The Joplin Globe

Our view: An expensive lesson in Arkansas could bring a better vision for Missouri

Joplin Globe Editorial Board

Our Arkansas neighbors learned an expensive lesson, and we hope Missouri was paying attention.

Now they are forging a better vision that we think might also offer us a way forward.

About seven years ago, Arkansas regulators quietly permitted a hog concentrated animal feeding operation on a major tributary of the upper Buffalo River in Arkansas — a river that has been protected for nearly a half century. Not even the National Park Service, which is responsible for managing America's first national river, was aware of what had happened until after the deal was done.

The result sparked outcry and pushback from all corners, and not just from the state of Arkansas but around the country as well, and this summer Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced an agreement to close down the hog farm, but at a high price. The state would pay $4.7 million while The Nature Conservancy kicked in $1.5 million to help out, in effect paying the hog farm's owners $6.2 million to shut down what the state should never have permitted in the first place.

That was the expensive lesson.

This fall, Arkansas officials also announced that $2 million in state and private funds (half from the state, the rest to come from that old Ozarks' ally, The Nature Conservancy and from the Buffalo River Foundation) will be allocated for conservation and water quality grants within the Buffalo's watershed. Last week, lawmakers gave final approval to transfer the state's share of the money to the fund, with it to be used to encourage best management practices for farmers and landowners in the watershed, for local wastewater system improvements and to reduce sediment runoff from unpaved roads near the river.

The governor, by the way, also has proposed making permanent a ban on medium- and large-scale hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed.

That is the better vision — a partnership to protect the river — perhaps with a new round of conservation efforts and a cooperative approach, with the state not getting in the way but rather leading the way.

“We want the protection and enhancement of water quality in the Buffalo River Watershed to continue as a state-led effort,” Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said in September. “Now that the watershed management plan is in place, it is the right time to engage with stakeholders and landowners to start implementing projects that make a difference. The Buffalo National River is an irreplaceable resource, both for Arkansas and the nation."

A 2018 National Park Service visitor spending effects report, by the way, estimated that 1.2 million visitors spent $54.9 million while visiting Buffalo National River last year.

A similar report found that 1.3 million visitors to Ozark National Scenic Riverways — Missouri's protected rivers managed by the National Park Service — had a net boost to the local economy of $60 million.

The message from latest Battle for the Buffalo is clear: Ozark residents want their rivers protected.

Lawmakers throughout both states would be wise to heed those lessons.

Listen at KUAF Public Radio

Public Comment on ADEQ Swine CAFO Moratorium Extended

By JACQUELINE FROELICH & KYLE KELLAMS 

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality has extended a public comment period to Jan. 22 on whether to declare a permanent moratorium on industrial swine farming on the Buffalo National River watershed.

Wach video here: KY3 TV

Arkansas lawmakers clear up Buffalo River Watershed proposal

NEWTON COUNTY, Ark. -- One million dollars flowing into projects near the Buffalo National River seemed like a straightforward plan to some.

"It was for things like erosion-control projects, fencing for cattle to keep them out of the creeks. Things that I thought were a no-brainer," said Gordon Watkins, the president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.

Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson proposed spending the money back in September.

A committee made up of state leaders would decide how much money would go to each project. Subcommittees of local people who live near the river would help.

"The governor will pick out who they are," said State Rep. Keith Slape.

But Slape said after holding some public meetings in northern Arkansas, some farmers initially expressed they were not all on board.

Hutchinson's order came right after the state reached an agreement with C&H Hog Farms to cease operations in Newton County in exchange for $6.2 million.

Many people believed the farm contributed to pollution in the river, but there appears to be no concrete scientific evidence to back that up.

And other farmers don't want to be next.

"They were worried that, OK they've got the hogs out of here. Now they're going to go for the cattle, the chickens, and that. And on the surface that's what it appeared at first," Slape said.

Slape said farmers were also worried the state would have too much control of the process.

But the state representative and other lawmakers helped change the wording.

It's now clear the subcommittees made up of local people will have a lot of the say.

"There's a history of here of distrust of the government, and people who say there's no such thing as free money," Watkins said. "And in some cases that's probably true. But in this case I think it was an honest effort. It was well-intentioned by the governor."

John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future

Nation’s Leading Public Health Organization Urges Halt to All New and Expanding CAFOs

November 18, 2019

Arkansasonline

Panel backs shift of $1M in state funds for watershed projects

by Michael R. Wickline

A legislative committee Tuesday endorsed Gov. Asa Hutchinson's request to transfer $1 million in one-time state funds to the state Department of Agriculture to support grants and projects within the Buffalo National River watershed.

In a voice vote, the Legislative Council's Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Committee recommended that the council approve the Republican governor's request when it meets Friday.

Last month, the committee skipped making a recommendation to the Legislative Council on the request, and then the full council delayed action on it.

Hutchinson said in a letter dated Nov. 1 that he is seeking the council's approval of his request this month, after, "as requested by the council, my staff and I fulfilled the requests to meet with legislators and their constituents to answer any questions that may have caused concern."

The House and Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor committees met Oct. 30 in Jasper and Marshall to hear public comment about Hutchinson's executive order creating the Buffalo River Conservation Committee.

Hutchinson said the $1 million in one-time funds will be used to support grants and projects "including, but not limited to the following -- voluntary best management practices for farmers and landowners, improvements to wastewater and septic systems for cities and counties within the watershed, and reduction of sediment runoff from unpaved roads within the watershed."

The Buffalo River Conservation Committee and its subcommittees will identify projects and distribute funds to improve water quality and promote conservation practices, he said in the Nov. 1 letter. The Nature Conservancy and the Buffalo River Foundation also have collectively pledged $1 million toward the committee.

Hutchinson's creation of the conservation committee in September came after the state agreed this summer to purchase a conservation easement to shut down C&H Hog Farms, a large operation that is within the watershed. The state will pitch in $4.7 million and the Nature Conservancy will provide $1.5 million, according to state officials.

The conservation committee includes Department of Agriculture Secretary Wes Ward; Department of Energy and Environment Secretary Becky Keogh; Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism Secretary Stacy Hurst; and Department of Health Secretary Nathaniel Smith, or their designees.

Sen. Terry Rice, R-Waldron, on Tuesday asked Ward about the inclusiveness of small animal agriculture on the conservation subcommittees.

Ward said, "regarding the subcommittees in particular, we have not identified those directly yet.

"The reason why is because we wanted that to be a joint effort between the four members that make up the [Buffalo River committee] as well as the governor ... but also legislators, particularly the legislators in that particular area," he said.

"So in regard to small animal owners and small animal agricultural producers, we certainly would invite their participation to be on the subcommittees," Ward said. "Regarding the makeup of what we are looking at, agriculture certainly would be a role in those subcommittees and in particular in looking at agricultural producers that are well-known and well-respected and within the area, not someone from Little Rock."

Ward added that two producers had been identified but not contacted yet, pending legislative review of the money request.

Rice said he appreciates Ward's remarks.

"We are talking about a $1 million rainy-day fund being put there when we have senior citizens centers closing. We got other ones struggling that we have asked additional monies for," he said. "While this is monies that can do some good, there are a lot of places the monies can do some good."

Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, who chairs the Senate committee that met with its House counterpart in Jasper and Marshall on Oct. 30, said, "the last thing that we would want to do is authorize $1 million that is just going to sit there, that nobody is going to participate with because they are so skeptical.

"That's just a waste of us spending $1 million sitting over there, doing no good," she said. "That's why this whole process was really important to me and to the area legislators.

"We have requested that there would be oversight and reports coming to the Senate public health committee which have been agreed upon as well," Irvin said. "We are happy to meet jointly with the agriculture committee if we need to do that."

Metro on 11/13/2019

Newton County Times

Watershed could be ‘a bushel of a mess’

• By: Jeff Dezort jeffd@newtoncountytimes.com
•  

JASPER — A joint meeting of the Arkansas Senate and House committees on Public Health, Welfare and Labor, Wednesday night at the Carroll Electric Building in Jasper. Committee chairmen conducted a public hearing over Gov. Asa Hutchinson's executive order creating the Buffalo River Conservation Committee (BRCC) that would oversee conservation projects in the watershed area, and his request for $1 million for the purpose of leveraging opportunities to receive federal grants for funding conservagtion projects in the watershed.

Wes Ward, secretary of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, and one of four state agency BRCC members, gave a short explanation about the governor's funding request. When the BRCC executive order was issued it included placing $1 million towards the committee's efforts. It was also made known that the Nature Conservancy and the Buffalo River Foundation pledged $1 million to go to those efforts, as well. Essentially there are $2 million to accomplish projects identified by BRCC subcommittees.

Neither the BRCC, nor the cabinet agencies, have control over donations made by any entity that wants to become a participating partner. There may be some agreement between the donor, the BRCC and its subcommittees on which projects those funds could be used. If a list of priorities is identified, but only so much state funding is available, outside entities could take the list and try to accomplish them on their own, Ward said.

"We need your input,"said state Sen. Missy Irvin (R-Mountain View), saying this is just the beginning of conversations. Irvin was joined by her counterpart state Rep. Jack Ladyman (R-Corning). The primary reason for us coming here is to hear what you have to say, he told the crowd.

With all the information provided, Irvin opened the floor for public comment. The first was a question by Pam Stewart. "My driveway erosion can run into a tributary to the Buffalo River. Would I possibly qualify for a grant to correct the drainage?"

Anything is on the table, Ward answered. The magnitude of the problem would be considered for prioritization. A project that would benefit significantly more people might be prioritized higher, he said.

Irvin suggested that this could be considered an infrastructure issue and this particular problem might be included into a more broader project. Similarly, agriculture and tourism are to be considered for projects designed not only to protect the river, but also landowners and their ability to earn a living.

Kelly Woods said he, his wife and family operate a cow-calf and hay operation in Newton County. He said he opposes the governor spending $1 million for promoting conservation practices that are already available. He said he consults conservation professionals to determine what practices are best for his farm.

"We make the decision on what we would like to do on our property, not the government," Woods said. He added that there is a fear that what starts out to be voluntary can become mandatory.

If the governor has a million dollars laying around to spend in the Buffalo River watershed there are better uses for it than focusing on a supposed environmental catastrophe that might or might not happen in the future. Woods thinks some programs, once initiated, could reduce or even eliminate farming activities in the watershed. "This is the perception we have," Woods said.

To take his point further, Woods mentioned several needs that exist in the watershed.

There are volunteer fire departments that are understaffed, under-equipped and undertrained. Wouldn't this money be better spent to help those people perform their volunteer duty? When was the last time a tourist fell off a bluff or had a wreck and they called out a snail darter to help? He said there are law enforcement officers working in the watershed who rely on welfare assistance and food stamps to make ends meet. "Hang your heads." Rural school districts within the watershed could use that money to better educate the children who live there. They could get the same modern technology larger schools outside the watershed already have, he said. Or the money could be used to help school districts meet their high transportation costs. When was the last time an Indiana bat was hired to teach your kids English or math, or drive your children over mountainous, curvy roads in the fog or on snowy days?

Dustin Cowell said local people get the feeling they are being attacked for destroying the watershed. We feel that is misplaced and unfair. The river was beautiful in the past and it continues to be today. What's the difference between then and now? There are fewer hogs on creeks and streams and probably fewer cattle today. Tourism has grown considerably, however.

Cowell said point 7 in the governor's executive order points to the use of sound science in determining water quality. "We've heard that before," he said, referring to the buy out of C&H Hog Farms at Mt. Judea. The farm was permitted and was operating under the rules of the permit, but found itself under constant attack by conservation groups that believed the farm to be a danger to the river because it is located next to Big Creek a tributary to the Buffalo.

The governor made it known that the operators of the farm had done nothing wrong and scientific testing and monitoring of the river could not prove otherwise. Yet that did not prevent the farm from being shut down through the voluntary buy out agreement.

"To me the precedent has been set that you don't have to do anything wrong for the government to step in," Cowell said. What protections would be in place to keep that from happening to others?

He said tourism's effect on the river should also be studied.

Andy McCutcheon, president of the Searcy County Cattlemen's Association, said he spoke to the panel in Marshall earlier in the day. He said he had two questions to pose at this time. What will happen to the BRCC if the $1 million isn't appropriated to it? Who will conduct future water quality testing? The testing previously has been controversial as it was conducted by conflicting interests, he pointed out.

There needs to be an understanding that the Buffalo River watershed is separate from the Buffalo National River. This isn't federal land. This is private land. The Nature Conservancy doesn't hand out money without some kind of agenda or strings attached. The Nature Conservancy is prominently named in the Buffalo River Watershed Management Plan as a reference and as a lead agency in implementing proposed projects.

Members of the Searcy County Cattlemen's Association utilize the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and others offered through the Natural Resources Conservation Service under the United States Department of Agriculture, McCutcheon said, but if the Nature Conservancy plays a role in these programs a lot of farmers will turn away from them.

The population of people and livestock residing in the watershed is far less than the number of tourist who recreationally use the river annually, he said. "I'm not against conservation and I don't know a farmer who is. We all are connected to the Buffalo River, some of us deeper than others. I have had family members be baptized in it and I have had family members die in it," he said. But until overuse of the river is acknowledged and it is regulated water quality issues on the river won't be resolved.

Beth Ardapple, of Cave Creek near Mt. Judea, said the BRCC could help prevent future conflicts if there is good local representation on it and its subcommittees. It could also explore and support economic development. "We want jobs. We want our farmers. We want successful businesses. And we need them to fit in well with the Buffalo River because it's going to become more popular and more of an economic development engine over time."

Ward responded to McCutcheon's questions. He said the BRCC would continue to follow the governor's directive even without the additional $1 million. Existing programs would continue, but would not have the additional resources to help implement projects at a more urgent pace.

Water quality testing is a concern, Ward acknowledged. That would be something for subcommittees to consider.

Ward noted that McCutcheon and Cowell would be perfect subcommittee members.

Jessie Green, of White River Waterkeeper, said one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the $1 million could be used towards wastewater treatment plant upgrades. Jasper could use this money as well as Marble Falls and Marshall. Sending the money to municipalities would provide relief to their ratepayers.

Ed Manor, of Jasper, said in reviewing local history that the river was deeper and cleaner when the local people had stewardship over it. When the National Park Service came it said pretty much what officials were saying tonight, night that the plan is voluntary. The first thing the park service did was put up restrictions. "I can't believe that this voluntary committee is going to protect the property rights of the people who are paying your salaries, he said. "All we ask is that we be left alone."

Finally, 18-year-old Shianna Brasel, of Jasper, took the microphone crediting the beauty of the lands surrounding the river to farmers like her father who manage the fields and forests. Without farming the watershed area would turn into another New York City or worse, "a bushel of a mess."

Harrison Daily Times

Arkansasonline

90 days added for hog-ban comments

by Emily Walkenhorst | Today at 2:19 a.m.

People have 88 more days to submit comments on a proposed ban on certain-sized hog farms in the Buffalo National River's watershed.

That's because the final report of the team studying the impact that C&H Hog Farms had on a Buffalo National River tributary has been published.

The Big Creek Research and Extension Team posted the 280-page report, with 619 pages of appendices, online Thursday.

On Friday, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission voted unanimously to reopen the public comment period on the partial hog farm ban for 90 days from Thursday. The comment period lasts through Jan. 21.

"The public needs the opportunity to look at it," Commissioner Mike Freeze said of the report.

Freeze and other commissioners said in July that they wanted to withhold allowing the partial ban to begin going through the rule-making process until the report was completed. At the time, they believed the report would be released imminently. They voted in favor of initiating the rule-making with the understanding that the public comment period could be altered to accommodate the report's release.

The original comment period closed in September and amassed more than 400 comments. All but two favored the ban.

Experts reached Friday said they hadn't had much time to scan the report.

Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said he wanted to read it before commenting. He said he had read several pages but not much.

David Peterson, president of the Ozark Society, said the report showed the gravity of phosphorus buildup in soil over time, suggesting adjustments to how C&H was applying its phosphorus-rich manure mixture, called "slurry," to the ground.

That backs up his group's and other groups' concerns about how farms are advised and required to apply fertilizers to the ground.

"It actually substantiated some things that we thought were true and had analyzed in the data before," Peterson said.

As of late Friday, Peterson said he had read fewer than 40 pages, although that was more than many others.

John Bailey, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said he began reading the report Friday. He'd read the executive summary and conclusions before telling the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that it appeared to support what the Farm Bureau has said -- that C&H wasn't worsening Big Creek.

"What I feel like this document says is what we've been trying to say all along, is that there's no environmental impact," he said.

But, Bailey added, the report makes some observations that the Farm Bureau could take to heart, namely suggestions for how to better apply manure to land to minimize environmental impact.

"What we're going to have to focus on is, is there a better way to manage this, to keep phosphorus on site," he said.

Big Creek flows into the Buffalo River more than 6 miles from where C&H abuts it. C&H is permitted to house up to 6,503 hogs, although it normally operated with only about 3,000. It will close by the beginning of next year under a $6.2 million buyout from the state, brokered by Gov. Asa Hutchinson.

Hutchinson focused on the Buffalo in his weekly address Friday. He acknowledged a wide variety of potential threats to the river but vowed to work toward protecting it.

"We want to preserve this treasured resource," he said. 

The Big Creek Research and Extension Team, comprised of 10 researchers and several field technicians, did not find that C&H had been contributing to algal blooms or other water quality issues along the Buffalo or Big Creek.

Researchers found that certain concentrations of nutrients did not appear to have increased since the beginning of the study through the end.

The final sentence of the report reads, "as long as the integrity of the holding ponds is maintained, the main long-term environmental concerns with CAFO [concentrated animal feeding operation] lies with land use and nutrient management of the fields permitted to receive slurry."

On a few occasions, researchers noted that a lack of data on conditions prior to C&H's operations prevented them from drawing conclusions.

FARM OPENED BEFORE STUDY

The study did not begin until several months after the farm began operations. That means researchers could not compare their measurements of nutrient concentrations during C&H's normal operations to what they were before C&H opened.

Grazing, slurry and fertilizer managements on three fields may have increased the potential loss of phosphorus and nitrogen into Big Creek, researchers wrote. But the report said researchers did not have background data, including historical nutrient management and nutrient application to the land.

The team sampled water from September 2013 until July. That monitoring focused on five things, according to the report: the impact of slurry on soil fertility; nutrient runoff; trends in the water quality of three different spots on the farm; nutrient loads in Big Creek; and trends in nutrient and bacteria concentrations up and downstream of C&H.

Any additional nutrients applied to C&H's fields should limit the slurry specifically for its phosphorus concentrations, researchers determined. Continued application at the rate it was applied from 2014 to 2018 would result in enough phosphorus in the soil to run off into nearby waters.

The facility had statistically significant increases in nitrate concentrations in a stream and water well on facility property, researchers concluded. Tests of other substances suggest that the concentrations are not attributable to holding pond manure.

Two storms in May and December 2015 put large amounts of nutrients in Big Creek. Those storms contributed the majority of the five-year overall nutrient loading into the creek. As a result, researchers recommend that conservation measures to minimize nutrients runoff be focused on the manure and method of application, versus managing the transport of the manure.

Researchers found phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations in Big Creek to be higher downstream of C&H than from upstream, but not at statistically significant amounts when adjusting for stream flow variability.

"Concentrations in Big Creek were similar to other watersheds in this region with similar land use, suggesting limited impact of the CAFO on Big Creek at the present time," the report reads. "However, this does not preclude future impacts of agricultural and urban operations in the watershed."

PARTIAL BAN

The partial ban is for federally classified medium and large hog farms in the Buffalo National River's watershed. That's a slightly smaller watershed than the whole Buffalo River, which is 15 miles longer than the National River designation.

Farms are federally classified as small, medium or large. Medium hog farms are defined as having 750 or more swine of more than 55 pounds, or 3,000 or more swine of 55 pounds or less.

Some comments questioned whether the proposal, as written, would actually prevent hog farms as large as C&H from being constructed within the watershed.

Hog farms often have combinations of the two weight classes of pigs. The proposed ban does not explain how to calculate whether a hog farm meets the size threshold if combining the two weight classes of pigs.

Several comments questioned why the proposed ban would be limited to hog farms while other animal farms can cause pollution concerns, as well. Poultry farming in Northwest Arkansas has long been blamed for excess nutrients in the Illinois River in Oklahoma.

Many comments hit on the same themes: calling the C&H Hog Farms permit a mistake, arguing that the karst topography of the region is unsuitable for sizable hog farms, and/or supporting broader restrictions in the watershed. The suggested restrictions include prohibiting small hog farms, barring other types of concentrated animal-feeding operations, and preventing the transport of hog manure and spread of hog manure on land within the Buffalo River's watershed.

Not all comments were about the proposed ban on medium and large hog farms.

The proposal places the entirety of two regulations up for amendment. Those are Regulation 5, which governs liquid animal waste management systems that are not allowed to discharge waste, and Regulation 6, which governs federal wastewater permits that allow for discharge.

The department altered numerous provisions within Regulation 6. Some were superficial changes from "Regulation" to "Rule" or "Six" to "6," but some, commenters argued, appeared to change permit application requirements and review processes for facilities that aren't animal farms.

Metro on 10/26/2019

Print Headline: 90 days added for hog-ban comments

BCRET Final Report