Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Readers want hearing
by Mike Masterson
Thanks to valued readers who responded to my call last week for comments on our governor and the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission needing to instruct the foot-dragging Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough) to schedule a hearing where all new research on possible contamination of the Buffalo National River watershed by the hog factory at Mount Judea can be formally submitted. Here are a few responses.
From Virginia McKimmey: "Thank you for your tireless effort to try to do something about the swine fiasco close to the Buffalo River. When I've called our elected officials' offices about this matter, I have been told nothing can be done! That makes me furious ... People are disgusted with politics. The Buffalo is our only national river, so why can't our congressional delegation do something since local politicians won't? I like regulation since banks, business and people don't do such a good job of regulating themselves. It's all about politics and the bottom line."
From Dorothy Trickey: "On the Buffalo River/C&H Hog Farm--our governor and Pollution Control and Ecology should force a hearing on this matter. Our river should be saved from pollution and loved and enjoyed by all Arkansans as well as tourists. Save the Buffalo! Thanks for keeping us informed on this issue."
From Bill Caller: "We need hearings, not based on money, but on saving the beautiful river in its pristine state. Please keep pen in hand and don't spare the paper. You need to be the voice for all of Arkansas."
Finally, I appreciated the following message from retired engineer Duane Woltjen: "There's no reason to believe the installation of pond liners will stop the obvious leakage or spillage that is evident by contamination of the well water. Even a perfect pond liner will not stop the leakage that's probably occurring through the floor of the building or due to incidental spillage.
"The pond liner, besides incurring obvious further risks associated with installation, fails to do anything to facilitate actual monitoring of liner leakage should it occur. Likewise, it does nothing to ensure that the floor of the barn is not also source of leakage--highly probable when a new building settles.
"It's of little comfort to realize that ADEQ actually only requires that leakage be less than 5,000 gallons a day for each pond acre, so it really isn't legally necessary to actually stop the leakage, just slow it down (if you can figure a way to actually measure leakage of that magnitude)."
"The only sure way to protect the resources of the people is obvious. I'll leave expression of how that might be done to a reasonably bright fifth grader."
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Editorial on 10/03/2015
Hog farm modification produces debate; Public hearing in Jasper
By DAVID HOLSTED Harrison Daily Times - Harrison, Arkansas
JASPER — Opinions differed, as usual, at a public hearing about the C&H Hog Farm.
What we have here is little more than a public relations effort to conceal the major pollution threat to the Buffalo River by C&H Hog Farms,” was the testimony of hydrogeologist Tom Aley. Evan Teague of the Arkansas Farm Bureau saw it differently.
“This was one thing that was asked for by environmental groups,” he said. “This is what you asked for.”
The subject of controversy at the two-hour hearing held at the Jasper School was a request by C&H Farms to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) for modifications to the farm’s waste storage ponds. The hearing, which was attended by several dozen people, was requested by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
C&H Farms is a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) located near Mt. Judea. The farm has about 6,000 hogs, and environmentalists have long contended that the waste from the animals eventually finds its way into the nearby Buffalo National River.
As explained by John Bailey, ADEQ permits branch manager, the requested modifications are 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) liners in both waste storage ponds; an 80-mil HDPE cover on pond one; and a flare system on pond one to burn off methane gas.
Currently both ponds have an 18-inch clay lining.
Bailey added that the cost of installation will be paid for by C&H, and it will be checked by a licensed engineer.
He went on to say that the optimum time for installation of the liners and cover would be during the summer to allow for quicker drying of the ponds. He expected it to take one or two days depending on the weather.
There was some skepticism among some audience members about the integrity of the clay liners that are already in place. If the ponds were supposed to be state of the art, they asked, why was there a need for further modifications?
“If the liner proved inadequate,” one person said, “what happens when the modification proves inadequate? Maybe you should be reviewing your requirements for further modifications.”
Jack Stewart, vice-president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, was perplexed as to why a public hearing was held at taxpayer expense when a decision on the modifications had already been made. It was his belief that the C&H ponds were already leaking waste water. Adding HDPE liners will not stop the leakage, he added, and he urged a thorough study be done on the ground underneath the ponds.
Though he could not be at the meeting, Aley’s testimony was included in the public comment section. The testimony was an assessment prepared at the request of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
According to Aley, who is president and senior hydrogeologist for Ozark Underground Laboratory, Inc., “Arkansas lacks effective groundwater protection controls as is demonstrated by the existence of this hog farm and its manure ponds.”
Aley went on to say in his testimony that “retrofitting liners in the C&H manure ponds so that they will not leak or rupture will, at best, be a very challenging operation.”
Aley summarized his findings by saying that the proposed liners may be beneficial, they would not negate the serious pollution risks associated with the manure ponds.
Kathy Downs of Jasper expressed disappointment with the ADEQ, accusing it of trying to put a Band-Aid on a huge wound.
“The basic job of the ADEQ is to protect the environment,” Downs said, “and you’re not doing it.”
It was her opinion that the whole thing was political, and the fix was in.
“We don’t want to see the ADEQ turn their backs again and again on our efforts to protect the environment,” Downs said. “Please, ADEQ, do your job.”
Teague, who is from Little Rock, insisted that the modifications were not being done because the original clay liners were defective. The ponds met the minimum standards, he said. Rather, the HDPE liners were being installed because opponents of C&H Farms wanted them installed.
Jerry Masters of Dover was even more passionate in his defense of C&H Farms. A member of the Arkansas Pork Producers Association, Masters repeated Teague’s claim that the HDPE liners were being put in for the environmentalists and activists. Yet, they were still protesting.
“That tells me that many of you won’t be satisfied until the padlocks are put on the doors of C&H and it’s closed,” he said.
Masters’ charge resulted in enthusiastic applause from many in the audience and a cry of “That’s right!”
Masters continued by defending the owners of C&H Farms, calling them people of high integrity and victims of continual harassment.
“You all requested these,” Masters said of the modifications, “and you’re still opposed.”
It's the politics, stupid
By Mike Masterson
I was visiting the other day with a former employee of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough) about that controversial hog factory the agency wrongheadedly permitted to set up shop two years ago in our treasured Buffalo National River watershed.
He offered an informed response when asked his opinion of why this agency hasn't already acted to schedule a hearing where the substantial evidence collected and analyzed in several scientifically based studies could be accepted and examined to ensure the protection of this river.
Each is said to document levels of microbial contamination in the watershed, which is likely to damage the Buffalo. I asked: "I mean, why wouldn't this agency, whose sole responsibility is to accurately and completely assess any and all credible evidence that could show contamination, want to have every possible fact to examine? Isn't that why this agency even exists? Why shouldn't they insist on having these studies?"
He stared back incredulously. "Now, Mike, you're not stupid," he said, cocking an eyebrow. "Surely you of all people understand how state politics works. This issue and that agency are very political. The only way such a hearing will happen is if the order to hold it comes from above. Either the governor's office or Pollution Control and Ecology, or both, have to tell Environmental Quality they want the hearing held in a purely apolitical manner and let the facts speak for themselves. That's just the way it works."
If that's the case, our Gov. Asa Hutchinson, or the Pollution Control and Ecology commissioners he appoints, indeed needs to step up and do the obviously right thing by our river and the people of Arkansas. Instruct the Department of Environmental Quality to hold an objective hearing (no politickin', lobbyin' or campaign-contributin' involved) to accept all the new studies and results that didn't exist when it so quickly and quietly awarded this factory its general permit. Then intelligently and honestly determine what changes are occurring in the watershed since this factory began accepting up to 6,500 of Cargill's swine to raise.
By my way of thinking, anything less than this kind of necessary fact-finding is indeed purely political and a flagrant dereliction of responsibility to the public, as well as a disgrace to the process of protecting this sacred national river. As I wrote this weekend, a Little Rock law firm is rightfully asking on behalf of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance why these highly relevant studies are being ignored and why the state hasn't slated a hearing to review the permit it issued to C&H Hog Farms. Perhaps that might lead to depositions and answers.
Tell me how you feel, Mr. and Mrs. Arkansas, about a hearing and preserving the quality of your national river. No need to ask my opinion, is there now?
Editorial on 09/29/2015
Posted: September 27, 2015 at 2:03 a.m.
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is, well, fit to be fried over the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's (cough) failure to fully monitor the misplaced Newton County hog factory in the Buffalo National River watershed, judging by the group's formal complaint filed last week with agency director Becky Keogh.
Little Rock attorneys Philip E. Kaplan and Dana Landrum penned the five-page letter expressing deep concerns over the way the agency has been basically ignoring previous complaints about C&H Hog Farms at Mount Judea, as well as credible scientific studies documenting environmental changes in the past two years.
Among shortcomings cited is that the state ignored five individual critical evaluations of the factory's draft environmental assessment issued under revised federal court order and recently released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration, which commissioned the assessment.
In short, the alliance contends the agency has been failing badly in its crucial role to objectively analyze all relevant data being collected from various legitimate scientific sources, choosing instead to place its faith solely in the findings of the state-financed Big Creek Research Extension Team (BCRET), led and staffed by members of the University of Arkansas geosciences department.
The alliance says there are enough concerning studies now to justify reopening the factory's controversial permit for review and, "for the purpose of illustrating the significant environmental impact of the C&H Hog Farms as shown by scientific data and information proffered by these experts."
Such information, derived from those separate studies, found the hog factory is indeed located on the Boone-St. Joe karst unit. Yet, the complaint adds, "no geophysical studies or related investigations were conducted to delineate any karst features, subsistence and/or sinkholes under the waste lagoons."
The complaint also contends the agency's unflagging reliance on BCRET is misplaced, as its study "is flawed, inadequate and non-representative." So that naturally would make it a big mistake to rely solely upon the state basically to be investigating itself.
Furthermore, alliance lawyers say, "BCRET's upstream-downstream water monitoring fails to consider how water moves through karst topography, relies on only 6-7 sites spanning ... more than 600 acres of waste spreading fields, and uses inappropriate upstream and downstream sampling sites that do not serve their intended function as a control and a comparison to the control."
The complaint says BCRET's data collected from Big Creek, a major Buffalo tributary, suggest contamination with elevated E.coli and nitrate levels, which shouldn't be ignored. Plus, the negative impact to air in the watershed is notable by the offensive odors and "airborne emissions of volatile organic compounds."
The attorneys said despite repeated Freedom of Information requests made for copies of the required construction permits for the C&H waste holding ponds, "no construction permit has been produced." It goes on to cite the laws and regulations that require such permits, and notes the absence of the required published notice of C&H's application for a construction permit in a Newton County newspaper.
The complaint says the agency "must also show that the ponds and clay liners were constructed in accordance with the engineer's approved plans, and inspected by the [department] for compliance with those plans and appropriate standards." It further says a September 2013 inspection report on the agency's website showed rocks blended into the clay liner, raising questions about its adequacy.
In spite these continued requests to revoke, suspend or simply reopen the permit issued to C&H for a hearing to become fully informed of what's already known about rising pathogen and bacterial levels in the watershed since the factory began operating two years ago, the department oddly has left the matter unresolved, which doesn't absolve its fundamental responsibility to all of us.
The complaint asks Keogh and company to finally either reopen the factory's permit and hold a related hearing, or refuse to reopen the permit and hold a hearing.
There's clearly been plenty of data collected to establish grounds for re-evaluating the C&H permit. I'm wondering why this agency, vested with ensuring purity in our environment over political machinations, would hesitate the slightest in eagerly collecting and analyzing all possible facts related to our Buffalo National River. Protecting the environment is the sole reason we have a Department of Environmental Quality.
The alliance complaint concludes by reminding the agency of its solemn obligation. "Our clients are prepared to show that there have been violations of the permit, that it was obtained through misrepresentation and failure to disclose all relevant facts ... Its continued operation is a threat to neighboring residents, property and business owners in its vicinity, students of the nearby Mount Judea school, and the more than 1.3 million people who visit the Buffalo National River each year."
Posted: September 22, 2015 at 2:19 a.m.
The good folks of Arkansas are by no means alone with concerns over the treasured Buffalo National River being contaminated by hog waste from a large factory farm like the hundreds that have replaced traditional family farms nationwide.
John Ikerd is a professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, and has spent years studying environmental effects from hog and other domestic animal factories as they've sprung up nationwide, including here with the hog factory in the Buffalo watershed at Mount Judea.
In a recent article, Ikerd says, "nowhere are the public concerns and controversies about agriculture more prominent than for CAFOs--frequently called 'factory farms.'"
He cites Peter Goldsmith of the University of Illinois, who researched the public legitimacy of factory farms. Goldsmith found that as those sites "grow larger, they create more problems and the intense controversy surrounding CAFOs incites strong local public participation." I'd say that pretty much describes the atmosphere here when it comes to the potential contamination of the country's first national river, with hog waste routinely spread on fields underlain by fractured limestone six miles upstream.
Those who've participated in public hearings in Illinois consistently indicated "no confidence" in that state's laws that supposedly regulate the activities of CAFOs or of the laws' enforcers. Goldsmith found that 70 percent of those opposed to these proposed facilities and 89 percent of public statements made by local residents and interested citizens challenged the legitimacy of proposed CAFOs; just 5 percent of residents supported the factories.
Ikerd cited an EPA study from 1998, which found 35,000 miles of streams in 22 states and groundwater in 17 states already polluted by industrial livestock operations. "At the time, the EPA was preparing to sue CAFO operators for violating the Clean Water Act. But there was a change in the political administration in D.C., so no action was taken, and no similar studies have been done since," Ikerd said.
"As a last defense, CAFO operators claim they are doing a better job of manure management than the traditional independent farmers they displaced. However, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has documented a three-fold increase in 'impairments' of water bodies in Iowa between 2002 and 2012, years when CAFO were rapidly replacing independent Iowa family hog farms," he wrote.
Ikerd said that because of growing opposition, "the 'industrial agricultural establishment' has launched a nationwide, multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign designed to--in their words--'increase confidence and trust in today's agriculture.'
"Food Dialogues, just one initiative of the broader campaign, is sponsored by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance--an organization whose funders and board members include the American Farm Bureau Federation along with Monsanto and DuPont--both of which have pledged $500,000 per year to the campaign. The campaign features the 'faces of farming and ranching'--articulate, attractive young farmers obviously chosen to put the best possible face on ... industrial agriculture."
Ikerd referred to a study by Friends of the Earth that said "front groups" spend more than $25 million per year to defend industrial agriculture.
The professor determined Americans increasingly must glean reality from fallacy in determining which kind of agriculture and food system they'll accept. "For decades, defenders of industrial agriculture had accused their critics of relying on emotions and misinformation rather than 'sound science,'" he wrote. "Now that the scientific evidence is mounting against industrial agriculture, public relations experts are advising advocates to emphasize 'emotional appeals,' such as 'the faces of farmers'--dismissing 'sound-science' as no longer effective in shaping public opinion."
Ikerd noted that despite claims to the contrary, "the growing public concerns about industrial agriculture are confirmed in reams of highly credible scientific studies."
He said a Pew Charitable Trusts report from 2008 concluded "the current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves." The commissioners, including a former governor and a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said, "the negative effects of this system are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore. Significant changes must be implemented and must start now."
"Five years later," Ikerd wrote, "an assessment of the industry's response to the Pew Report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health indicated few if any positive changes had been made. Meanwhile the scientific evidence supporting the initial indictment of CAFOs has continued to grow."
A vast majority of Arkansans believe our state erred far beyond common sense when it permitted a large CAFO (up to 6,500 sows and offspring) into the Buffalo National River watershed regardless of any PR efforts trying to convince them otherwise.
Arkansas Times
Group presses state for action on Buffalo watershed hog farm
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance continues to press the state Department of Environmental Quality for action on the hog farm in Mount Judea on a tributary of the Buffalo River. In a letter to department director Becky Keogh, the Alliance makes a formal complaint that the department should study the impact of a 6,500-hog feeding operation on the environment. The letter says past requests for study had been met only with promises of continued study. The letter also said it had found no evidence the C & H Hog Farm had obtained the required permits for construction of the ponds to hold hog waste. The letter faults the department for inadequate response to sampling by the University of Arkansas that could indicate permit violations. The letter lists experts who've found environmental harm from the operation. It concludes the department should hold a hearing on the matter, whether the department decides to reopen the permits granted for the operation or not. Said the letter:
Our clients are prepared to show that there have been violations of the permit, that it was obtained through misrepresentation and failure to disclose all relevant facts, and that it continues to pose a danger to human health and the environment. Its continued operation is a threat to neighboring residents, property and business owners in its vicinity, students of the nearby Mount Judea school and the more than 1.3 million eople who visit the Buffalo National River each year.
The letter is under review at this time.
John Ikerd johnikerd.com Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:12 UTC
Comment: The economics of CAFOs:
Eureka Springs Independent
Five-year ban approved no hog factories on the Buffalo River Work to close existing facility continues
Becky Gillette Wednesday, September 09, 2015
Supporters celebrated a significant victory last week when the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission approved a five-year ban on permits for new factory hogs farms in the Buffalo River watershed. The moratorium came about as a result of concerns about the existing C&H Hog Farm located near Mount Judea, which local residents protested was approved quietly with inadequate reviews about the wisdom of allowing 6,500 hogs to be raised in an area where the leaky karst topography could allow waste to contaminate surface and underground water supplies.
The ban includes a compromise whereby the University of Arkansas’s Big Creek Research and Extension Team (BCRET) will continue to monitor and assess the current hog facility’s impacts and report its findings to the governor, legislators and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
According to the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA), the hog factory produces millions of pounds of waste per year certain to produce both water and air pollution. Many in the community depend on wells for household water, and there are concerns that wells will become polluted.
In late December 2014, the BRWA and other partners won a U.S. District Court decision that found federal agencies arbitrarily and capriciously guaranteed loans to the C&H factory farm near the Buffalo National River by failing to take a hard look at environmental impacts and failing to follow proper procedures to protect threatened and endangered species potentially affected by the facility. As a result, a new Environmental Assessment was conducted. But the BRWA alliance believes the draft EA is substantially flawed.
“It fails to engage in the alternatives analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act, ignores key facts and science, and only cursorily reviews information it does gather in assessing the impacts of an unprecedented 6,500-swine concentrated animal feeding operation operating on karst terrain in the watershed of the iconic Buffalo National River,” Dane Schumacher, member of the BRWA board, said. “A glaring error that pervades the draft EA’s assessment is its unfounded conclusion that ‘there are no karst features within the C&H Hog Farms parcel.’ According to experts in hydrogeology, C&H is undoubtedly located on karst. This fact is of central importance to an accurate assessment of C&H’s impacts because karst is characterized by rapid underground drainage and groundwater flow to surface waters. The EA’s willful blindness to the geologic context of the C&H facility and the significance of this context for impacts on water resources is the antithesis of the hard look required under NEPA.”
Schumacher said Electrical Resitivity Tomography tests done by Oklahoma State University in December 2014 reveal karst features beneath two spray fields being studied. The OSU report states:
Bedrock at each site contained potential pathways for groundwater flow. One difference between the sites that may be useful for application evaluation is the possibility of hog manure electrical signatures present on Field 12.
There appears to be a large sinkhole feature caused by dissolution or collapse of underlying rock or soil, within the weathered bedrock in one area that stretches nearly 200 ft. long and 75 ft. deep.
At a draft EA hearing in late August in Jasper, geologist/hydrogeologist Tom Aley presented oral and written testimony on behalf of the BRWA. Aley said that the EA conducted for the Farm Services Agency and Small Business Administration, which provided taxpayer funded loan guarantees for the hog facility, “shows a gross lack of understanding of the intimate and integral interactions of surface water and groundwater in karst areas of the Ozarks. The EA fails to recognize that this entire hog farm operation and the associated manure disposal fields (with the exception of portions of Field 17) are located on top of a well-developed karst aquifer within the Boone Formation and possibly other deeper geologic units.”
Aley said the manure storage ponds pose a significant risk of creating off-site water quality problems due to leakage into groundwater supplies. He said they are also at risk of catastrophic sinkhole collapses that could introduce large amounts of manure into the underlying karst groundwater system.
Another point is that the EA described the BCRET study as an “in depth case study of the C&H Hog Farms.” The BCRET team was established in late 2013 as a response to citizen concern about the adverse environmental impacts of the farm.
“Despite a platoon of PhDs and a squad of lesser degreed people, there is very little information about the BCRET ‘in depth’ study that has been incorporated into the EA,” Aley said. “The apparent explanation for this is that the study is long-term academic research. It is not a gathering and assessment of information useful for determining health and environmental impacts expected to result from this hog operation or for protecting the River and springs that feed it. It is certainly not what people concerned with the Buffalo National River had expected from the appointment of this august body.”
Aley, who has donated his time to study the impacts of the hog factory, urged the FSA and SBA to cancel the federal guarantees for these loans.
“You FSA and SBA agency folks have made a major blunder in providing federal guarantees for loans for the C&HG Hog Farm,” Alley said. “With the information in my assessment, and with other important information you will gain from others, you will have more than sufficient information to properly assess the prudence of providing federal guarantees for these loans. There is no credible reason to drag this on by moving forward into an Environmental Impact Statement. Such a move will only further discredit the competency and integrity of your agencies and continue to damage water resources and the Buffalo National River. I urge you to use information from this public hearing and cancel the federal guarantees for these loans.”
ADEQ has submitted clarifications with respect to the EA performed related to the existing permit requirements and the applicable regulations,” said Katherine Benenati, public outreach and assistance division chief, ADEQ. “We are continuing to monitor the C&H farm,” she said.
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us