Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
By RICHARD H. MAYS Special to the Democrat-Gazette
Most Americans are spoiled by having clean water available by simply turning the spigot and letting drinkable water flow. Clean water is a necessity of life that we take for granted as part of our developed society, and we seldom give thought to whether there are harmful contaminants in what we are drinking.
It has not always been so. Until the 1970s, Americans frequently encountered water that had an unappetizing look and taste, and that occasionally made us sick because of bacteria or, worse, chemicals that might cause cancers and death. Many of our rivers and aquifers that serve as our sources of drinking water were contaminated with sewage and industrial wastes, and the states were unable or unwilling to require the municipalities and industries to pretreat their waste waters before discharging them into those water sources. There was no Environmental Protection Agency to do that for us.
This and other reckless uses of our surface and ground waters and air led to public outcry during the 1960s against the desecration of our environment, which in turn led to the 1970 creation of the Environmental Protection Agency by then-President Richard Nixon--a Republican, no less--and the enactment of the Federal Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and other laws designed to protect our environment and public health. We are far better off today than in the 1960s because of those laws and the EPA regulations that implemented them.
In June, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued new regulations commonly referred to as the Clean Water Rule. The Rule more specifically defines the water bodies that constitute "waters of the United States" subject to regulation by those agencies. It was made necessary because several decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court made it difficult, without further clarification, for the agencies, developers, farmers and others to obtain a timely, consistent and predictable determination of the water bodies or wetland areas subject to regulation. The Clean Water Rule attempts to make that clarification.
However, the EPA has become a favorite target for certain politicians and their contributors who generally oppose any kind of regulation except those affecting our most private and personal activities, and they are making the Clean Water Rule a political campaign issue. That includes U.S. Senator Tom Cotton and U.S. Representative Rick Crawford, both of whom have published op-ed pieces attacking the Rule, and Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, who files suit against any decision the EPA makes that potentially affects Arkansas, regardless of whether the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality asks her to do so or not.
These politicians are not criticizing the Clean Water Rule on its scientific and environmental merits, but on completely false claims of EPA's "desire to regulate nearly every drop of water in the United States," to quote Cotton.
For example, Cotton's op-ed article in the Nov. 7 edition of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette hyperbolically states that the Rule "will allow the EPA to dictate everything from when Arkansas farmers can plant their crops to how often they can run a tractor. They could even regulate mud puddles on family farms." He added that "any landowner in Arkansas ... could face federal criminal charges for disturbing [a small drainage] ditch in any way." These statements are simply false, or, to use an Arkansas farmer's words, "pure BS."
The best way to poison anything in Arkansas is to link it to President Obama, and Senator Cotton doesn't miss the opportunity to do that by concluding his article with the admonition that we "don't need President Obama's EPA to tell us what to do and not do with mud puddles on our property."
Attorney General Rutledge contributed her bit of exaggeration about the Clean Water Rule in testimony to a Senate committee in Washington in March. She reportedly pointed to a thick stack of paper and testified that "If you are a farmer in Arkansas trying to determine whether or not one of your fields would fall under this proposed rule, you would look to this," adding, "Nearly every farmer in Arkansas would have to obtain legal counsel to determine whether or not a field on their land falls under this EPA proposed rule."
It is not clear what Rutledge was referring to. The complete text of the regulations included in the Rule cover only 23 pages in the Federal Register, which is short by comparison to many regulations, and certainly not a thick stack. Only a few pages relate to farmers, mostly to clarify that the Rule exempts agricultural operations.
More important, Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge have apparently not even read the Clean Water Rule. The Rule, in Part 401 (general definitions), specifically provides that ditches such as those used on and in farms, artificially irrigated areas, farm, stock and irrigation ponds, and "puddles" are not "waters of the United States," and are therefore not regulated.
Furthermore, the preamble to the Rule specifically explains that it not only maintains the current statutory exemptions, but "expands regulatory exclusions from the definition of 'waters of the United States' to make clear that it does not add any additional permitting requirements on agriculture." If Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge have read the Rule, they are deliberately misrepresenting it.
According to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, some 40 percent of Arkansas' rivers and streams and over 30 percent of our lakes do not meet minimal water quality standards, in part due to agricultural and municipal runoff. Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge are willing to misrepresent the contents of the Clean Water Rule for their political gain when a large percentage of our rivers, streams and lakes--sources of our drinking water--are impaired and would benefit from the Rule.
By doing so, Cotton, Crawford and Rutledge ignore the lessons of the past regarding the contamination of our water and air and sacrifice the public environmental and health benefits that have been demonstrated through scientific analysis to be gained by the Rule.
Richard H. Mays is a Heber Springs attorney whose practice includes environmental law.
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/21/mcr-gene-colistin/
A Blog by Maryn McKenna
POSTED SAT, 11/21/2015
I mentioned on Monday that this past week was intended by the CDC, WHO and other health authorities to be a global awareness week for antibiotic resistance. Alarming news that came out of China at the end of the week certainly created new awareness of resistance, but possibly not what the organizers had in mind.
On Thursday, researchers from several Chinese, British and US universitiesannounced in the journal Lancet Infectious Diseases that they have identified a new form of resistance, to the very last-ditch drug colistin—and that it is present in both meat animals and people, probably comes from agricultural use of that drug, can move easily among bacteria, and may already be spreading across borders.
This is very bad news.
To understand why, it’s necessary to know a little bit about colistin. It is an old drug: It was first introduced in 1959. It has been on the shelf, without seeing much use, for most of the years since, because it can be toxic to the kidneys. And precisely because it hasn’t been used much, bacteria have not developed much resistance to it. It remains effective.
That neglect turned out to be very fortunate a few years ago when several different resistance factors—NDM, OXA, KPC—started hopscotching around the globe. All of them made bacteria invulnerable to a group of drugs called carbapenems that had been considered a last line of defense: They were the last drugs that were in common use and were able to take care of complex infections that happen in hospitals, caused by E. coli, Klebsiella, Acinetobacter and similar gut-dwelling organisms. Once those bacteria became resistant to carbapenems (earning them the general name of “carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae,” or CREs), colistin was all that was left—and colistin use began rising.
(From around that time: Here’s a great story that Jason Gale of Bloomberg wroteabout colistin, and one I wrote for Nature about CREs. A long series of posts I wrote for WIRED about the discovery of NDM and the bitter political fights over its apparent origin in India can be found here. Of note, one of the discoverers of NDM is one of the authors of this new research.)
A thing about colistin, which no one seems to have connected the dots on: Because it is an old drug, it is cheap. And because it is cheap, it is an affordable addition to animal feed for all the uses I’ve talked about before: to make animals put on muscle mass faster, and protect them from the conditions of intensive farming.
Which, apparently, is how it is being used in China—but not only in China. From the paper:
China is… one of the world’s highest users of colistin in agriculture. Driven largely by China, the global demand for colistin in agriculture is expected to reach 11,942 tonnes per annum by the end of 2015 (with associated revenues of $229·5 million), rising to 16,500 tonnes by the year 2021, at an average annual growth rate of 4·75%. Of the top ten largest producers of colistin for veterinary use, one is Indian, one is Danish, and eight are Chinese. Asia (including China) makes up 73·1% of colistin production with 28·7% for export including to Europe.
Where sampling for the MCR resistance study took place.
GRAPHIC FROM LIU ET AL, LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES; ORIGINAL HERE.
The findings reported this week originate in an ongoing project in which the Chinese authors were looking for resistance in the E. coli that reside in the guts of food animals. (It’s encouraging that such a project exists.) They say they first perceived a colistin-resistant E. coli in 2013, in a pig from an intensive farm near Shanghai, and then noted increasing colistin resistance over several years. They expanded their research to include, not just samples from animals as they were slaughtered, but sampling of retail meat from supermarkets and street markets, and testing of samples previously taken from patients in two hospitals. The samples were collected between 2011 and 2014.
Here’s what they found. The gene they discovered, which directs colistin resistance and which they dubbed MCR-1, was present:
That last is important: The bacteria possessing this resistance were not, as sometimes happens, merely gut bacteria that had acquired the necessary DNA but were hanging out quietly in the intestines and not causing trouble. They are already causing human infections.
And, of most concern: The MCR-1 gene that creates this resistance is contained on a plasmid, a small piece of DNA that is not part of a bacteria’s chromosome. Plasmids move freely around the bacterial world, hopping from one bacterium to another; in the past, they have transported resistance DNA between bacterial species, facilitating resistance’s rapid movement around the globe. This gene, the authors predict, will be able to do that as well.
The rapid dissemination of previous resistance mechanisms (eg, NDM-1) indicates that, with the advent of transmissible colistin resistance, progression of Enterobacteriaceae from extensive drug resistance to pan-drug resistance is inevitable and will ultimately become global.
“Pan-drug resistance,” to be clear, means that nothing at all will work—that infections are untreatable by any known compound.
How plasmids (the blue loops) move among bacteria.
GRAPHIC VIA WIKIMEDIA COMMONS.
It’s worth noting that not every dire superbug prediction comes true. In the early 2000s, physicians were very alarmed when resistance to vancomycin—like colistin, another last-resort antibiotic preserved from the 1950s—moved via a plasmid fromEnterococcus into Staphylococcus aureus, or staph. At the time, people were already worried about the better-known form of drug-resistant staph, MRSA; the emergence of VRSA, as it became known, ratcheted worries way up. In the end, though, VRSA turned out not to be much of a threat: In 15 years, there have been only 14 such infections in the United States.
But what makes MCR, this new colistin resistance, different from VRSA is the role that agriculture seems to be playing in its evolution and dispersal. There are two problems here. First, that thousands to millions of animals are getting the drug, which exponentially expands the opportunities that favor resistance. And second, that projects such as the Chinese one that allowed the new gene to be discovered are rare—so colistin resistance could begin moving, from animals and into people, without being noticed.
And, in fact, it may be on the move now. The authors note that, while they were writing up their findings, the European Molecular Biology Laboratory received five submissions of bacterial data that appeared to contain the MCR gene—but not from China; from Malaysia.
What will happen next? Unfortunately, we have to wait and see—and hope that systems are built that will perceive this new resistance if it arrives. Meanwhile, I especially appreciate the reaction of Mike the Mad Biologist, who knows a great deal about resistance in his real life and can be counted on to be exasperated and blunt. He said, about this discovery:
If this doesn’t convince people to get serious about the agricultural side of the problem, I don’t know what will.
http://www.coastalreview.org/2015/11/11738/
Just a `Misunderstanding,’ State Says
11/19/2015 by Mark Hibbs
RALEIGH – Faced with the threat of losing its federal permitting authority, the N.C. Department of Environmental Quality said this week that it is working with federal officials to clarify their “misunderstanding” over the public’s right to challenge state-issued pollution permits.
Environmental advocates challenging two coastal permits on the public’s behalf say the misunderstanding lies with DEQ and how its lawyers are arguing the ongoing appeals.
The department was responding to a recent letter from an Environmental Protection Agency regional director warning the agency that if decisions in the cases unduly restrict the public’s ability to challenge state permits, then EPA can decide that the state is not meeting the minimum requirements of federal environmental laws. Like most states, North Carolina now issues permits and enforces those laws under an agreement with EPA. The agency could decide to rescind that authority.
Crystal Feldman, a DEQ spokeswoman, declined to answer directly questions Coastal Review Online submitted by email and instead referred to a blog posted Monday afternoon on the department’s website. Her blog seems to blame the state’s legal process.
“DEQ is working with the EPA to clarify that it was the court, not DEQ, that dismissed the challenges to the permits. DEQ is preparing a letter to EPA to rectify the misunderstanding. If the EPA remains dissatisfied with the state’s legal process, legislative action may be required to clarify North Carolina law. DEQ has been and will continue to be committed to providing citizens judicial review and effectively executing environmental permitting programs,” Feldman wrote.
EPA authorizes the state to issue and enforce federal pollution permits under the Clean Air and the Clean Water acts. The department, Feldman wrote, it administers the programs “in accordance with federal law, which includes ample opportunity for public comment and permit appeal.”
She charged that the EPA had been “persuaded” to take action against the state agency by the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit group of lawyers that represented environmental groups in the two permit challenges questioned by EPA. Feldman described the law center as “frustrated” that the two cases had been “thrown out of court.”
The cases, which are still pending in the state’s legal system, involve challenges to state permits for a proposed cement plant near Wilmington and a planned mining operation near Washington, N.C.
Heather Toney, an EPA regional administrator, said in a letter dated Oct. 30 to DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart that initial decisions in the cases, which were based on DEQ’s arguments, “cast serious doubt” on whether the state’s federally authorized permitting programs can satisfy minimum federal requirements.
Attorneys with the law center turned to EPA officials regarding its appeal, along with the N.C. Coastal Federation, of the N.C. Division of Air Quality’s air permit for Carolinas Cement Co. for the company’s proposed cement plant near Wilmington. The plant would emit more than 5,000 tons of air pollution each year. A law judge sided with DEQ that the plaintiffs couldn’t challenge the permit because they didn’t have legal standing. The case is pending before the N.C. Court of Appeals.
In the other case, environmental groups Sound Rivers and the federation challenged the N.C. Division of Water Resources’ water quality permit for Martin Marietta Materials that would allow the mining company to dump 12 million gallons of mine wastewater a day into Blounts Creek, a popular fishing spot east of Washington.
Administrative law judge Phil Berger Jr., the son of N.C. Senate leader Phil Berger, agreed with the state’s contention that the public didn’t have the right to challenge the permit. The decision was later reversed by the Beaufort County Superior Court and has been sent back the N.C. Office of Administrative Hearings.
Feldman’s blog says state law provides the public greater input in the permitting process than federal law and more opportunity to appeal permit decisions.
“Under North Carolina law, citizens have to meet a much lower threshold to appeal a permit in court than the threshold required by the EPA. For example, the EPA requires citizens to have commented during the public comment period or participated in a public hearing to appeal a permit. North Carolina has no such requirement” according to the post, which also includes a chart to explain the additional hurdles the public faces in order to challenge a permit under the EPA process.
Mike Giles, a coastal advocate with the federation, called DEQ’s response “ridiculous.” The state’s lawyers were doing DEQ’s bidding in defending the permits, Giles said. “The blog shows that these folks are just not paying attention and forgets to mention the fact that the state lawyers were front and center with this decision as they were arguing the case,” he said.
Feldman, in her email, did respond regarding the law center’s involvement in the cases. “The SELC’s inconsistency about the value of public input undermines their credibility. They think it’s important today when it comes to permitting, but not long ago they tried to bypass public comment on the cleanup of coal ash,” Feldman said.
Derb Carter, SELC’s state director, said Feldman’s comment on public participation on coal ash “is nothing short of astounding coming from DEQ.”
Carter said the department has opposed proposed agreements in court that will require full public review to clean up polluting sites and just reached “a secret deal” with Duke with no public review that would relieve Duke of responsibility for groundwater contamination at all the utility’s coal ash disposal sites.
Carter said that Feldman appears uninformed regarding the two permit challenges at issue in the EPA letter.
“First, someone needs to let the DEQ spokesperson know that the Superior Court in Beaufort County has ruled against DEQ and the mining company to allow citizens to challenge in court the permit authorizing the discharge of millions of gallons of mine waste into Blount’s Creek,” Carter said, “Second, if DEQ is now saying it supports the rights of citizens to challenge the permit authorizing Titan to emit toxic air pollutants, it has the opportunity to reverse its position on appeal and the citizens we represent would welcome that. Since the new mission of DEQ is customer service, and the polluters are the customers, it is more important than ever that citizens have the right to protect their air and water in court.”
BRIAN FANNEY ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
A plan to avoid water shortages in Arkansas will head to state lawmakers for final approval.
The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission voted Monday to approve the Arkansas Water Plan, which seeks to measure and address the anticipated gap between the demand and availability of water. The projected gap is wide — as much as 2.3 trillion gallons per year by 2050. The plan indicates the state will demand 4.6 trillion gallons per year by that time.
Because farming accounts for about 80 percent of Arkansas’ water use, the plan calls for farmers to find ways to conserve. Its recommendations have faced opposition from several farming groups.
The plan forecasts that if nothing changes, the alluvial aquifer — the Delta’s supply of underground water — will be mostly dry by 2050. The plan proposes making up for this loss by impounding excess surface water.
The first Arkansas Water Plan was published in 1975 and later updated in 1990. The Legislative Council could vote on the current version as soon as next month.
Speaker of the House Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia, said he supported it. He said he didn’t see how the plan would adversely affect his berry farm in White County.
“It’ll be well-vetted by the Legislature, rest assured on that,” he said. “I think agriculture should be pleased on the whole of the plan. There might be some parts of the state affected slightly differently than others.”
Farming is the most popular job among lawmakers.
Evan Teague, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said his organization is “fairly comfortable” with the plan, but farmers would need to support it during the group’s annual convention in early December for him to back it.
“All we’ve looked for is sound, scientific reasoning behind the decisions they’re making and we feel like they’re taking that into consideration,” he said. “It’s been a bit of a give and take and we feel like they worked with everyone in a fair manner.”
Some poultry and rice organizations have voiced concerns about the plan.
Arkansas produces more than half the rice grown in the United States. The water-intense crop used 1.8 trillion gallons of water in 2010
— 55 percent of all irrigation water used — according to the water plan.
The plan doesn’t include any recommendations to limit usage, but it does call for incentives to encourage conservation.
The plan also “may encourage the General Assembly to consider the need for nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure in other regions of the state.”
That’s a change from previous wording, which stated the commission “will encourage” the Legislature to “require” nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure “throughout” the state — as opposed to current requirements just in Northwest Arkansas.
“Discussion about that came up kind of late in the process and there was some concern about whether there should have been more discussion,” said Randy Young, executive director of the Natural Resources Commission.
“We softened the language a little bit for more time for discussion, more time for science to be developed.”
Teague said he was much more comfortable with the new language.
To turn the plan’s recommendations into law, legislators will need to enact bills during the regular session in 2017.
Lawmakers would need to vote to finance water storage and wastewater projects and look at enhancing conservation incentives to fully enact recommendations in the plan, Young said.
Changing nutrient plan requirements would also involve a change in law, he said.
“I think you’re going to see the Legislature being very open-minded at the front end of this process,” Gillam said. “I think we do need to have some long-term strategies in place so we don’t end up like California.”
Arkansas uses more than 8.3 billion gallons of groundwater per day from aquifers, the second-highest total in the United States, behind California.
California has faced years of drought and dwindling groundwater available for farming. Gillam said the situation there has been instructive for Arkansas farmers, who have to strike a balance between present needs and future concerns.
“I think this is the beginning of a lot of dialogue,” Gillam said. “This is the plan, but it’s not the end of discussion. It’s kind of the beginning.”
Arkansas produces more than half the rice grown in the United States. The water-intense crop used 1.8 trillion gallons of water in 2010 — 55 percent of all irrigation water used — according to the water plan.
October 30, 2015
JBS S.A. (BM&FBOVESPA: JBSS3, OTCQX: JBSAY, “JBS” or “Company”), pursuant to the announcement made in the Material Fact of July 1st, 2015, communicates to its shareholder and to the market in general that its subsidiary JBS USA concluded, on this date, the purchase of certain assets, properties, rights and liabilities, operations and the right of Cargill Meats ownership into Cargill Pork LLC ("Cargill Pork").
The completed acquisition includes:
The Company obtained the necessary regulatory approvals from the competent antitrust authorities, including the Department of Justice in the US, to conclude the transaction without restrictions.
“Today’s announcement signifies a strengthening of our pork business through the combination of our established track record of adding value for our customer base and Cargill’s complementary specialty-product offerings, including bacon, antibiotic-free and sow housing production system options,” stated Marty Dooley, President and COO, JBS USA Pork.
The total amount paid was approximately US$1.450 million, on a debt-free, cash-free basis, adjusted at closing by the net working capital variation and long-term liabilities of Cargill Pork.
The Cargill Pork acquisition, combined with the existing JBS Pork business in the US, has pro forma net revenue of approximately US$6.3 billion, and a processing capacity of about 90,000 hogs per day and two million pounds of bacon per week.
“This acquisition is fully aligned with JBS' strategy to grow our portfolio of prepared and value-added products, further expanding our Company’s customer base and enhancing our premium pork product mix,” stated Wesley Batista, Global CEO of JBS
São Paulo, October 30, 2015
Jeremiah O’Callaghan Investor Relations Officer
By Mike Masterson
This article was published today at 3:54 a.m
The theme of this evening inside the jam-packed Town Center on Fayetteville's charming square could be summed up by the comments of keynote speaker Ken Smith: "We gather to celebrate and praise nature's beauty. The Buffalo National River is the work of ages, far longer than any of us can ever imagine."
And so the celebration went for a few hours the other night as nearly 400 citizens and lovers of the country's first national river gathered to share fellowship, fundraising and a meal hosted by members of the Buffalo River Coalition. That group consists of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the National Parks Conservation Association, the Ozark Society and the Arkansas Canoe Club.
While the major sponsors of the four-hour silent auction and dinner were Don and Millie Nelms and Fayetteville's Advertising and Promotion Commission, the list of donors filled three pages in the program.
I don't know how much money was raised largely, I suspect, to help offset ongoing legal costs involved in combating the potential pollution of the Buffalo and its watershed from raw hog waste being continually spread onto fields along and near Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo. I can assure you the event was well-supported financially and spiritually.
Emceed by Kyle Kellams, who founded and hosts KUAF's Ozarks at Large radio program, the evening featured presentations by Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo Watershed Alliance; followed by Kevin Cheri, National Park Service superintendent of the Buffalo; then Suzie and Jim Liles, she a former historian and he a former Park Service Ranger and manager; then acclaimed Buffalo author and photographer Ken Smith, who coordinates trail construction for hiking trails along the Buffalo; and finally Bob Allen, president of the Piney Creeks Chapter of the Arkansas Canoe Club.
I expected to see 150 perhaps 200 would attend. So it was almost overwhelming to find the enormous center literally teeming with people of all walks and ages.
Former 2nd District U.S. Rep. Ed Bethune and his wife, Lana, were seated to my left at one circular table.
The deeply controversial C&H Hog Farms at Mount Judea that our state two years ago wrongheadedly permitted to begin spewing raw waste onto the mountainous karst land about 6 miles above the river wasn't mentioned during the evening set aside solely to celebrate the river.
But that didn't stop this former congressman and me from discussing that God-awful decision across the tablecloth.
As a former FBI agent, politician and once chairman of the state's GOP, Bethune understands well the inner workings of politics and how pressures from special interests too often override the best interests and needs of the general population.
And he fathoms just how much power exists in the hands of the people themselves when they decide to exercise it for a common cause.
We agreed that if the people of Arkansas, those who care about our state and something as precious and God-given as our Buffalo, will pause for 15 minutes in their day to contact their state legislators and let them know this sacred region is the worst place a factory containing 6,500 swine could be located and that it should be moved, the impact of unified voices could be hugely effective.
Otherwise, our elected lawmakers will continue to be wooed by relatively small special interests with handsome campaign checks and personal agendas, which is what's been happening.
The personable Bethune said that turn-of-the-20th-century historian Henry Brooks Adams had a particularly relevant comment about getting the attention of congressmen that's equally applicable to all politicians, especially when they are functioning as a legislative body or bureaucracy.
"I used to paraphrase Adams by saying: 'Politicians do not respond to logic or reason; like hogs, they respond to pressure. If you want to get anything done you must take a stick and hit them on the snout,'" Bethune said. "With respect to the hog factory at Mount Judea: We've tried logic and reason, but it's going to take determined, persistent pressure from the people to get rid of this scourge."
So, valued readers, I can continue writing a million or so more words lamenting what a grievous decision our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough) made in allowing this hog factory into the Buffalo National River watershed that will result only in a lot more words.
What can change this misplaced travesty Bethune calls a scourge is a chorus of voting citizens like yourselves lifting the stick that is your voice and whapping your legislators squarely on the snout, repeatedly if necessary. But, as with anything that makes a difference in this life we share, you've got to care enough to make the effort.
The late Dr. Neil Compton, the acknowledged patriarch of preserving the Buffalo River years ago, put it this way: "I challenge you to step forward to protect and care for the wild places you love best."
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Environment agency chief orders 5% cut
By Emily Walkenhorst
This article was published today at 3:15 a.m.
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality division heads will have to recommend 5 percent budget cuts, which will likely include layoffs, department Director Becky Keogh told the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission on Friday.
The commission is the department's appellate body.
The cuts will offset current and expected drops in federal funding from congressional budget cuts, in addition to decreases in collections on state permit fees, Keogh said.
A 5 percent cut would be $2.75 million of the department's $55 million budget. Department spokesman Katherine Benenati said the amount would be trimmed over two years.
The department has about 360 employees and a payroll of about $18.9 million. A 5 percent payroll reduction would represent about 20 to 25 positions, Benenati said. But the cuts will be shared between staff and administrative costs.
Division heads will submit recommendations in the next 90 days on what could be cut from their divisions.
The department has lost $250,000 in federal funding recently.
"So we want to acknowledge that early," Keogh said, adding that she doesn't want to cut costs related to the department's cleanup and remediation of hazardous sites.
The budget cuts will also fulfill Gov. Asa Hutchinson's request for state agencies to be leaner, she said, and are part of an effort to restructure the department to become more efficient.
The department had six regulatory divisions and several administrative divisions. Now, the department will have three regulatory divisions -- air, water and land resources -- and two administrative divisions below the director's office -- the office of operations and outreach, and the office of general counsel.
Keogh said she hoped that streamlining the agency would help reduce costs and clarify what the department does.
In addition, Keogh said, she wants to bring more technical experts to the forefront of the department to make sure they're heavily involved in decision making.
Commissioner Wesley Stites, chairman of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville's chemistry and biochemistry department, asked Keogh if the department's existing divisions would be split among the three new divisions and if staff members will be asked to work on a more diverse set of issues.
"There's obviously going to be some overlap," Keogh said, adding that she hopes, for example, that someone working in hazardous waste can help on solid-waste issues from time to time.
She said she wants to make sure that employees can work on a broader set of tasks, rather than hiring employees for expertise that might not always be in need.
Other commissioners did not ask about the moves. Commissioner Robert Reynolds, president of Shuler Drilling Co., told Keogh that he thought she was doing a good job in her first six months as director.
After the meeting, Stites said he wasn't opposed to Keogh's suggestions but is curious about how the transition to fewer divisions will work.
He said the four divisions set to become land resources -- hazardous waste, regulated storage tanks, solid-waste management, and surface mining and reclamation -- all have a lot in common.
"On the other hand, they're kind of different," he said. "All I was trying to do was just get a feel for what ... how intact those divisions will be."
As for the 5 percent budget cuts, Stites said he wasn't concerned, acknowledging that Hutchinson has asked state agencies to find ways to cut costs.
"I guess I'm just going to sit back and see what happens," he said. "'If the wait times for permit applications start to go up, then obviously there's an issue. If decrease, then, well, hey, she's accomplished some good things."
Keogh has appointed directors of all the divisions except for water. Current Water Division Director Ellen Carpenter has asked not to be appointed to the position, noting that she may retire soon, Keogh said.
Stuart Spencer has been chief of the Air Division for a few months, and Keogh said he's already streamlined its permitting process to reduce its backlog by 70 percent.
Tammy Harrelson, a deputy director of the entire Department of Environmental Quality, will lead the Land Resources Division.
Tim Cain, who arrived in June in another position, will take over the Office of Operations and Outreach. Julie Chapman, who has been general counsel in Keogh's office, will oversee the Office of General Counsel.
Metro on 10/24/2015
Event marks opportunity to make a difference
By Fran Alexander
Posted: October 20, 2015 at 1 a.m. NWA online
Some sort of lulled assumption settles over us as a society when it comes to realizing how things get done. For example, most of our lives are spent utilizing public lands without giving a thought to the history of their creation and continued existence or how we, the people, became the owners and benefactors of those places and spaces.
Generally, even less of our energies are devoted to actively protecting, enhancing and defending our public home turf from an endless assortment of threats. Fortunately, there are some unsung heroes among us who do hear the clarion calls to action when assaults and injustices befall the common good.
Our state's best-known natural area follows a river that flows freely for 135 miles through the Ozark Mountains. The Buffalo River is one of only a few undammed rivers in the lower 48 states, according to the U.S. National Park Service, and that free-flowing status was once in serious jeopardy.
One of my all-time favorite quotes, "When the people lead, the leaders will follow," has been accredited to people ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Gandhi. The quote was proved true in Arkansas by the late Dr. Neil Compton and a band of citizens who founded the Ozark Society in 1962. They brought attention and pressure against the possibility that this beautiful and clear river was slated for damming by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Arkansas' governor at the time, Orval Faubus, who was long proud of his rural roots, took political and personal notice of what might happen in his old stomping grounds and eventually so did other state leaders like U.S. Sen. J. William Fulbright. Efforts mounted against damming, but it was 10 years before the river was designated in 1972 as the first national river in the United States. This did not happen because of elected leaders, but because of people willing to act and to hang in there for the long fight of getting leaders to follow.
Now in another fairly well-known battle, citizens are engaged in saving the Buffalo---again. Certain that a confined animal (hog) farm near a tributary of the Buffalo River will deliver contamination from run-off and from leaching through the area's porous geologic structure, organizations and individuals launched efforts to hold the state accountable for allowing the use of this site for spreading hog manure in the river's watershed.
Nothing is free in this life, even when long hours of labor are voluntary. A coalition of non-profit groups-- the Ozark Society, the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the National Parks Conservation Association, and the Arkansas Canoe Club-- share the goal of having, "more funds available for action on the river related to conservation, advocacy, education, youth involvement, and generally building public awareness of and appreciation for the Buffalo River." The funding need also has, and may continue to include, legal fees and scientific research of water and ecosystems.
To this end, this coalition is hosting a "Celebration of the Buffalo" fundraising gala and honoring pioneers , like Compton, who have led the efforts to protect this river, and Ken Smith, who has coordinated trail building around the river for over 35 years. Smith has published four books, including "The Buffalo River Country" and "The Buffalo River Handbook," and probably no one alive today has a more intimate knowledge or connection to this river nor deserves our thanks more than he.
To be held this Friday (so act fast) at Fayetteville's Town Center, there will be a very tempting silent auction, music, book signing, speakers, a "Lobby Party" from 5 to 7 p.m. for a $5 donation, and/or a 7 p.m. banquet dinner for $100 per ticket (don't forget, this is to "save the Buffalo -- again). Details and donations (tax deductible) can be found at: www.celebratethebuffalo.com or call Teresa Turk, 206-713-2265.
This coalition of organizations is "committed to working toward permanent protection of the Buffalo against threats to its pristine quality, recreational value and economic benefits." The National Park Service has calculated that "1.3 million visitors annually spend $56.6 million in the gateway communities surrounding the national park [making the river] a key driver of tourism for Arkansas."
What's not to understand? People do not spend time and money to play in polluted waters. Please help those who are helping us all in saving this treasured place that belongs to all of us.
Commentary on 10/20/2015
Posted: October 20, 2015 at 4:05 a.m.
A federal judge is giving the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Small Business Administration three additional months to finally comply with two federal environmental laws in properly completing their required environmental reassessment for C&H Hog Farms at Mount Judea.
The agencies sought the extension in late September after being flooded with "an unexpectedly large volume" of public comments (1,858, in fact) on the new draft environmental assessment.
The assessment is an integral part of loan guarantees the agencies made for this factory our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough) wrongheadedly okayed to operate in Arkansas' Buffalo National River watershed.
The public comments about the second insufficient assessment raised substantive issues including relevant studies and assessments that require review, according to the U.S. Department of Justice. I can attest that those comments contain many relevant issues.
Four environmental and conservation groups sued the federal agencies in 2013, alleging their environmental assessment, needed to guarantee loans to the factory, was woefully incomplete. I always saw that assessment as virtually nonexistent. Federal Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. agreed in 2014 and ordered the agencies to complete a second assessment in compliance with two federal environmental laws. Now Marshall has given them until March 1 to try to get the third attempt completed.
What a needless hog-wild mess our state created, even facilitated, here.
By Brian Thompson
Posted: October 10, 2015 at 1 a.m.
Much has been written about the Buffalo National River in regard to its environmental value as an extraordinary water resource. But, what if we look at it from a purely economic standpoint. After all, most decisions regarding the growth of Arkansas industry are driven by economics.
The Buffalo itself is an important economic component of Arkansas tourism. In regard to the C&H Hog Farm, the question becomes whether a key tourism driver like the Buffalo can successfully coexist with an agricultural facility that has a significant waste disposal footprint. From an economic standpoint, it would be ideal if both industries could thrive in close proximity.
The Arkansas Pork Producers Association and the Arkansas Farm Bureau insist they can. They describe the owners of C&H as a responsible farm family that deeply cares about the environment. The farm supporters assure us the risk is low, if not non-existent. Yet, it is clear there is still risk, if for no other reason than the facilities' size and its proximity to a national river.
Risks from C&H come from four sources: Surface run-off, groundwater contamination, lagoon overflow from severe weather, and finally, lagoon collapse.
Let's look at the worst-case scenario. Lagoon collapse due to the weight on underlying karstgeology (think sinkholes) is a low-probability but high-risk event that has occurred numerous times in karst environments elsewhere. In our example, the collapse of the karst opens up the floor of the lagoon to an underground cavity. This results in the rapid drainage of lagoon waste into the karst, a volume that could exceed one million gallons. Nearby springs connected via the karst turn the color of chocolate. Quickly, Big Creek becomes contaminated and, in turn, so does the Buffalo. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality steps in to mitigate the collapse, to little effect. The National Park Service closes the Buffalo to the public. The closure and its reasons are publicized. Tourism in the Buffalo gateway communities stalls. Cargill successfully defers liability, stating that C&H is an independent contractor. C&H resources are quickly drained by legal claims and they declare bankruptcy. Tourism operators call for disaster relief. It becomes apparent mitigation and costs to restore the river (if that is possible) will come at the expense of the Arkansas taxpayer. In the absolute worst case, questions arise as to whether the damaged Buffalo can continue to be designated a "national river."
This particular risk may seem remote, but similar events have happened in the past and, as you can see, the consequences are enormous. Tom Aley, an professional Arkansas geologist, has suggested C&H should carry environmental risk insurance to address potential liability. Such policies are available and can be purchased for exactly these sorts of risks. Mr. Aley suggests a policy with an upper limit payout of $50 million.
"That's high," you say? Considering the Buffalo brought in $57 million in economic benefits to the state just last year, this is in all likelihood too low. But, it is a starting point. And if the risks are as low as the Farm Bureau says, the premiums should be reasonable and viewed as a cost of doing business in this economically important watershed. The policy should be written to provide coverage for the four risks mentioned earlier. With the purchase of such a policy, C&H should add chemical markers to their holding lagoons for source tracing purposes.
Why this has not already been done to reassure the public remains an unanswered question. It would certainly aid the current scientific efforts in evaluating the farm's impact. From the insurer's point of view, such chemical markers would serve to isolate C&H liability and ensure that claims do not result from other sources.
Currently, the Arkansas taxpayer is the de facto insurer and will be on the hook for any problems that result from this facility. If the farm's owners and supporters truly intend to be accountable, then they must ensure the waste is chemically traceable and purchase sufficient environmental risk coverage. If they are unwilling to take these simple mitigation steps, we have to ask ourselves as taxpayers if they are really as responsible as they would have us believe.
Commentary on 10/10/2015
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us