Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Arkansas Times
A designation change for the Buffalo is not about love for the river. It’s about money and who stands to benefit most.
There is much to unpack after news broke of efforts to change the Buffalo National River into a National Park Preserve.
At first glance, the proposed change doesn’t seem problematic. But peel back the first layer and you’ll find a web of Walton interests, government opacity and peril for our beloved river.
Currently, the Buffalo River holds a “National River” designation from the National Parks Service. The National River designation means the Buffalo is protected from industrial use and any other potential endangerment to its natural flow and function. The designation also provides for open recreational use to anyone who wishes to enjoy it.
Last year, over a million people visited the Buffalo, and the river averages 800,000 annual visitors; neither passes nor permits are required to access the river, which has multiple entry points and over 100 miles of adjacent hiking trails. In short, the Buffalo River acts as an anchor for both tourists and locals, providing easily accessible recreation and space for Arkansans to enjoy the Natural State.
However, a group called the Coalition for the Future of the Buffalo River is pushing to change the river’s designation from “National River” to “National Preserve.”
Through the reporting of Ellen Kreth of the Madison County Record and the good folks at KUAF, we’ve learned that: 1) polls have been conducted among residents in Buffalo River counties gauging current usage by locals and their opinions on a possible status change; and 2) the Waltons have purchased 6,000 acres of land in Kingston, an unincorporated town in Madison County that serves as a sort of quaint gateway into the Upper Buffalo region.
Most northwest Arkansans use the Kingston route to access popular Upper Buffalo spots like Steel Creek and Kyle’s Landing.
Critically, a change to a “National Preserve” designation would allow for more federal investment in the area, along with certain commercial activities like oil and mineral extraction.
Yes, you read that correctly: oil and mineral extraction along the Buffalo River.
You also should not miss this: A Preserve designation allows for park management to be transferred to state and local government.
Right now, the Buffalo is managed by the National Park Service. Under a new Preserve designation, the Buffalo could be handed over to Sarah Sanders and put under the control of Bryan Sanders, her husband, extending his foray with the management of Arkansas’ natural spaces.
After Mike Mills was fired from his position as the Secretary of Arkansas Parks and Tourism this summer, rumors swirled that it was because of bad blood between Mills and the First Gent. A potential change in the Buffalo’s designation puts a different and more ominous spin on Mills’ ouster and Bryan Sanders’ heavy involvement in the Natural State Advisory Council and the Department of Parks, Heritage and Tourism.
One missing puzzle piece to this story: Who is behind the Coalition for the Future of the Buffalo River? Considering the Waltons have scooped up Buffalo-adjacent land and their penchant for building their own utopian playgrounds, For AR People is going to guess they have something to do with the Coalition.
There are two big questions regarding the push to change the Buffalo’s designation:
The first answer is quite obvious. Benefactors include the Waltons (imagine a bougie, Bentonvillian version of Kingston) and any other existing business infrastructure in the Buffalo region.
A park preserve designation means that permits and fees may be required to access the river. If there are only a few players in town able to provide those permits and who control entrance points, we can say goodbye to an accessible Buffalo River where anyone is welcome to float or hike on a whim.
It could also mean a dramatic influx of visitors to the region, which would mean a big spike in development – roads, hotels, restaurants, shops. Of course, infrastructure comes with a return for communities. But if one entity owns all the property in town, then only one entity truly benefits from the investment.
The answer to the second question is a resounding no. This has most certainly not been a fair and transparent process for Arkansans. Though the news of the coalition broke this week, its backers seem to have been strategizing for years. Already, they have poll results with positive spin; real estate purchases that benefit the world’s richest family; back-channel conversations between the governor and Arkansas’s congressmen; Sanders’ establishment of an outdoor tourism task force to be led by her husband and Steuart Walton.
As the Madison County Record article highlights, residents have not yet been included in these discussions. Only since the story broke has the coalition come forward publicly and announced public input sessions, though they’ve stayed silent about who they really are and who is funding them.
In an article for the Jacobin titled “Walmart’s Company Town of Bentonville, AR,” Stephanie Farmer, Sociology professor at Roosevelt University, wrote this: “The Walton family is not acting altruistically by transforming Bentonville. Rather, these investments are part of an accumulation strategy.” Replace “Bentonville” with “the Buffalo,” and this quote is the perfect encapsulation of the park preserve effort.
Those pushing for a designation change are not spurred by appreciation for and love of the river. For them, it seems to be about one thing only: the money.
Gennie Diaz, For AR People
Arkansas Outside
The Buffalo River in Arkansas underwent a remarkable transformation to become the Buffalo National River, a designation that helped protect its pristine natural beauty and historical significance. The journey began in the mid-20th century when residents and conservationists recognized the need to safeguard this unique and unspoiled river ecosystem from potential damming and commercial development. Their grassroots efforts led to the creation of the Ozark Society in 1962, a pivotal organization that played a significant role in advocating for the preservation of the Buffalo River.
Through years of dedicated activism and support from various stakeholders, including Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt, the Buffalo River was officially designated as the first national river in the United States on March 1, 1972. This landmark achievement resulted in the river’s inclusion under the protection of the National Park Service, ensuring that it would forever remain free-flowing and undeveloped for future generations to enjoy. The Buffalo National River now stands as a testament to the power of community action and the importance of preserving America’s natural treasures. It provides a unique opportunity for outdoor enthusiasts and history buffs to immerse themselves in the rugged landscapes, diverse wildlife, and rich cultural heritage that define this pristine waterway.
Recent economic impact numbers from the river are available here.
In September, we began hearing talk about changing the Buffalo National River into the Buffalo National Park & Preserve. The Runway Group, the investment arm of Tom and Steuart Walton, funded a survey conducted by Seltzer & Company, a polling organization from Iowa. The survey was conducted in mid-September and was answered by 412 voters in Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton, and Searcy counties in Arkansas.
Questions raised on social media, particularly the Facebook page, “Our Buffalo River.” prompted the Runway Group to release the following statement:
“As Runway Group and others across the state continue to promote the outdoor economy in Arkansas, we want to make every effort to explore how adequate funding for critical infrastructure and resources would be available to conserve the Buffalo National River area, while maintaining access to the river, hunting, and fishing for all Arkansans. As participants in very early conversations around how to support the Buffalo National River, Runway engaged in polling residents of Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton, and Searcy Counties. Our intent with this survey is to better understand the feelings and beliefs of the Arkansans whose daily lives are connected to the River. At this time, no official proposal has been offered, only preliminary research as reflected in some fact sheets designed to lead meaningful conversations about the future of the Buffalo and the growth of Arkansas’ outdoor economy. We are engaging in a coalition to explore new ideas centered on preservation, quality of life, and economic vitality. It is our hope to continue these conversations with sincerity and respect.”
“As Runway Group and others across the state continue to promote the outdoor economy in Arkansas, we want to make every effort to explore how adequate funding for critical infrastructure and resources would be available to conserve the Buffalo National River area, while maintaining access to the river, hunting, and fishing for all Arkansans.
As participants in very early conversations around how to support the Buffalo National River, Runway engaged in polling residents of Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton, and Searcy Counties. Our intent with this survey is to better understand the feelings and beliefs of the Arkansans whose daily lives are connected to the River. At this time, no official proposal has been offered, only preliminary research as reflected in some fact sheets designed to lead meaningful conversations about the future of the Buffalo and the growth of Arkansas’ outdoor economy.
We are engaging in a coalition to explore new ideas centered on preservation, quality of life, and economic vitality. It is our hope to continue these conversations with sincerity and respect.”
After reaching out to the Runway Group, Arkansas Outside was contacted by Krista Cupp, Vice President of Corporate and Community Affairs for the Runway Group. She said that there is “currently no official proposed changes to the Buffalo National River,” and she reiterated, “There is no plan, no legislation, and no map.”
See also National Parks Shine as Economic Engines
Cupp said, “The polling was exploratory and the numbers came back fairly positive and were statistically representative of the five counties.”
The idea is not unlike the changing of the New River Gorge area of West Virginia creating a similar National Park & Preserve in 2020. It is probably too early to have relevant economic data from that region to get an idea of what could happen in Arkansas with this kind of change. You can read articles on the subject at The Guardian and West Virginia NSTV.
According to Cupp, a coalition has formed to consider this move made up of principles at Runway Group and others. She could not provide a list of individual participants in the coalition. You can see some of the data from the polling on the Coalition for the Future of the Buffalo National River on their website.
Some of the concerns about the project are the involvement of large landowners from outside the area including Walton, Tyson, and Morris (Bass Pro Shops) business interests. Climbers returning from the 24 Hours of Horseshoe Hell event at Horseshoe Canyon Ranch near Jasper, Ark last month mentioned to us that the Walton Family had purchased or were purchasing the ranch. (this is currently unconfirmed).
Ellen Kreth of The Madison County Record spoke with Austin Albers, President and Owner of Buffalo Outdoor Outfitters. Mr. Albers is also a member of the Arkansas State Parks and Recreation Commission and The Natural State Initiative under the direction of First Gentleman, Bryan Sanders. Albers said, “The goal of designating federal lands as a national preserve is to gain funding for infrastructure, roads, bathrooms, and parking lots. You’re looking at positive economic impact, prolonging and protecting the national park, the national river, protecting what brings people here, so hunting, fishing, floating, all that. None of that changes. And that’s why it’s a national park preserve and not just a national park,” Albers said. “So if we can transition to a national park and preserve versus a national river, you know, generate more funding that way for the park and get more infrastructure put into place, I think it’s a win for everybody.”
According to Dave Barak, Public Affairs Specialist with National Park Service News Media, when asked about the difference in funding between a National River, like the Buffalo, and and National Park and Preserve, like New River in West Virginia, “…there would be no change to how the park is funded based on designation.” For more on the differences, Mr. Barak referred us to this article on the National Parks Service website. Definitions are below.
“The Greater Searcy County Chamber of Commerce supports the continued status of the Buffalo River as America’s 1st National River! We reject a change in its name and status. The Buffalo River is currently a wild and free-flowing river that is federally protected. There is no place for ethnocentrism and paternalism by outside interests directed toward the local people and land of the Buffalo River Watershed. Local people, like people everywhere, should have the largest part to play in their own self-determination and future. We have been told that a change to the river’s federal status would bring us an economic benefit, but when we asked to see a plan we were told there was no plan to see. It’s a ludicrous proposition to trust our region’s future to outside interests that have no plan. We are, without question, the tourism experts in Searcy County! We live here and work here day in and day out. We have young people who are the 10th generation of their family to live in Searcy County! This is not just a beautiful place to vacation, it is our home. We must take a wise and deliberate approach in securing our posterity’s future and protecting our Ozarks way of life.”
“The Greater Searcy County Chamber of Commerce supports the continued status of the Buffalo River as America’s 1st National River! We reject a change in its name and status. The Buffalo River is currently a wild and free-flowing river that is federally protected. There is no place for ethnocentrism and paternalism by outside interests directed toward the local people and land of the Buffalo River Watershed.
Local people, like people everywhere, should have the largest part to play in their own self-determination and future. We have been told that a change to the river’s federal status would bring us an economic benefit, but when we asked to see a plan we were told there was no plan to see. It’s a ludicrous proposition to trust our region’s future to outside interests that have no plan. We are, without question, the tourism experts in Searcy County! We live here and work here day in and day out.
We have young people who are the 10th generation of their family to live in Searcy County! This is not just a beautiful place to vacation, it is our home. We must take a wise and deliberate approach in securing our posterity’s future and protecting our Ozarks way of life.”
A community meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 26 at 6 p.m. at the Jasper School Cafeteria, 600 School St., Jasper, Ark. The meeting is organized as a Town Hall Meeting by the Remnants Project a group working to preserve the heritage of the Arkansas Ozarks & Buffalo River through stories. They have invited representatives of the Runway Group to answer questions about the project. UPDATE, The Runway Group has declined to attend the meeting.
KUAF Radio
By Jacqueline Froelich
Published October 16, 2023 at 1:01 PM CDT
Matthew Moore: I’m here with Jacqueline Froelich, Ozarks at Large senior news producer, to talk about a coordinated effort to change the designation of the Buffalo National River. You began to receive emails and phone calls from concerned residents in the watershed in September. Who’s behind this effort?
Jacqueline Froelich: Runway Group, LLC in Bentonville, came forward last week, announcing their intention to quote “support the Buffalo National River.” The group is founded by Walmart heirs and philanthropists Steuart and Tom Walton. Runway invests in outdoor recreation, real estate, art, and hospitality. The Waltons hired Selzer & Company, headquartered in Iowa, to measure perceptions about the Buffalo National River, reaching 412 registered voters by phone residing across five counties on the watershed. The Buffalo is the first designated National River in the United States, declared back in 1972. The 135-mile-long river is managed by the National Park Service.
I contacted the Runway Group and spokesperson J.T. Geren directed me to a recently published statement on the company’s website about conserving the river, while maintaining access for hunting and fishing. But J. Ann Selzer, who conducted the telephone survey, was more direct. She emailed that the goal of the survey was to gather feedback on shifting the Buffalo’s designation from National River to a National Park and Preserve.
Newton County farmer Beth Ardapple, a long-time progressive political activist, agreed to talk about being surveyed by Selzer.
Beth Ardapple: “I was asked a lot of questions about access to the river and hunting and fishing. You know, did I think it was all adequate? But then if it were to be a national park and preserve should concessions be grandfathered in? Should private land be taken for it? And when they got to the water management questions I just called a halt because I was already struggling to answer, given my concerns about park versus preserve, and my annoyance that they assumed that I should understand that the Buffalo National River is not a park?”
JF: I contacted the Buffalo National River Park Service headquartered in Harrison, asking if staff support or are involved in changing the status of the park. Spokesperson Melissa Trenchik flatly said the Park Service had no part in the survey and has no plans to change the status of the Buffalo National River.
MM: We can all agree that the Buffalo National River is a national treasure, last year drawing more than 1.3 million visitors from across the U.S., who spent nearly $65 million dollars on outfitters, food and short-term rental cabins and cottages in the region. As you’ve long reported, the watershed, and water quality is closely monitored by the park service as well as fiercely protected by the nonprofit Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, which for now has declined to comment you were told? So what’s behind all this?
JF: It appears there is a confluence of interests to transform Arkansas into a national recreational destination. Governor Sarah Sanders’ agenda is to expand the states’ recreational assets under her “Natural State Initiative.” Last January she formed an advisory council, chaired by her husband Bryan Sanders. Runway Group cofounder Tom Walton serves on that council. I contacted the Governor to see if she supports or is behind efforts to change the status of Buffalo National River. Spokesperson Alexa Henning only responded saying the Governor has had informal conversations with a member of Arkansas’ Congressional Delegation.
MM: That’s telling, because it will take an act of Congress to change the federal status of the Buffalo National River, to a national park and preserve, right?
JF: Correct. I had to look this up because national park system designations vastly differ. National Rivers preserve free flowing streams and surrounding environments, limiting activities to hiking, canoeing, and hunting. But national preserves also allow minerals and fuels extraction permits. The status would also allow, and this is really interesting, management to be transferred to local or state authorities, in this case the Sanders administration. This is according to the National Park Service.
MM: You queried two state lawmakers whose districts encompass areas of the Buffalo National River watershed. Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, did not reply, but has gone on record saying many of her constituents oppose this change. What about Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest?
JF: We spoke by phone. Sen. King says the Buffalo River is (quote) “in the crosshairs.”
King: “This Natural State Committee has been formed and seems like it’s behind it. And certain groups connected to the Waltons are driven towards what they think what the Buffalo National River and the area should go towards, what their tourism and business model is. And it’s concerning.”
JF: Sen. King describes the Selzer survey as a “push poll” seeking a certain outcome. According to data provided by Selzer, 61 percent of the 412 folks surveyed support changing the Buffalo National River to a national park and preserve. Which is an astonishing outcome.
MM: Because that doesn’t jive with what you are seeing on socials?
JF: As word spreads about this many oppose changes to their beloved national river. It’s also triggered locals who continue to hold a grudge about being displaced by the 1973 national river declaration. I searched historical records and found that in 1968, nearly 100 percent of landholders in Newton County opposed turning the Buffalo into a national river. A realm described as the 'intersection of wealth, philanthropy and conservation' was also mentioned on socials regarding this matter.
MM: So what’s next?
JF: Runway is soliciting the public to “engage in a coalition to explore new ideas centered on preservation, quality of life, and economic vitality,” in its apparent effort to expand the federal status of the Buffalo National River. I also learned that a town hall meeting with a stated goal to “preserve the local heritage of the Ozarks and Buffalo River” will be held at Carroll Electric Coop in downtown Jasper Thursday, Oct. 26 at 6 p.m. A Runway Group spokesperson is expected to attend that meeting, to assure residents that eminent domain declarations – the taking of private property -- are off the table. We'll continue to follow this developing story.
MM: That’s Ozarks at Large reporter Jacqueline Froelich.
It was a fight that riled property owners near the river, attracted U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to float the river and speak out for preservation and contributed significantly to the election of the first Arkansas Republican in Congress since Reconstruction.
Today, the National Park Service manages the lower 135 miles of the 151-mile waterway, the portion designated by Congress in 1972 as the nation's first national river. Now, a new question arises: Should the Buffalo be designated as a national park preserve?
When Arkansans, or fortunate visitors to our beautiful state, float among the massive bluffs, boulders and otherwise rugged terrain surrounding the Buffalo River, they witness few clues of the battles that have raged over the river's future since the 1950s. The clues are what's not there, namely dams built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Today, a canoe or kayak trip, thanks to the conservation efforts of the 1960s, delivers a fleeting connection to what life was like before Arkansas was Arkansas. Paddlers who allow themselves to slow down can find solace, even inspiration, in the densely wooded, craggy valley where time is measured by sunrises, sunsets and changes of seasons more than by any man-made timepiece. Rather than an escape from anything, time spent at the Buffalo National River is more of journey toward renewal of the human spirit. The river reminds us that nature can outperform any product of human origins.
The decade preceding Congress' declaration involved intense campaigns over a river first documented as the "Buffalo Fork of the White River" in Zebulon M. Pike's Arkansas explorations between 1806 and 1807. Even as Arkansas' population grew as part of the nation's westward settlements, the Ozarks' rugged and often inhospitable terrain -- perhaps no more so than in the Buffalo's watershed -- largely left this natural oasis as it had been before a new nation's inhabitants learned of its existence.
Arkansas recognized the area's value, opening Buffalo State Park in 1940 as recreational travel became more popular.
In the middle of the 20th century, however, a national push for economic development, job creation, flood control and power generation inspired enthusiasm for dams on many of the nation's rivers. The idea of damming the Buffalo had been around for decades, but became more serious when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building one. World War II helped to stall such projects, but, by 1954, the Corps was back with a plan for two dams. Perhaps incomprehensible today, proposals for dams had some popularity back then as local residents and state officials viewed them as progress. National politics, including some vetoes of bills by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, delayed that "progress."
In 1961, though, Rep. James W. Trimble of Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District introduced legislation to support dam construction on the Buffalo River. According to National Park Service documentation, his proposal led conservationists to form the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, the Ozarks Society and other groups to save the river from damming and to create a national park there to protect it for future generations. Landowners near the river were among the most vocal opponents of a federal designation. National media attention came to the effort to prevent the Buffalo's damming. The fight raged until Lyndon Johnson's administration supported preservation of the Buffalo River and then-Gov. Orval Faubus decided to resist the Corps' effort and support a national river designation.
Perhaps any remaining zeal for dams faded when Republican John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison defeated Trimble's 1966 reelection effort in which Trimble staunchly supported dam construction. Momentum for a national river designation grew. Hammerschmidt and Sen. J. William Fulbright of Fayetteville pushed legislation in 1967 to protect the river. Other priorities, such as the war in Vietnam, prevented adoption until 1972. The Buffalo National River became a reality.
It is with that history -- and that's the much abbreviated telling -- that one must evaluate talk of a new designation for the Buffalo River. This newspaper reported a week ago on discussions to designate the river and the federal lands around it as the Buffalo National Park Preserve.
It's just talk, so far, according to U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, whose congressional district includes Newton County and part of the Buffalo River.
"There's kind of a lot of buzz about it," said Westerman. "But there's not any process taking place in Congress to draft legislation or move a bill about it because I realize it's something that needs to be handled carefully and get people's input so that if anything's done, it's done the right way."
How did this "buzz" get started? Marshall Mayor Kevin Elliott said it started four or five months ago, died down, then "went like wildfire" in September when an Iowa-based company began polling people in the area about the possibility. Flyers for the polling says it was done at the direction of the Coalition for Buffalo River National Park Preserve, whatever that is. The poll results showed 64% of respondents favored the new designation.
Westerman said some of the people he'd discussed the matter with included Gov. Sarah Sanders and Tom and Steuart Walton, sons of Jim Walton and grandsons of Walmart founder Sam Walton and his wife, Helen. Tom and Steuart Walton have been active in building up the state's national standing in cycling and other outdoor recreation.
Not everyone welcomes the interest in a national park designation. State Sen. Missy Irvin of Mountain View says many residents maintain "raw feelings" of resentment about the 1972 designation, saying the economic benefits of establishing the national river never met promises made in the 1970s. Others say an air of secrecy over the pursuit is foreboding.
So far, the identified benefits of a national park designation is a prediction it would bring more visitors and access to more federal funding. The "preserve" designation would supposedly protect hunting and fishing access to the Buffalo lands.
Others wonder how many more visitors the Buffalo River needs or can withstand. It already gets 1.3 million every year.
Is a new battle for the Buffalo under way? Someone is clearly advocating the national park designation, ostensibly to make it more marketable. Is that needed?
Protecting the river and its natural surroundings should be priority No. 1. Anyone advocating for a change in its federal designation has a lot of explaining to do. As hard fought as the 1960s battle to preserve the Buffalo was, it makes sense that any proposal to change the designation would be met with some suspicion.
A lot of details must be forthcoming. Attracting more people isn't, in and of itself, enough of a reason to make the change.
And if you're an influential advocate for the change, step out and speak up. Nobody should be left guessing who's behind this move and why. Among Arkansans, it's no surprise that lobbying for a major change in the Buffalo River's status is tantamount to nudging the University of Arkansas trustees to drop the Razorbacks as the mascot.
Is it any wonder the public's gut response is "don't mess with it?"
Democrat Gazette
by Bill Bowden | Oct 7, 2023
For months, there's been talk of changing the Buffalo National River to the Buffalo National Park Preserve.
Supporters say the designation change would result in more visitors and more federal funding. And the "preserve" part would preserve hunting and fishing access in the park.
Opponents say the Buffalo National River already gets 1.3 million visitors a year. How many more does it need?
But for now, it's all just talk, said U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark.
He's chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources, and he represents Arkansas' 4th Congressional District, which includes Newton County and part of the Buffalo National River.
A bill to make the designation change would have to go through Westerman's committee before going to the full House for a vote, then to the Senate, then to the president.
If there's a bill to be written, Westerman would likely have a lot of input, based on his committee position and part of the park being in his congressional district.
"But I'm not aggressively pushing to make the Buffalo National River a national park," he said. "If that's the will of the people and it makes sense to do that, I'm certainly in a good position to make that happen."
Westerman said he's thinking about having a town hall meeting in the area to get input from residents.
"People have already been contacting my office about it," he said.
The Buffalo National River -- which runs through Newton, Searcy, Marion and Baxter counties -- became the first national river in the United States on March 1, 1972, according to the Encyclopedia of Arkansas. It is one of the few remaining free-flowing rivers in the lower 48 states. Administered by the National Park Service, the Buffalo National River encompasses 135 miles of the 150-mile long river.
The designation change would likely bring in more visitors, said Westerman. People travel the country visiting national parks, but a national river may be off their radar, even if it is also run by the National Park Service.
Austin Albers, president/owner of the Buffalo Outdoor Center in Ponca, said the Buffalo National River moniker probably attracts canoeists, but others may not know the park also has great hiking, camping and bird watching.
And the additional funding would help with infrastructure in the park, he said.
Westerman said he doesn't know yet if people who live in the area want more visitors. The Buffalo National River attracted 1.3 million visitors last year and contributed over $64.9 million in spending to "local gateway regions."
"Mainly what I've been doing is taking input from people and hearing ideas that folks have," he said.
Westerman said some of the folks he's been taking input from include Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the Walton brothers Steuart and Tom of Bentonville.
When asked if Sanders had an opinion on the matter, Alexa Henning, a spokesperson in the governor's office, replied via email: "Gov. Sanders and Congressman Westerman have had informal conversations about the Buffalo National River."
A request for comment from the Walton brothers resulted in a comment from a spokesperson for Runway Group, a holding company founded by Steuart and Tom Walton that makes investments in real estate, outdoor initiatives and hospitality: "We are participating in early stage conversations around the Buffalo River designation. We are eager to listen and collaborate with the community to support the best path forward to conserve our national treasure here in Arkansas."
Westerman said he's against expanding the national park boundaries, not just at the Buffalo River, but across the country.
"Especially I don't like the federal government taking in any kind of private lands," he said. "We've got a huge federal estate already."
He noted that hunting is still allowed within the boundaries of the Buffalo National River, and there are private landholdings in the park that date back to when it was established in 1972.
"I wouldn't be in favor of doing anything that restricted people's rights to use of the land or to change use of the land," said Westerman. "Sometimes when you change land-use designations, that changes the type of activities that can take place in there. So, there's a lot of stuff that has to be considered and the last thing I want to do is push any kind of legislation that is going to negatively affect people that live in the area."
State Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, said her constituents "are very opposed" to the idea. She's heard from about 20 of them. She said many remember when the federal government forced people off their land to establish the Buffalo National River.
"I can tell you there are still very raw feelings and hurt feelings from back when the Buffalo River was declared a national river," said Irvin. "There is generational pain that exists for many families. That is very real and very raw. Because of the way that was handled, I would say there is a lot of federal government resentment."
Promises in the 1970s that Searcy and Newton counties would benefit economically from the national river designation don't seem to have panned out, said Irvin.
Kevin Elliott, the mayor of Marshall, said there was some talk about the designation change four or five months ago. Then everything died down until September, when Selzer & Co. of Iowa began polling people in the area by telephone.
"In the last month or so, it just went like wildfire," said Elliott. "My phone has not stopped ringing in a while now. Everybody that has contacted me is strictly against it -- 'We don't want this; you do whatever you can to keep it from coming.'"
Elliott said it's the secrecy that riles him.
"When they try to keep something quiet, that's usually not good for the community," he said.
The poll conducted by Selzer & Co. on Sept. 11-13 found that 64% of respondents were in favor of the new designation as a national park.
J. Ann Selzer, president of the polling company, didn't return a telephone call seeking comment, but two flyers from the company have been circulating via email and text through the Arkansas Ozarks. According to the flyers, the poll was conducted for the Coalition for Buffalo River National Park Preserve. The poll surveyed 412 voters from Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton and Searcy counties.
"A National Park would preserve the Buffalo River way of life," according to one flyer. "Change the status from National River to National Park Preserve and become the most active-use National Park in the country for outdoor recreation."
That's because there aren't many national parks that focus on outdoor recreation within a 500-mile radius, according to the flyer.
The designation as a national park preserve would preserve hunting and fishing access, according to the flyer. A preserve designation also allows for oil/gas exploration and extraction.
"In this rural part of the country, nature is treasured and many make their living from an economy that depends on tourism," according to the flyer. "Requiring only a change in the land's designation, more visitors will bring more jobs and more economic benefits."
A second flyer contained information about the New River Gorge in West Virginia. It became a national river in 1978 and switched to a national park and preserve in 2020.
From 2020 to 2021, the number of visitors at New River Gorge increased from 1,054,374 to 1,682,720, according to the flyer. During that same time, annual economic impact increased from $152 million to $269 million
Madison County Record
BY
ON October 7, 2023
A coalition floating the idea of making federal lands near the Buffalo National River a national park preserve says the designation would make the area the “most active-use National Park in the country for outdoor recreation.”
A national park restricts hunting, mining and consumptive-use activities, whereas, a national preserve protects hunting and fishing, trapping, and oil and gas extraction.
Calling themselves a Coalition for Buffalo River National Park Preserve, the group is using as a model the New River Gorge Park and Preserve in West Virginia, which does not require fees or permits, allows fishing and hunting and access to the river at multiple public access points.
A flyer produced by the coalition states, “A National Park would preserve the Buffalo River way of life,” hunting and fishing access, bring jobs and economic benefit and use current federal land.
The national river’s current infrastructure dates back to 1978, according to Austin Albers, president and owner of Buffalo Outdoor Center.
The goal of designating federal lands as a national preserve is to gain funding for infrastructure, roads, bathrooms and parking lots, Albers said.
“You’re looking at positive economic impact, prolonging and protecting the national park, the national river, protecting what brings people here, so hunting, fishing, floating, all that. None of that changes. And that’s why it’s a national park preserve and not just a national park,” Albers said.
“So if we can transition to a national park and preserve versus a national river, you know, generate more funding that way for the park and get more infrastructure put into place, I think it’s a win for everybody.”
The coalition hired Selzer & Company, who polled 412 voters in Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton and Searcy counties and produced a flyer touting the results.
The flyer does not say who paid Selzer & Company or who is a member of the coalition.
A few weeks ago, Madison County Clerk Austin Boatright was working late when he received a call from a survey company asking for his input.
The person asked Boatright, in his individual capacity and not as county clerk, if he would be willing to do an interview concerning parks and recreation in Madison County and how long Boatright had been a resident of Madison County.
As the 10-minute conversation progressed, “You could tell they were honing in closer and closer into the Buffalo National River area,” he said.
The person asked how interested Boatright would be with turning federal land surrounding the Buffalo National River “into a national park” and whether or not he would recommend that to his congressman.
“You could tell they were honing in on my interest in basically, my assumption, the Buffalo National River area, probably the Ozark National Forest area, being turned into a full-fledged national park,” Boatright said.
“One of the questions was basically the conversion of private land into public lands,” Boatright said.
Boatright said he does not know who backed the survey and “I have no idea where they got my phone number,” but, so far, he is the only person he knows that received a call.
“From the survey I took, it was very much my impression that they were gauging the opinion of a national park being made in the area in Newton and south Madison County,” he said.
Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, who represents Madison County in District 28, said he was “contacted by landowners and tourism constituents some months ago about concerns of land buying and being left out of future decisions regarding the Buffalo National River and state parks.
“I began by writing our entire federal delegation about the concerns of my constituents and my own personal concerns about the impact of decisions that I believe are being made without public consultation and what impact decisions could make on their personal lives and business,” King said.
The survey, conducted Sept. 11-13, found “more than two thirds responded they would want their member of Congress to vote for designation of the river as the Buffalo River National Park & Preserve.”
Results from the survey included on the flyer said, of those who took part in the poll, 95% were in favor of no private land being taken to create the “national park and preserve,” so no eminent domain. Ninety-three percent were in favor of protecting the Buffalo River area from pollution and industrial uses, 89% favored no tax increases to pay for the national park and preserve, 86% wanted to grandfather local businesses into “any new commercial business rules (e.g., outfitters and river guides),” and 83% wanted to maintain current hunting rules.
A national park is a destination for many tourists. Lands around national parks can increase in value but so can traffic and trash left behind. Businesses can also develop nearby. Economic development can increase property value leading to higher property taxes.
In 2022, 1.3 million people visited the Buffalo National River, effectively pumping more than $64.9 million in local regions, according to an annual peer-review report by the National Park Service. That supported 864 jobs and “had a total economic output of $78.4 million,” the report said.
The coalition’s flyer states, “Nearly a fifth of Americans live within 500 miles of the Buffalo National River. In that same area, there are only two National Parks — neither recreation-focused.”
If the land were turned into a preserve, Albers said more people would visit.
“What we’ve seen is more people coming to the park to experience the parks. So a lot of people who travel to national parks don’t travel to national rivers,” he said.
“So they’re seeing, not necessarily more river usage, but more people coming into the area, so more lodging, more restaurants, more purchases of fuel and using the services in the area.”
“It’s bringing more positive infrastructure to one of our poorest areas in the state,” he said.
The discussions surrounding turning federal lands into a national park preserve have not made their way into proposed legislation.
Albers said he had spoken to Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders as well as her husband, Bryan Sanders. The governor signed an executive order in January establishing a Natural State Advisory Council and appointed her husband chairman. The council is tasked with growing tourism in Arkansas and the “outdoor economy,” according to a news release.
But King is concerned about a lack of transparency.
“I am gravely concerned and disappointed at the recent formation of special interests and have deep reservations that there may be attempts to drive government and legislative action to only serve a few that can profit off government regulations or changes,” King said.
“I am spending a great deal of time and effort to get this issue openly discussed, which I think only serves the best interests of the people,” King said.
Chase Emerson with the office of U.S. Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said he did not have a lot of information on the proposal and was not familiar with the survey or its results.
“We’ve had a few staffers at different meetings that have been hearing the concerns of citizens,” Emerson said. He said he had not done a “full dive into that just yet,” but people had reached out and he was hoping to do some “follow ups.”
“The people that have reached out to our office specifically have indicated that they weren’t necessarily for any sort of overall expansion into buying up private property or anything like that or using any sort of eminent domain, I think, was some of the concern.”
Emerson said a few weeks ago, the office reached out to the Buffalo River Superintendent, who assured them “that any land that had been acquired is in conjunction with only interested willing sellers. However, the park is not actively seeking more land or planning any serious expansion. The only property they’re actively in talks of purchasing is near the Lost Hill area for a piece of property north of the river that will complete a trail,” he said.
Emerson said even though economic benefits exist for national park designation, the senator’s office wants to be “respectful of people’s property and how the local folks, constituency feel about that and whether or not they’re, you know, supportive of anything like that.”
Boozman “has always been very supportive of recreational opportunities and tourism in our parks around the state. He’s always been a strong advocate for it,” Emerson said.
Sarah Henderson, communications director for U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman R-Ark., emailed, “At this time, our office is not weighing in on this developing issue.”
U.S. Rep. Steve Womack’s office, which represents Madison County, also responded that it was not going to “weigh in at this time.”
Shealyn Sowers, chief of communications for Arkansas Department of Parks, Heritage, and Tourism, did not return phone calls or emails asking for comments, but she did respond she had received Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by The Record, though the information asked for in the requests was not tendered before deadline.
For some time, discussions about limiting access to the Buffalo National River have taken place, but those discussions have nothing to do with the current proposal about turning land into a national preserve.
Albers said the National Park Service, which has authority over the Buffalo National River, has been working on a river management plan for many years trying to decide how to manage the volume of people visiting the river.
“Nobody wants to get a use permit,” Albers said. “But unfortunately I have a feeling it’s gonna have to go that direction at some point.” He said the high number of people using the river during May and June can damage it because, “There’s no control. That’s been going on for years,” he said.
“So the park is trying to figure out a way to mitigate that and to help control that just like any other federal park out there,” Albers said.
The survey did not pertain to only federal lands surrounding the Buffalo River, according to Boatright.
“But this survey was targeting Madison County residents. That’s what leads me to believe that it’s not just the Buffalo area,” he said.
Kings Creek LLC has been purchasing property in the Kingston area. So far that LLC owns more than 6,000 contiguous acres, according to records from the Madison County Assessor’s office, making it one of the largest landowners in Madison County.
Kings Creek LLC is owned by Walton Enterprises, which is controlled by the Walton Family, the majority stockholders of Walmart Inc.
Before some of the land was placed into the LLC, taxes on it were paid by Jim Walton, son of Walmart founder Sam Walton.
For years, the family has owned property in Kingston but recently they have begun to buy land that comes up for sale. A spokesperson for the Walton family said there are no plans to develop the Kingston land.
Interest in buying property in Kingston is active.
Boatright said he knew of someone who told him she is asked on a weekly, if not monthly, basis to sell her property south of Kingston.
Kings Creek LLC has “been purchasing up a large amount of that acreage in and around, basically Red Star through Boston and south of Kingston,” Boatright said.
King would like to see more transparency about land purchases.
“My concerns have only greatly increased,” the state senator said, “and the consequences of some of the changes that are being discussed or shielded. I don’t think the buying of land shielded by a shell LLC or holding companies is a good way to do business with the people in Madison and Newton [counties]. The good people in Madison and Newton don’t do business that way.”
Brothers Steuart Walton and Tom Walton, sons of Jim Walton, own Runway NWA LLC, a holding company investing in real estate, outdoor initiatives, hospitality and businesses in Northwest Arkansas.
Tom Walton was appointed by Sanders to the Natural State Advisory Council.
Runway is focused on conservation and outdoor recreation. The Walton Family Foundation has donated thousands of dollars used to promote and design biking trials in Madison County and the Northwest Arkansas area.
Former Madison County Judge Frank Weaver owns property adjacent to some Kings Creek LLC property.
Weaver noted that the family had just recently purchased about 380 acres near him and had owned property adjacent to him for “quite a long time.”
He said he is concerned about what they will do with the property, but “not enough to let it bother me or anything like that. You know, it’s just curiosity more or less.”
Some of the property is used for cattle, Weaver said.
Weaver has not formed an opinion on the potential additional tourists to the region if federal lands were turned into a national preserve.
“I guess I would kind of form that if it affected me one way or another, you know, people got on my property or people started trying to use the adjacent property, that might affect me. But I wouldn’t have any particular idea right now. I’m not concerned about it, I don’t think, at this point.”
Smithsonian Magazine
TRAVEL | JULY/AUGUST 2022
An unabashed tribute to the wild Arkansas waterway that became the nation’s first national river 50 years ago
Photographs by Rory Doyle
Text by Boyce Upholt
If smoothed out flat, the rough mountainous terrain of Newton County, Arkansas, would prove “bigger’n the whole state of Texas,” a local resident once proclaimed to a folklorist. That may be an exaggeration, but the wrinkles of the topography have certainly kept this corner of the Ozarks quiet. Fewer than 8,000 people live scattered across Newton County’s 820 square miles. The place is mostly known for a waterway. Near the county’s western border, a trickling stream grows into the Buffalo River—the first national river in the United States, a distinction it earned 50 years ago.
For a long time Arkansans couldn’t agree on what the river should be used for, and some even fought over it. In the 1940s, with the local timber felled and the zinc and lead operations floundering, state tourism officials started promoting Newton County as a wilderness destination. The county was home to nearly half of the Buffalo River watershed, and outdoors enthusiasts considered the mountain stream one of the finest in the region, if not the country; it was a rare, free-flowing waterway, perfect for rafting or canoeing. Some local leaders wanted to turn the watershed into a national park. Others wanted to dam the river, which could provide hydroelectric power and form the kind of placid lake that had spurred the development of lodges, restaurants and retirement homes elsewhere in the Ozarks.
For their part, many people who lived alongside the river opposed both the dam and the national park. They didn’t want their farms drowned, and they weren’t eager to give up their property for what one of them derisively called a “130-mile-long zoo.” In 1965, when supporters of a national park idea organized a canoe race, they arrived to find that someone had blocked the Buffalo with downed trees and barbed wire.
In a 1966 speech, Gov. Orval Faubus (a Democrat who had become infamous for his opposition to school desegregation) voiced his strong support for the formation of a national park. He fondly looked back on his own encounters with the river as a younger man: “Like a suitor courting a lovely maiden who becomes more enamored with her charms each visit, so was I with the Buffalo River Valley.” Faubus’ campaign to protect the Buffalo was joined by other prominent Arkansas politicians, including John Paul Hammerschmidt, a Republican who began serving in the U.S. Congress in 1967. Hammerschmidt sponsored a bill to make the Buffalo a national river.
At the time, politicians of both political parties were taking steps to protect the environment. President Richard Nixon inaugurated the Environmental Protection Agency in December 1970. The Clean Air Act passed a few weeks later with unanimous support in the Senate and only one opposing vote in the House of Representatives.
The Buffalo River bill also passed easily, and on March 1, 1972, Nixon signed it into law. The Buffalo and 135 miles of its banks were now part of a portfolio of landscapes that were considered America’s natural crown jewels, including Yosemite, Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon. (The river’s westernmost 18 miles were under separate protection as part of the Ozark National Forest.) In 1978, the New River Gorge in West Virginia was also designated a national river, but the area was recently converted to a national park and preserve. Other rivers today have National Park Service protection under different names, such as national river and recreation area, and national scenic waterway. The national wild and scenic rivers system, inaugurated in the late 1960s, includes other bodies of water but does not guarantee NPS involvement. When it comes to the simple title of “national river,” the Buffalo stands alone.
I first visited the Buffalo a decade ago, on an April trip with friends. It was float season, that time in spring and early summer when the upper river is deep enough for canoes. The water, cold and clear, tumbled over gravel bars and curled past craggy cliffs. It had carved a passageway through an otherwise forbidding landscape of shale and sandstone and limestone. It was a perfectly contained little wildland.
Or so it seemed. Shortly afterward, in 2012, Arkansas granted a permit for a new hog farm, which soon opened along one of the Buffalo River’s tributaries. The hog waste was stored in large lagoons. If the clay liners gave way or the lagoons weren’t properly pumped down, manure could seep into the tributaries. Even if the lagoons held, the manure would eventually be converted to fertilizer and sprayed on nearby fields, which some local residents worried would overload the river with phosphorus. Gordon Watkins, an organic blueberry farmer in Newton County, co-founded the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, one of a handful of nonprofits that worked together to fight the farm. “The river is nothing but the sum of its tributaries,” Watkins says. “Whatever happens in those tributaries is going to impact the Buffalo.” The state received a record volume of complaints about the permit, and while there were never any confirmed leaks, inspections indicated that lagoon liners had cracked and eroded, leaving the state’s water supply vulnerable.
In 2019, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, a Republican, moved to shut down the hog farm, directing $6.2 million in state funds to compensate the farmers. (The Nature Conservancy also made significant contributions.) Like Faubus, Hutchinson was a self-declared outdoorsman who had enjoyed his own jaunts on the Buffalo River. “I was in law school when I discovered the Buffalo River,” he said in a speech, “and like so many Arkansans, I value the Buffalo as a particularly beautiful part of God’s creation.” Hutchinson formed the Buffalo River Conservation Committee, which brings together state agencies and others to monitor and improve the 855,000-acre watershed linked to the river.
Threats remain, of course. Heavy rains carry dirt off unpaved roads and into the river. The U.S. Forest Service has plans to thin and burn portions of the forests near the river’s headwaters, which some worry could affect water quality in the river. Summer algae blooms on the river have been more prolific in recent years; the cause likely involves excess nutrient input from agricultural fertilizer and soil washing into the river. “All these things that are going on outside the river have direct impact inside the river,” says Mark Foust, superintendent of the Buffalo National River.
After Foust assumed his post, in 2018, he set out to explore every stretch of the river within the park. He finished his quest last year, hiking into a canyon and launching in an inflatable raft—the only way to access the stretch nearest the source. Foust says he expected to find, at some point, a stretch of water that was less than scenic. He never did. Nor have I, in many return visits.
On my latest trip, I hiked to one of the sites touted by state officials in the 1940s, Lost Valley, where a trail follows a creek up a rock-strewn canyon to its source. After a strenuous climb, past a series of waterfalls, we arrived at a tidy cascade pouring from the mouth of a cave. The end of the trail—or so we thought.
Then two hikers wearing headlamps emerged from the cave’s dark maw. They urged us to go in. So we crawled on our hands and knees through a narrow crevice, lighting our way with cellphones, and reached a 25-foot waterfall, hidden within a pitch-black chamber. Thus we found ourselves inside the mountains themselves, washed in the crash of the cold, dark water where it all began.
Rory Doyle | READ MORE
Photographer Rory Doyle is committed to sharing stories of the Delta, from his base in Cleveland, Mississippi.
Boyce Upholt | READ MORE
New Orleans-based writer Boyce Upholt is currently working on a travelogue about the Mississippi River.
To listen, go to KUAF Radio
Published March 15, 2023 at 1:40 PM CDT
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance has filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court - Western District of Arkansas seeking an injunction against the U.S. Forest Service to stop an ambitious timber management project scheduled to begin on the Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.
Tags
Ozarks At Large Buffalo River Watershed AllianceTimber
Jacqueline Froelich
Jacqueline Froelich is an investigative reporter and news producer for "Ozarks at Large."
See stories by Jacqueline Froelich
Arkansasonline
by Mike Masterson
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is legally challenging the 2021 U.S. Forest Service finding that there would be no significant impact from its decision to approve the enormous Robert's Gap project on its property in the headwaters of our 153-mile-long Buffalo National River.
Oh my, that was a mouthful!
In essence, the alliance is saying the Forest Service acted illegally in handling its environmental review responsibilities on the project. As a result, it seeks an injunction to delay or halt the process.
The controversial project involves about 11,000 acres of logging/thinning, 11,000 aces of prescribed burning, 70 miles of road construction for timber trucks, 20 miles of bulldozed fire breaks and 3,000 acres of herbicide application.
Gordon Watkins, who heads the alliance, is supported by Little Rock "super attorney" Hank Bates and the Earthrise Law Center.
Robert's Gap is a 40,000-acre tract of Forest Service property in the Buffalo headwaters immediately upstream from the national river's boundary. In this region adjacent to the upper Buffalo Wilderness Area, the Buffalo, managed by the National Park Service, is designated as a wild and scenic river.
But far more than the Buffalo River is involved in this extensive project, a news release from Watkins' group says; the White, King's and Mulberry rivers, along with War Eagle Creek, all originate in the Robert's Gap area.
The alliance, Bates and Earthrise contend this fragile and majestic ecosystem is deserving of enhanced protections the Forest Service fails to adequately address in its plan.
The alliance says it fully recognizes the Forest Service mandate to improve forest health and reduce natural fuels such as timber that could intensify forest fires.
However, in this case, there also are serious unaddressed concerns,it says, about this project's potential to degrade water quality, diminish old-growth forest, impair wildlife habitat (and the species within these areas) and harm a significant portion of the robust local Arkansas recreation and tourism economy.
Watkins provided an example. "After the Forest Service completed its environmental analysis, and before their decision notice was issued, they discovered an endangered bat maternity colony located within the project area, the first of its kind found in the Ozarks.
"Its significance should have triggered a supplemental environmental analysis. Instead, they simply included a brief addendum to the final decision, as they did with another last-minute decision to collect baseline water samples.
"Both addendums should have been subject to public input and more extensive analysis, as required by law."
The complaint further alleges, "implementation of the project will result in the loss of cedar, oak, and pine trees, destruction of old growth forest as 86 percent of the project contains forest stands of 70 years old or more, wildlife habitat, and potential degradation of water quality.
"The terrestrial features of the area, including the steep slopes with erodible soils atop the highly permeable ground karst structure makes both surface and groundwater susceptible to contamination."
The alliance says its members are surprised the Forest Service has failed to properly respond to requests for the supplemental environmental analysis, or to conduct a complete and proper environmental impact study of water quality in the affected rivers and streams in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
No response to such obviously legitimate concerns about taxpayer-owned property? That's also a surprise to me and little wonder this now has led to a courtroom.
"The alliance took legal action because for the past five years we exhausted all USFS administrative remedies," Watkins told me,"including speaking up at public scoping meetings, submitting public comments and participating in an objection resolution meeting. We finally sent a demand letter to USFS laying out our concerns. It was ignored.
"As part of our due diligence we submitted a FOIA request to USFS to be sure we weren't overlooking anything. At all stages they dismissed most of our concerns, leaving legal action as our only remaining option."
So now the USFS will have to publicly explain its decision not to fully explore the potential environmental results of its project, which also will include impacts to the local economy, farmers, hikers, photographers and wildlife areas important to recreation and tourism in Arkansas.
The object is to hopefully have the Robert's Gap project delayed until all the necessary and prescribed environmental studies are properly completed and the results examined.
Why wouldn't all this have been accomplished upfront? Why does it take a courtroom action to simply do the right thing?
If I were taking my dozers, chainsaws and road graders into a tract of a critically sensitive and sacred region potentially affecting multiple streams and rivers, I'd want every "i" dotted and "t" crossed before firing up the engines and tearing into 40,000 acres. Wouldn't you?
Some sarcastic wag might call that expecting due diligence of the sort one would expect from a state before it, oh, say, wrongheadedly permitted an industrial hog factory to set up shop along a major tributary six miles upstream from the first national river.
It's also rather important, wouldn't you agree, when we consider that in 2021, 1.5 million visitors spent $74.3 million in local gateway regions to the Buffalo, according to Watkins.
The alliance news release can be found at buffaloriveralliance.org/Roberts-Gap-Forest-Plan.
Now go out into the world and treat everyone you meet exactly like you want them to treat you.
Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist, was editor of three Arkansas dailies and headed the master's journalism program at Ohio State University. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.
Print Headline: Alliance versus Forest Service
Arkansas Advocate
If you drive down the winding country roads west of Ponca, Arkansas, you might come across a stretch of land with three long structures — metal roofs, green siding. Just off the county highway, down a short clip of gravel road, you’d see a sign marking the chicken farm as a Cargill operation. It would give every indication of existing on this material plane — but for all intents and purposes, it doesn’t exist on paper in Arkansas. At least not according to the public record.
That’s because chicken houses — and all such industrial housing associated with the poultry industry — are exempt from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act under a law passed by the Arkansas Legislature in 2003. This is of particular interest to people like Gordon Watkins, founder of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA), who are concerned about the effect that waste, or litter, produced by chicken operations is having on the Buffalo River’s watershed.
Although some public information is available about the litter, it’s mostly on a countywide, not site-specific basis, which makes tracking the flow of potentially damaging nutrients like phosphorus especially problematic.
That may be changing thanks to a recently decided federal court case — a decision that also highlights just how damaging industrial runoff can be.
On Jan. 18, 2023, U.S. District Judge Gregory K. Frizzell handed down a ruling for a case that had concluded nearly 14 years prior. The lawsuit had been brought by the state of Oklahoma against 11 Arkansas poultry producers. The federal judge ruled that the producers had violated Oklahoma trespass and public-nuisance laws by letting their contract growers use chicken and turkey waste as fertilizer within the Illinois River watershed.
One of the key findings of the 219-page ruling is this: In the years ahead, the major poultry integrators — like Cargill and Tyson — may be responsible for the waste coming out of the chicken houses.
“For decades, the poultry integrators [Tyson, Cargill, George’s, et al.] have said, ‘We don’t have any responsibility for the waste — that’s on the farmer. We provide the chickens and we provide the feed and then the farmer gets the shit. How they handle that is up to them to do it. So we’re not liable for any of that,’ ” the BRWA’s Watkins said. “Well, this lawsuit said no, that’s not the case. You’re ‘vicariously liable.’ That’s the language that the judge used. So now, if that stands, the integrators are responsible for that waste.”
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance formed in 2013 after members realized a large-scale hog operation, C&H Hog Farms, had been approved near one of the Buffalo River’s major tributaries. Concerned that runoff might contaminate and irrevocably damage the river — the first National River in the U.S. and a tourism boon that drew $66.3 million to communities near the park in 2020 — the BRWA spent years petitioning the Arkansas government to close C&H, (the state eventually bought it out in June 2019).
In 2016, while still in the thick of things with C&H, Watkins and members of the BRWA began turning their attention to the footprint of industrial-scale animal farming on the Buffalo River.
When they started asking questions about the poultry industry, however, they hit a wall.
“So we wanted to get a big-picture view of what’s going on in the watershed because we couldn’t find that information,” Watkins said. “And so we went to the [Arkansas Natural Resources Commission], and we said, ‘Can you provide us information about chicken operations and watersheds?’ And they said, ‘Oh, no, there’s a statute that prohibits us from releasing any personal identifying information on poultry operations.’”
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) told the Buffalo River group that it could provide annual countywide counts of how much poultry was being produced, how many chicken houses there were, and how much waste was being produced. But there wasn’t any public information available about where those chicken houses were located.
The reason: In 2003, the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 1059, which said, in part, that public records surrounding the poultry industry were off limits. The law, sponsored by Rep. Preston Scroggin and co-sponsored by Sen. Gilbert Baker, doesn’t mention the state FOIA, but one line of text buried on the fifth page reads:
“Any records collected by the 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.”
Owing to an amendment made in the 2005 legislative session, the law didn’t take effect until Jan. 2, 2007. Where before there had been ample data provided to the public, now that data was secret. Some of that information, supplied by the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department, is still available on the state’s GIS page — but new data has not been added since August 2006.
When asked about this, ANRC Director Chris Colclasure confirmed that while the ANRC requires operations with more 2,500 confined birds to register with the commission — providing their location, how many birds, how much litter is produced, and whether that’s applied or transferred out — that information isn’t public.
“We provide summary information, but we do not provide information on individual farms,” Colclasure said. “So we summarize by county, but we do not indicate individual farms. And the law’s actually specific to that.
Where others might have taken that for a loss, chalking it up to a casualty of an overzealous legislature and turning their attention elsewhere, Watkins and the BRWA opted to conduct some research of their own. Using a grant from the Patagonia Foundation, the BRWA hired GIS researchers to help them spot chicken operations in the Buffalo River watershed using satellite imagery.
“You can also tell from aerial views which [operations] are active and which are inactive with pretty high certainty,” Watkins said. “Roofs will be gone or there’ll be junk piled around the place or something like that, and you can pretty easily tell if they’re active or inactive.”
The result was a far better picture than the state was able to provide. By analyzing that satellite imagery, the Alliance was able to determine there were 79 chicken houses in the Buffalo River’s watershed. Another 65 were within two miles. Based on the amount of active estimated roof area of 1.64 million square feet, the group estimates there are roughly 11.8 million chickens and turkeys produced per year, creating 37,594,000 pounds of solid waste.
Some room for error needs to be accounted for with this picture. As Watkins notes, there’s a chance that some imagery might not be completely up to date, that some chicken houses that appear active might be inactive or vice versa, and so on. The group hoped to conduct some drive-bys to verify that information. But they’ve currently suspended the project owing to the fact that farmers are in the midst of an avian influenza outbreak.
“Poultry farms are walking on eggshells, so to speak … and we didn’t want to inflame that by them thinking that we’re snooping around, trying to contaminate their operations or something like that,” Watkins said.
Still, Watkins emphasizes that this isn’t so much a matter of pointing fingers as trying to understand the broader picture of the challenges the Buffalo River faces.
“We’re just trying to get a handle on the extent of the problem — or the extent of the industry, I guess you’d say — in the watershed,” he said. “And because it lacks so much transparency, this was the best way we can figure out how to do that.”
The BRWA took inspiration for its map from one in nearby Missouri: In 2019, the Missouri Coalition for the Environment published an interactive map showing not only protected watersheds, impaired waterways, and manure application rates, but also the locations of more than 500 poultry, hog, beef, and egg operations around the state. To make that map, the authors noted that they used data provided by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.
One of the major hurdles Watkins and the BRWA came up against in their search for information came down to a question of whether the waste in question is “wet” versus “dry.” As it turns out, the difference is far from just semantic.
Hog waste is considered “liquid waste” and is therefore monitored by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. As such, any hog farmer in the state is required to submit nutrient management plans. This means that they need to submit soil tests, declare how much waste is being applied to a given piece of land, and so forth. This information is also considered public.
Poultry litter, however — which is considered “dry waste” and is monitored by a different governing body, the ANRC — occupies far different territory. Chicken operations also have to submit similar information to the ANRC, but none of that information is public. What’s more, the state does not require these operators to submit a “Nutrient Management Plan” even if they apply litter, sewage sludge, or commercial fertilizer. Unless, that is, it’s within the “Nutrient Surplus Area.”
Act 1059 of 2003 established the parameters for the current “Nutrient Surplus Area,” a C-shaped area that cups much of the northwest corner of the state and extends as far as Polk County. This area, as defined by the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, is characterized by “such high concentrations of one or more nutrients that continued unrestricted application of the nutrient could negatively impact soil fertility and waters of the state.”
In layman’s terms, that means it’s been loaded so heavily with nutrients — read waste — that it requires careful scrutiny to avoid further damage to the environment.
Even though the use of a Nutrient Management Plan is strictly voluntary if an operator is outside the Nutrient Surplus Area, the ANRC says more than 700 such plans are written outside of the nutrient surplus area annually. They cannot, however, say how many of those plans are written for poultry operations.
Although a spokesperson with Tyson said they’re “still reviewing the [Illinois River] decision and have no comment at this time,” the judge noted that, for a time, Tyson had “required their contract growers to submit litter usage reports and maintained that information on a nutrient management spreadsheet. The practice was discontinued because ‘it was an overwhelming task for the live production managers.’”
When Nutrient Management Plans are used, it’s possible to get a better sense of where chicken litter is being carried. This is key because of the environmental ripple effects that chicken litter poses.
In the Illinois River case, the judge noted that, “as late as the 1960s, [the Illinois River’s] waters were crystal clear. But that is no longer the case. The river is polluted with phosphorus, with adverse consequences that include low dissolved oxygen; abundant filamentous green algae; blue-green algae in Lake Tenkiller near the river’s terminus; greatly decreased transparency; and significant detrimental impacts on the numbers and species of fish.”
He went on to note that “a significant cause of the excess phosphorus in the waters of the IRW is the land application of litter from defendants’ poultry.”
Although Watkins applauds the court’s judgment, he notes that individuals in the Buffalo River watershed, which is not directly affected by the findings, are still concerned about that area’s lack of regulation and transparency — primarily when it comes to where the waste from the nutrient surplus zone will go after it’s removed from the area
“If there was a big algae bloom on some section of the river that was filled by a spring,” Watkins said, “and you notice that that spring is downstream from a large poultry installation and you’re getting big hits of phosphorus out of that spring or nitrogen — it’s an alert that somebody needs to connect the dots and see what’s going on there.”
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us