added, and shallow groundwater can also connect wetlands that only occasionally flow into larger bodies of water.
Regardless of the definition of a federally protected waterway, Hardiman said that in Arkansas, many state regulatory agencies don't have the capacity -- either financially or in terms of human capital -- to be able to address either definition and enforce the Clean Water Act through monitoring and regulatory action.
She acknowledged that oversight can be burdensome.
"But the key is: Are changes to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Water Rule made in the spirit of the making the process more efficient, or is it made in the spirit of undermining the intent of the law?" Hardiman said.
When asked which one is the case with the administration's water rule, Hardiman paused.
"Perhaps both," she said.
Ross Noland, an attorney in Little Rock who specializes in environmental law, said that, assuming the rule goes into effect as planned, Arkansas could see individuals bulldozing smaller streams on or bordering private property that are not connected to a navigable waterway. Likewise, wetlands that do not share a surface connection with a larger body of water might get filled in, Noland said.
Mountain streams in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains "will probably be the ones that are most at risk," Noland said in an interview.
State environmental regulators like the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality, which issues permits governing pollutant discharges to water in lieu of the EPA enforcing the regulations directly, will have to decide if they will require a permit for discharges to smaller wetlands as a way to fill the gap created by the federal rollback, Noland said.
Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said the organization is less involved with advocacy regarding the federal rule change than with protecting the Buffalo National River locally.
But like the Illinois River Watershed Partnership, Watkins said Buffalo River advocates are concerned about potential pollution to groundwater and about contaminants moving through groundwater to emerge in springs. The issue came up during his organization's lengthy battle against the operators of a hog farm located near the Buffalo River.
Watkins described a sense of unease over the weakening of the Clean Water Act regulations, calling it "a bad omen for other water-related issues that might come up in the future."
"Just in general terms, it's a negative move that could come back to have impact on the Buffalo River," Watkins said.
Metro on 05/11/2020
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019