Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Harrison Daily Times
Staff Report news@harrisondaily.com
The junior high school science fair asks students to form a hypothesis and then use scientific methods to determine if the hypothesis is correct. In some cases the hypothesis is found to be incorrect or the scientific evidence is found to be lacking.
Where the Buffalo National River is concerned, scientists, park staff, landowners and other stakeholders have made their hypotheses on what is impacting the river's water quality. During a science symposium on water-related research held Tuesday evening at the Durand Center, it was found that some of the research that has been conducted is inconclusive.
The symposium was held to share water quality data that has been collected to date, said Shawn Hodges, an ecologist for the Buffalo National River.
He said some of the water quality studies date back about 30 years. The presentations provide an at-the-moment look at the investigations that have been conducted by a wide range of public and privately funded research.
Hodges said he believes hydrology plays a big role in how the river has evolved and continues to evolve. There has been recent flooding on the river and now it is trying to reset itself, he said.
Impacts on the river could be further investigated, he agreed, particularly the effects of less water being drawn out of the local aquifer due to the Ozark Mountain Regional Water Authority now serving community water districts within the Buffalo River watershed with drinking water drawn out of Bull Shoals Lake and transmitted via pipeline. Those same customers are now discharging greater amounts of waste water.
Some conservation organizations blame the C&H Hog Farms located near Big Creek, which flows into the Buffalo National River for polluting the river. Scientists have been studying the river above Big Creek and below.
A US Geological Survey says in a study conducted over two years that researchers didn't see any statistical differences in the nutrient concentrations between upstream or downstream. Scientists say a lot more data is needed before they come to a definitive conclusion.
During the drop-in poster session, analysts explained the information charts attached along a wall. One large poster described studies of bacterial counts and metabolic activity from water samples along the Buffalo National River. These studies were conducted by the US Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center of Lafayette, Louisiana, and the University of Louisiana along with other academic institutions.
The joint study conducted in 2017 investigated nutrients in water at six sites along the river. Water samples were taken from Big Creek where the confined animal feeding operation is located, as well as two upstream sites and three downstream sites on the river. Water samples were collected monthly and shipped on ice overnight for laboratory processing.
The poster describes the scientific processes used to analyze the samples.
The groups' hypothesis was that metabolic activity would differ among sites along this section of the river. Bacterial counts were significantly different among sites for 73% of the monthly samplings and 45% of those were highest at Big Creek.
Metabolic activity was significantly different among sites for 94% of the samplings, with the Big Creek site showing the lowest activity for 75% of those months. Generally, bacterial metabolic activity close to Big Creek was depressed compared with the other sites. Additional analyses to examine relationships among water quality parameters and fecal indicators are planned.
The poster shows the teams' conclusions.
• Although higher bacterial metabolic activity was hypothesized to occur at Big Creek due to likely introduction of organic nutrients into BNR from the swine CAFO, Big Creek showed the lowest metabolic activity for 71% of the months analyzed.
• Overall bacterial metabolic activity at all sites was lower in the colder, winter months.
• Highest live bacterial counts were generally associated with local rain events.
• The results presented in this study are part of a 19-month project and will be combined with other environmental water-quality data and fecal bacterial indicators.
• Nutrients/organics and bacteria may originate from other sources in the Big Creek watershed.
Another chart prepared by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission showed documentation of filamentous algae occurrences in the river dating back as far as a 1974 survey. The report focuses on the seasonal dominance of two genera, Spirogyra and Oedogonium.
Over the past two years filamentous algae occurrence has increased in the lower half of the river. September 2016 brought the first significant public reporting of a filamentous event extending 11 miles near Maumee access. By the end of 2016 the filamentous coverage was approximately 20 miles. Filamentous algae from the 2016 event were dominated by Oedogonium. In July 2017, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality released a browser and mobile Nuisance Algae Reporting tool to track occurrence, extent and duration of filamentous algae events. Starting in August 2017 and extending for four months, ADEQ received 17 notifications of large extents of filamentous algae; all of which were in the Buffalo River or its tributaries. By November 2017, reports extended from Mt. Hersey to below Rush access into the Lower Wilderness Area. Findings showed it was primarily Spirogyra and Oedognimum. In 2018, the first report was received in May with a total of 36 notifications received covering approximately 90 river miles.
A historical timeline marks reports of algae beginning in 1975 when it was dominate in late spring and summer.
Copious Spirogyra in deep pools were noted along with blue-green algae in 1978.
Numerous algae clumps were reported in 1991.
A 10-year water quality report noted in 1997 that phytoplankton increased turbidity during base flow conditions.
In 2004 the Buffalo National River Water Resource Management plan noted limited research on algae noting blooms have posed problems extensive enough to warrant complaints. Spirogyra was most common, occurring in dense, floating mats in the middle to lower river.
In 2016 blooms were reported Sept. 15 in a stretch of river 20 miles long.
Blooms were reported in 2017, first on Aug. 7, 70 miles long.
The last entry on the chart was a bloom first reported May 15, 2018. It stretched 90 miles long. Thirty-six individual reports were made.
No direct cause for any of the algae outbreaks were determined.
Endangered river
by Mike Masterson | Today at 1:47 a.m
Our treasured Buffalo National River has made the nonprofit American Rivers' annual report, "America's Most Endangered Rivers," for a second year. The suffering stream ranked eighth in the latest report's Top Ten list; it was last included in 2017.
What a disgrace that our state has created this travesty, thereby continuing to jeopardize the magnificent river USA Todayreaders called our state's greatest natural attraction. The malfeasance has been unbelievable to watch.
The 2019 report asserts the Buffalo is imperiled by the existence of the concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) at Mount Judea.
"In 2012, a 6,500-head hog CAFO was permitted and constructed by C&H Hog Farms Inc. without public debate or input," it reads. "The hog CAFO, including massive indoor feedlots and two manure-filled ponds, sits on a hill along one of Buffalo National River's main tributaries, Big Creek, less than six miles from the mainstem of the river.
"Each year, millions of gallons of liquid hog waste are sprayed onto pastures and fields, some of which lie in a floodplain. This ... is particularly harmful where topsoil is thin and the underlying geology is a porous limestone (karst) that is prone to fissures, sinkholes and rapid transmission of groundwater into the water table.
"In fact, dye-tracing studies around the hog CAFO have shown that water can travel under mountains across 13 miles of the watershed. Consequently, contaminants in the manure fields and ponds are having far-reaching effects, including polluting groundwater wells and threatening endangered species," the report continues.
"In the past three years, unprecedented algal blooms have stretched over 70 miles downstream of the CAFO. In 2018, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) identified Big Creek and sections of the Buffalo River as impaired due to high E. coli bacterial concentrations and low dissolved oxygen."
The state denied a new permit for the CAFO after the Buffalo's 2017 listing and ordered that it be shuttered, but the owners have fought the issue in court. Depositions showed C&H failed to provide a geological assessment, draft an emergency response plan or follow other legal requirements for waste management.
The spray fields' nutrient levels far exceed those required to avoid water contamination because of incorrect carrying capacity estimates. That includes excessive phosphorus that can bind with soil enter the waterway during heavy rain, and leach underground, the report adds.
The report also mentions attorneys: "In an unprecedented move, lawyers for corporate industrial agriculture interests are questioning the right of ADEQ to do its job. As the state's designated arm of the Environmental Protection Agency, ADEQ is the sole regulator of permits designed to protect the waters of the state. ADEQ has denied the new permit for this facility.
"Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson faces pressure from agricultural lobbyists who want to frame this as a 'right to farm' issue. The American Farm Bureau is a key player in this legal fight, and they must be called to account for defending an operation that should never have been established in such a sensitive and invaluable place."
The concerned folks at American Rivers concluded by saying Hutchinson can be assured he has public opinion behind him if he takes a firm stand for preserving the endangered river, adding, "Science, not greed, should be the deciding factor.
"The governor must demand the closure of this facility now. The Buffalo National River ... belongs to every citizen of our country. Continued support from a well-informed and concerned citizenry will be necessary to stop this power grab by a corporation that clearly does not care about the health and well-being of this national treasure."
Voiced your opinion yet?
Baxter Bulletin
SCOTT LILES, Baxter BulletinPublished 9:46 p.m. CT April 16, 2019 | Updated 4:05 p.m. CT April 17, 2019
The Buffalo National River has been included on list of “America’s Most Endangered Rivers” by a prominent river-advocacy group for the second time in three years.
The nonprofit organization American Rivers ranked the Buffalo River as the nation’s eighth most-endangered waterway in its 2019 Most Endangered Rivers report, which was released Tuesday. The river was previously named the ninth most-endangered river in 2017 and did not make the group’s list in 2018.
The 153 mile-long Buffalo was the first waterway to be designated as a National River by Congress in 1972. The lower 135 miles flow within the boundaries of an area managed by the National Park Service and is one of the few remaining undammed rivers in the lower 48 states, according to the NPS.
In 2017, more than 1.47 million people visited the Buffalo to camp, canoe, hike or fish, American Rivers reported in the 2019 assessment of the river. The Buffalo River supports more than 300 species of wildlife, including beaver, elk, black bear, smallmouth bass and catfish. The federally-endangered gray bat, Indiana bat and Northern long-eared bat are all found in the karst caves flanking the river.
The Most Endangered Rivers report is an annual list first created by American Rivers in 1984 that highlights waterways whose health and future is at a tipping point. Rivers are selected based on three criteria: The river is of regional or national significance to people and wildlife; the river and communities that depend on it are under significant threat, especially in light of a changing climate; and that each river on the list will face a major decision in the coming year that the public can help influence.
The Buffalo is threatened by the continued operation of a large-scale hog farm operating on one of the river’s main tributaries, the river-advocacy group states.
“The (Buffalo’s) clean water, recreation opportunities and fish and wildlife are threatened by a nearby concentrated animal feeding operation generating waste equivalent to that of 30,000 people,” American Rivers writes in its 2019 report on the Buffalo.
That operation, a 6,500-head hog farm operated by C&H Hog Farms of Vendor, opened in 2012 along Big Creek, about 7 miles from where the creek flows into the river. Liquid waste from the hogs is retained in two large waste ponds and is sprayed across 600 acres of adjacent farmland as fertilizer.
Conservation groups have opposed the operation of the hog farm within the river’s watershed, arguing that the hog manure produced by the farm increases the risks of polluting the river.
In 2017, the hog farm’s original five-year operating permit expired and its application for a second operating permit was declined by state. The hog farm has continued to operate since that decision as the farm’s owners, cousins Jason Henson, Phillip Campbell and Richard Campbell, have appealed the state’s decision.
The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality listed Big Creek and the Buffalo River as “impaired” in 2018 because of elevated E. coli levels and diminished dissolved oxygen levels in parts of the two bodies of water. An “impaired” tag means at least one of several negative elements in the water exceeds water-quality standards.
A 14-mile stretch in the middle of the Buffalo contained excessive amounts of E. coli, but the remainder of the river was not impaired, according to data collected through early 2017. About 15 of the 19 miles of Big Creek were also impaired because of E. coli, and the final 3.7 miles of the creek before it flows into the Buffalo was listed as impaired due to low dissolved oxygen levels.
Volunteers have recently begun documenting the growth of large algal blooms downstream of the hog farm, with measurements being used to as baseline to compare future growth.
Jessie Green, executive director of the White River Waterkeeper nonprofit organization, told The Bulletin last year that the river’s algae has been increasing in recent years, but could not specifically say why.
“We’re not sure why its growing. It could be weather patterns, it could be hydrology,” she said. “Nutrients are a key player, no doubt — you can’t have growth without the nutrients — but it’s not something that we know right now.”
No research has directly linked the farm’s operation with the Buffalo River watershed’s water-quality problems. Big Creek has less E. coli contamination downstream of the hog farm than it does upstream, the Arkansas Farm Bureau has noted in defense of the hog farm.
In its “What must be done” section of its 2019 report about the Buffalo, American Rivers calls upon Gov. Asa Hutchinson to demand that the hog farm be closed.
“Hutchinson faces pressure from agricultural lobbyists who want to frame this as a ‘right to farm’ issue … Gov. Hutchinson needs to know that he will be supported by public opinion if he stands up for the river,” the nonprofit group writes in its report. “The Buffalo National River flows in Arkansas, but it belongs to every citizen of our country.”
Other endangered rivers identified in the 2019 report include the New Mexico’s Gila River; the Hudson River in New York; the Upper Missouri River in Illinois, Iowa and Missouri; Washington’s Green-Duwamish River; Alaska’s Chilkat River; the South Fork Salmon River in Idaho; Ohio’s Big Darby Creek and Alaska’s Stikine River.
Visit www.AmericanRivers.org/EndangeredRivers to view the 2019 Most Endangered Rivers report.
MASTERSON ONLINE: Protecting the riverby Mike Masterson
| Today at 1:52 a.m
Reader Nancy Baxter was among those expressing disdain for GOP state Sen. Gary Stubblefield's Senate Bill 550 that Gov. Asa Hutchinson rightly sidetracked late last month.
That's the Farm Bureau-embraced bill I'm sure many readers recall that would have transferred authority for issuing permits and oversight of hog factories from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough) to the ill-equipped Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. It was such a terrible bill I affectionately named it the "Superfluous Stubblefield Stinker."
While I appreciate all readers who make the effort to express their views to our elected officials, I was especially interested in the revealing response Baxter received from members of the governor's "Constituent Staff."
Although stopping short of flat-out saying the senator's stinker was going nowhere, even after passing the Senate (those folks clearly enjoy pleasing the appreciative Farm Bureau), it nonetheless spelled out Hutchinson's feelings about the matter. Here's what it said:
"Thank you for reaching out to Governor Hutchinson's office on this critical issue. It is important that adequate protections remain in place so that we can continue our diligent work to protect the Buffalo National River. Historically, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has been the agency of record for this type of permitting, and they already have the necessary expertise in place to make a determination on a Regulation 5 application.
"Governor Hutchinson is confident in the current process at ADEQ, and will continue to have reservations with regard to SB550 and the transfer of Regulation 5 permitting authority from the ADEQ to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC). The Governor will continue to monitor this legislation closely."
That's encouraging, since I feel certain thousands of others across our state who care deeply for protecting the welfare of our country's first national river are closely monitoring right alongside the governor.
TOM DILLARD: Inflicting harm upon ourselves
The recent efforts among some legislators to defend large confined hog production facilities near the Buffalo National River remind me that we Arkansans have long had a propensity for shooting ourselves in the feet.
All too often during the past 200 years our elected public officials have made decisions which have held back our state, decisions which have put short-term gain over the long-term needs of the citizens.
It all started quite early in our history. Arkansas became a state in 1836 under a constitution which authorized state officials to develop a public school system. However, when the U.S. government set aside every 16th section of land in every township in the state to sell to benefit education, state leaders deferred to local officials in selling the land, overseeing the income, and running the schools. While the lands were sold, the funds were flitted away, and only a handful of communities actually established schools.
Likewise, the state failed to establish a college despite the federal government again setting aside public land to be sold to benefit a "seminary of learning." The state reacted slowly and without resolve, so Arkansans had to send their children to small private colleges or, as many planters did, to out-of-state institutions.
The great historian Samuel Eliot Morison, writing in his 1950 majestic history of the United States The Growth of the American Republic, made a startling comparison of the sister states of Michigan and Arkansas: "The first Michigan legislature created a university at Ann Arbor. The first Arkansas legislature was remembered for a fatal brawl, when the Speaker of the House came down from his chair and slew a member with his bowie-knife."
Morison could have gone on to note that Arkansas did not create a state university until Reconstruction, when newly arrived out-of-state politicians brought many reforms to the state.
Arkansas historian and educator John Hugh Reynolds has noted that the failure of the early leaders of Arkansas to take advantage of the seminary lands set the state back many years. "How heavily Arkansas lost in her failure to regard the university fund as a sacred trust is beyond estimate."
State officials brought the same lackadaisical attitude to setting up a banking system for the new state. As with education, the 1836 state constitution authorized the creation of banks. The state set up the Real Estate Bank, which was intended to provide credit to farmers and planters, and the State Bank, to meet the needs of the business community.
The State Bank was the first to be launched. By the autumn of 1837, some $300,000 in state bonds had been sold to the U.S. War Department. The bank officials loaned money with abandon and with little oversight. The State Bank branch in Arkansas Post loaned $60,000 on its opening day alone.
The Real Estate Bank was created in 1838 when the state managed to sell $1.5 million in state bonds. U.S. Senator Ambrose H. Sevier of Arkansas browbeat the newly-endowed Smithsonian Institution into buying $500,000 in bonds. The Real Estate Bank was, as historian Michael B. Dougan has written, "a planter-run bank." Land provided the security for loans, and often at inflated prices. Oversight was minimal. Sen. Sevier himself got a $15,000 loan backed by 1,080 acres of land.
Both banks failed quickly. The Real Estate Bank declared bankruptcy in 1841, and the State Bank closed two years later.
It was at this point that Arkansas voters compounded the damage by adopting the first amendment to the state constitution, a provision outlawing banking in the state altogether. And, still later, state voters repudiated the state debt, an action which meant that Arkansas was denied much needed capital for decades.
Without a doubt, the most painful and devastating self-inflicted wound in Arkansas history was the decision in 1861 to secede from the Union and join the Confederacy. In addition to the thousands of Arkansans who died during the rebellion, we paid a huge human and monetary price for our short-sighted alignment with the other slave states.
Arkansans made the situation worse in 1874 when, in the aftermath of Reconstruction, state voters adopted an extremely reactionary state constitution--the same constitution we have today, though it has been amended many times.
The disfranchisement of poor and minority voters in the 1890s was another case where Arkansans borrowed trouble. Almost seven decades would pass, for example, before the poll tax was repealed in 1964. Eventually, it took the federal government to ensure that black Arkansans could vote.
I was in elementary school in 1957 when Arkansas governor Orval E. Faubus engineered a national emergency by mobilizing the National Guard to prevent integration of Central High School in Little Rock. The state endured years of condemnation over the 1957 crisis, and economic development was hamstrung.
With this sad backstory, we should not be surprised that some legislators have threatened to turn their backs on the Buffalo National River, our nation's first national river. Indeed, that magnificent free-flowing river came close to being dammed before Congress granted the Buffalo protected status in 1972.
In addition to preserving 135 miles of the river, the Buffalo has had a profound economic impact on a part of the state which has traditionally been economically depressed. More than 800,000 people visit the river annually, many from out of state.
Given its popularity and economic impact, many people were surprised when the administration of Gov. Mike Beebe authorized the construction of a large hog farm near Mount Judea in Newton County.
As Suzie Rogers, author of the entry on the Buffalo National River in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas History & Culture, has written, "Since the installation of the hog farm the Buffalo River has experienced several algal blooms; significant algae growth in the summer of 2018 included toxic blue-green algae." She further noted that "in July 2018, a 14.3 mile segment of the river and Big Creek, a tributary, was listed as impaired . . ."
We do not yet know if residents of the Natural State are willing to sacrifice one of our most important cultural, recreational, and economic resources. Based on our history, we cannot rule out that possibility.
Tom Dillard is a historian and retired archivist living near Glen Rose in rural Hot Spring County. Email him at Arktopia.td@gmail.com.
Editorial on 03/31/2019
Print Headline: TOM DILLARD: Inflicting harm upon ourselves
OPINION
MIKE MASTERSON: Good for GuvAgainst SB550
I was pleased, as were many across Arkansas, to see our governor step forward the other day to effectively sidetrack that terrible bill (SB550) by Sen. Gary Stubblefield, which would have handed regulatory authority over hog factories by the EPA-qualified Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
This piece of legislation I've deemed the "Stubblefield Stinker," although approved by the Senate (I've previously listed those voting for it), was firmly backed by a push from the Arkansas Farm Bureau, which has continued to endorse and embrace deeply controversial C&H Hog Farms, wrongly permitted in our precious Buffalo National River watershed in 2012.
Although that shocking permit was indeed issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (including its former official John Bailey, now with Farm Bureau) without stringent requirements for safety and water testing in a region permeated by fractured karst subsurface, the agency finally did deny a separate permit application for the factory last year.
In other words, it applied the criteria that should have been demanded back of this grossly misplaced facility back in 2012. Wish I could say "better late than never." But our Buffalo and its tributary Big Creek that flows along and through the C&H spray fields have been classified as impaired from pathogens and/or low dissolved oxygen. And the phosphorus and nitrogen from waste trapped in the subsurface crevasses and caves could continue to flow downhill for decades.
Yet C&H continues to operate, regularly spraying many thousands of gallons of raw hog waste across 600 acres as lawyers file appeals of the agency's denial. The last thing our state needs is to yank authority away from a department that is qualified to issue permits based on EPA criteria and hand it to a commission that is anything but prepared for such responsibility, even though the Department of Environmental Quality certainly failed to do its job back in 2012. I've got to hope it learned a harsh lesson from that truly bad decision.
BRENDA BLAGG: Constant vigilanceBill to change farm regulation earns oppositionby Brenda Blagg | Today at 1:00 a.m.
State lawmakers are getting an earful these days on legislation that would change how hog farms are permitted in this state.
They should be.
Credit the long-running travails of a controversial hog farm near the treasured Buffalo National River for much of the sensitivity to the issue.
Litigation over the huge concentrated animal feeding operation there continues to this day.
The long-fought battle galvanized environmentalists and others caught up in protecting the Buffalo and other water resources.
In fact, a lot of lessons were hard learned by the public and by the regulators and by a governor or two.
So groups like the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance were at the ready this year when this new legislation, promoted by the Arkansas Farm Bureau, fell in the legislative hopper. They've weighed in on this new battle, pummeling lawmakers and others with communication. So have other environmental groups, utilities and more.
At issue is Senate Bill 550 by Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, which would change the state agency responsible for permitting farms that have liquid animal manure systems -- such as that controversial hog farm near the Buffalo River.
Instead of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, SB 550 would shift that responsibility to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
The bill easily passed the Senate recently, but has encountered more resistance in the House, where a House committee was scheduled to consider the bill on Wednesday.
Exactly what the bill would and would not do is part of the continuing debate. So is the bill's impact on requirements for notification and issues regarding public disclosure of related records.
As late as Monday, sponsors were trying to amend the bill to ease concerns, but opposition continues to build.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson on Monday called for sponsors to pull the bill. The governor cited the recent engagement of a federal agency in the debate.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Friday alerted the state Department of Environmental Quality that this proposed state legislation is under review.
The concern is that there could be implications for the federal Clean Water Act, which the state is currently delegated to enforce.
Hutchinson said Monday he doesn't want the EPA taking over any programs that the state currently runs.
He also cited ongoing efforts to realign state agencies and said, "Right in the middle of a transformation is not the time to be making dramatic rule chances for large-scale animal feeding operations."
Not for nothing, the governor also noted he had received more than 200 communications opposing the bill.
Besides the conservation groups, opposition has come from utilities, such as the Beaver Water District and Central Arkansas Water, and former state environmental regulators.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, the House sponsor of the legislation, offered up another amendment to make provisions of SB 550 "null and void," should the federal regulators disapprove of it.
That fix won't satisfy clean water concerns or stop opposition to the legislation.
All of this suggests the bill may be killed, but keep in mind that the people who want it passed have some of the most effective lobbyists working to move the bill through the Legislature.
A week after the bill was filed, it had not only cleared a Senate committee but was passed by the full Senate on a 25-5 vote.
Little more than a week later, the bill is slated as a special order of business in the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development.
Maybe it will get out of committee this week. Maybe not.
Anyone concerned about this particular legislation should be wary, however. This is precisely the kind of legislation that could linger on a calendar and get passed in the last frantic days of the session.
This fight won't be over until the Legislature adjourns.
Commentary on 03/27/2019
Print Headline: Constant vigilance
NWA EDITORIAL: Protect the BuffaloWhile you’re at it, do it for entire state
by NWA Democrat-Gazette | Today at 1:00 a.m.
Virtually every perspective on the biggest issues known to humans has been boiled down to a few words and printed on bumper stickers.
What will we do when self-driving cars leave most of us without our own bumpers on which to broadcast our pithy thoughts to the rest of the traveling public?
For the moment, though, the world has plenty of bumpers/mini-billboards, and across the country is a mobile fleet of vehicles united only in their auto-borne messages of appreciation for the American farmer.
"Eat today?" one of them asks. "Thank a farmer."
"Farmers are outstanding in their field," another says.
"No farm. No food," says one prediction of dire consequences from a future none of us would want to witness.
Arkansans from every walk of life can appreciate earnest recognition of the value of farmers. Agriculture in all its forms -- from row crops to animal husbandry -- represents a multi-billion dollar part of the state's economy every year. When farming is affected, the entire state of Arkansas is affected.
Then again, another bumper sticker offers wisdom also worth heeding: "Whatever happens to the water happens to the people."
Just as every Arkansan is touched in some way by the state's strong connection to agriculture, the state's residents are also impacted by the quality of water in the form of lakes, creeks, streams and rivers. We drink from them. We swim in them. We invite people from elsewhere to come experience them. We rely on water to support varied ecological systems across a diverse state.
Our lives and our livelihoods are deeply connected to farming and to the state's precious bodies of water.
This is why the debate over Senate Bill 550 in the Arkansas General Assembly is so important. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, would dramatically change the state's approach to evaluating and permitting concentrated animal feeding operations, such as hog farms,
Bentley's bill -- more specifically, a bill advanced by the powerful Arkansas Farm Bureau -- if passed will move the permitting process from the state's Department of Environmental Quality and hand it entirely to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. The Senate has approved the bill, which is now in the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development and scheduled for consideration today at last word.
That committee is chaired by Rep. Dan Douglas of Bentonville. Its membership also includes Northwest Arkansas lawmaker Harlan Breaux of Holiday Island, in case any residents want to voice a perspective on this legislation.
Our opinion is, in basic form, the same as Gov. Asa Hutchinson's. On Monday, Hutchinson said he hopes state lawmakers do not proceed with the bill, largely because it has drawn the attention of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
It's important to note that the EPA, a federal agency, authorizes state environmental regulators to administer a lot of the federal regulations designed to protect water, air and soil. The state agency is, to a great degree, the eyes and ears of the federal agency and is responsible for applying and enforcing federal rules.
Senate Bill 550 has apparently made the EPA a little concerned. It notified the state that it's reviewing the bill to see if it complies with the Clean Water Act. If the federal agency determine the bill does not, it could reclaim its authority to enforce its own regulations in Arkansas.
Hutchinson called on lawmakers to "postpone" their efforts on the bill also because of his work to realign state agencies for efficiency.
"Right in the middle of a transformation is not the time to be making dramatic rule changes for large-scale animal feeding operations," he said.
We couldn't agree more. But the powerful farming forces push on, eager to move enforcement authority to the Natural Resources Commission.
Supporters are advancing a narrative that convenience -- allowing farmers to deal only with one agency -- is their driving force. They claim they're not really changing the rules. But anyone who doubts this plan is designed to make it easier to permit farms/agri operations that pollute should reconsider such notions.
This bill will affect the entire state, but is largely rooted in the years-long controversy over a hog farm operation near the Buffalo National River. It's a farm operation that, in our view, should never have been allowed so close to such a vital tourism resource. Farming advocates, it seems, want to ensure the concerns over the Buffalo River don't promote a more constrictive regulatory environment for farmers elsewhere in the state.
It's clear, so to speak, that the impacts of SB550 are murky at best, enough so that the EPA is made nervous by its provisions.
Here's what we'd put on our bumper sticker today: "Hutchinson is right. Do not pass SB550."
Arkansasonline
Federal agency is looking at measure, Hutchinson says
by Emily Walkenhorst
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson said Monday that he hopes state lawmakers don't proceed with a bill that would change how concentrated animal feeding operations, namely hog farms, would be permitted.
Given that he expects a state agency realignment soon and a recent letter from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notifying the state of a review of the bill, Hutchinson said he wants lawmakers to "postpone" their efforts.
The governor's comments came on the same afternoon that the bill's sponsor in the Arkansas House, Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, filed another amendment to the legislation. Bentley's amendment would make its provisions, if adopted into state law, null and void in the event federal regulators disapprove of it. The amendment also seeks to maintain existing permitting regulations.
The amendment will run Wednesday morning before the bill is considered. That will be at 10 a.m. in the House Agriculture, Forestry and Economic Development Committee meeting.
"I wish the governor had waited just a little bit longer," said Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, the bill's Senate sponsor.
Stubblefield said the bill is designed to make it so hog farmers only have to go to one agency when they seek a permit. He also said the response to his bill has blown it out of proportion.
Senate Bill 550 seeks to change the agency ultimately responsible for issuing permits to farms that have liquid animal manure systems -- typically hog farms -- from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission.
The commission would decide whether to permit farms' liquid waste management systems and would issue permits approved by local conservation districts for liquid waste disposal. The commission also could overturn the disapproval of a disposal permit or a disapproval of part of one.
Currently, the commission reviews liquid waste disposal plans, formally called "nutrient management plans," and determines whether they meet the commission's standards. The plans are then submitted as part of farms' operating permit applications to the Department of Environmental Quality.
Stubblefield and the Arkansas Farm Bureau, which pushed for the legislation, say almost nothing else would change as a result of the bill. Opponents argue that what Stubblefield and the Farm Bureau say the bill does isn't actually written into the bill, which makes those assurances less encouraging.
Stubblefield said Monday that he would support an amendment to his bill that specifically kept current regulations regarding liquid animal manure systems and moved them over to the Natural Resources Commission. He said he has never filed such an amendment because he didn't think it was necessary.
Bentley filed an amendment later in the afternoon that states regulations must "at a minimum, maintain the current standards and requirements of Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission Regulation No. 5 Liquid Animal Waste Systems."
The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission is the Department of Environmental Quality's regulatory and appellate body. The department follows regulations adopted by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission.
Stubblefield and the Farm Bureau said they would want the regulations to remain intact, and Natural Resources Commission Executive Director Bruce Holland said his agency would recommend adopting the same regulations. That would need to be approved by the commission's board, lawmakers and Hutchinson.
Bentley said Monday evening she wanted to look over the amendment further before commenting on it but said she and others have tried to look into everyone's concerns regarding the bill.
Bentley's amendment also includes language addressing a letter sent last week from the EPA to state environmental regulators that said the federal agency was reviewing the law to make sure it complies with Clean Water Act requirements. EPA Region 6 Administrator Anne Idsal wrote to Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh that the bill "merits further evaluation to determine its effect" on federal rules and enforcement.
Hutchinson cited the EPA revoking the state's permitting authority in 2013 as an example of the state previously clashing with the agency. The agency reinstated the state's permitting authority after lawmakers overturned Act 954 of 2013, which changed how water flows were calculated.
"I'd also add that this is not the administration of President Obama. This is the administration of President Trump," Hutchinson said. "President Trump's EPA is who sent that letter, so I think the prudent course is let's keep it as it is."
Bentley's amendment reads: "If Region 6 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency determines that the final rules promulgated by the commission to implement this act either supersede or otherwise adversely impact the delegated authority of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to administer the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program ... the rules and this act, after all legal remedies have been unsuccessful by the Attorney General, will be considered void, and the authority to administer "no discharge permits" associated with the generation, storage, handling, and land application of liquid animal litter will revert back to the department."
Conservation groups also are concerned about any impact the bill might have on public transparency and have cited differences in how the commission is set up versus how the department is set up, as well as a law that appears to exempt from public disclosure certain records at the commission but not at the department.
Many have argued the bill would allow applicants to waive the "notification period requirements" surrounding their permit applications, which they said could mean applicants can waive the public notification period.
Representatives with the Arkansas Farm Bureau said "notification period requirements" refers to the requirements that regulators issue permitting decisions within a certain time frame. Current law says applicants can waive the "timeliness requirement," but that language was stripped and replaced with "notification period requirements," Farm Bureau officials say, because the Bureau of Legislative Research recommended it.
Those statements have not stopped conservation groups concerned that "notification period requirements" could be interpreted in a different way, stripping public notice from the permitting process.
Bentley's amendment, which must be approved by the House committee, would change the language back to "timeliness."
Hutchinson said Monday that he had received more than 200 communications opposing the bill. He said he hadn't been approached by anyone who had expressed concerns for public transparency.
But opponents of the bill say that a current state law, Arkansas Code Annotated 15-20-1006, may mean that if the legislation is adopted into state law, farms' nutrient management plans may no longer be available to public inspection.
The law states: "Any records collected by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission in furtherance of this subchapter that contain information about a specific nutrient management plan or specific nutrient application shall not be made public record."
Hutchinson said he would have to look over that carefully but that such a law "perhaps" reaffirms his opposition to Senate Bill 550.
The law is not included in the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act state code, which outlines the records that are exempt from public inspection. The act states in its definition of "public records" that "all records maintained in public office or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records." The law then lists 23 exemptions, which must be changed by legislation.
The law removing nutrient management plan information was passed in 2003, as Act 1059, to amend state natural resources and economic development statutes. The subchapter amended concerns the certification of people who review nutrient management plans.
One conservation group contacted by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said the law has been used to deny public records requests for information in nutrient management plans, and forwarded a copy of a public records request rejection by the commission in 2013 for information related to C&H Hog Farms.
Stubblefield said Monday that he thinks nutrient management plans should be available for public inspection at the commission if they are available at the department.
"I think this ought to be available to the public, no question," Stubblefield said. "That's only right."
Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance founded in opposition to C&H's operation within the river's watershed, said he thought that perhaps applications for nutrient management plan certification may be available under the law, but approved ones would not be.
Richard Mays, an environmental attorney who has represented the alliance, said the law's existence provides an argument against the plans' release.
Mays said the 2003 bill likely didn't attract much attention at the time and that exempting records from public disclosure by passing laws outside of the Freedom of Information Act statute was a "sneaky way to do it."
"It just shows you how some people who draft these statutes who pass them are not concerned about the public's right to know what is going on," Mays said.
Since the bill's filing, conservation groups, utilities and former state environmental regulators have issued statements opposing the bill.
On Friday, nine former Pollution Control and Ecology Commission members released a statement, citing the potential for unintended consequences, among other concerns.
The Beaver Water District and Central Arkansas Water have expressed concern for the potential for weaker regulations to expose drinking water sources to excess algae-causing phosphorus.
A spokesman for Entergy Arkansas said Monday in an email that the utility also opposes the bill. As written, the email said, the bill "proposes to alter the permitting and regulation of hog farms in a way that appears inconsistent with the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act and will potentially result in the EPA taking control of Clean Water Act regulations that are currently handled locally by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality."
The utility has several wastewater permits issued by the department through its state-delegated authority from the EPA.
Other concerns raised about the bill include a less accessible complaint process before the commission; a lack of a third-party rule-making process at the commission; a history of pollution related to excess poultry waste in the Illinois River watershed; and fear that C&H Hog Farms could apply for another permit from the commission and remain open in spite of an order to close by the Department of Environmental Quality.
Supporters of the bill have said C&H, which is located near the Buffalo National River, must continue its current permit application, which they say would remain under the department's purview until litigation regarding it is resolved.
A Section on 03/26/2019
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he wants state lawmakers to pull a bill that would change how hog farms and other farms are permitted.
In a meeting with reporters on Monday afternoon, Hutchinson cited concerns about the government transition process and a letter last week from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 Administrator Anne Idsal. She wrote that an initial review of Senate Bill 550 showed that it "merits further evaluation to determine its effect" on federal rules and enforcement.
Hutchinson said he doesn't want the EPA taking over any programs that the state currently runs.
SB550, sponsored by Sen. Gary Stubblefield, R-Branch, would transfer "concentrated animal feeding operation" permitting authority from the state Department of Environmental Quality to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. The commission would decide whether to permit farms' liquid waste management systems and would issue permits approved by local conservation districts for liquid waste disposal. The commission also could overturn the disapproval of a disposal permit or a disapproval of part of one.
Check back for updates and read Tuesday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for full details.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us