Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/jan/20/douglas-bill-would-exempt-academic-stud/
Douglas' Bill would exempt academic studies from FOI By Doug Thompson Posted: January 20, 2015 at 1 a.m.
Research data gathered by state colleges and universities would be exempt from disclosure under the state Freedom of Information Act until the project involved is finished if a new bill becomes law. Research topics ranging from fluoride use in public drinking water to ongoing studies of water quality in the Illinois and Buffalo rivers attract attention from interested parties, said Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville. He decided to file House Bill 1080 after seeing email and online articles that included partial results of studies in progress, Douglas said. "Taking a couple of days of data out of a two-year study is like watching two or three frames out of a two-hour movie," he said. "You can't really tell anything from that." Under the bill, any data collected by a study would be available under FOI once the study was complete, he said. The bill isn't needed because the results of any good scientific study will not be affected by a study being done in the open, Dane Schumacher of Berryville said Monday. Schumacher is chairwoman of the legal committee of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. The nonprofit alliance opposes approval of a large-scale hog farm in the watershed of the Buffalo National River. She has filed FOI requests for research data in an ongoing study monitoring of that farm. HB 1080 could affect information both timely and important to the public while it's also subject of an academic study, Schumacher said. For instance, monitoring of C&H Hog Farms near Jasper was turned over to the University of Arkansas in a memorandum of understanding drawn up by the governor's office, she said. The agreement was reached after the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality approved the farm. The memorandum makes the research data being collected and the monitoring of the farm the same, Schumacher said. If this bill became law, a spill at the farm could be exempt from immediate disclosure. The Arkansas Freedom of Information Coalition will meet today for the first time since the bill was filed, said Tom Larimer, spokesman. The watchdog group of journalists, legal and government scholars and government officials knows about the bill but hasn't taken a position, Larimer said. Spokesmen for the University of Arkansas and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, which does medical research, had no comment on the bill Monday. Documents detailing how the research is done and the subjects of the research wouldn't be exempt under the provisions of the bill, Douglas said. The bill is assigned to the House Education Committee. "Anything regarding a study's scope or methodology would still be subject to the FOI under this bill from the beginning of any study," Douglas said. "I don't want to do anything to reduce the transparency of the method that a study uses. People need to know if the way the study's being conducted is valid. "Right now, the bill is too broad," Douglas said. "I want to tighten it up and make sure nobody can interpret this as something that restricts access to administrative records or emails or anything like that. The best way to do that is get the bill out there and talk to people who are concerned about that." The exemption would cover "manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific or academic papers, plans, or proposals for future research and pre-publication peer reviews," according to the bill. Doug Thompson may be reached at dthompson@nwadg.com or @nwadoug. NW News on 01/20/2015
Northwest Arkansas-Democrat Gazette
Funds, future unsure for UA's Big Creek hog-farm study By Emily Walkenhorst Posted: January 17, 2015 at 1 a.m. A University of Arkansas study on the impact of C&H Hog Farms on the Buffalo River's watershed is running out of money, and no plan is yet in place to continuing its funding. The study is one of two being done in the area, although it's the only state-sanctioned and state-funded study. The UA study has so far been inconclusive, said Andrew Sharpley, Big Creek Research Team leader, as the data gathered hasn't been consistent. Sharpley is a professor of soils and water quality at the University of Arkansas. Last month, lawmakers spent a few hours debating whether to impose a permanent ban on medium and large hog farms in the watershed and repeatedly mentioned the lack of conclusive evidence from the study so far. Several legislators said they didn't want to make a decision without evidence the large hog farm is causing any damage. Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Yellville, chairwoman of the Public Health Committee, reminded legislators they need to decide during the session whether to continue funding the study, which is designed to last five years. The study is in its second year. J.R. Davis, a spokesman for Gov. Asa Hutchinson, said Hutchinson was aware of "what's going on at the hog farm" but he didn't believe Hutchinson had been approached about continuing funding for the study. Gov. Mike Beebe proposed spending $340,000 in 'rainy day' money in 2013 to pay for a study monitoring the farm's impacts, which was later approved by a Legislative subcommittee. The expense was only set to last a year. "We can't keep doing it forever without some continuing lower level of funding for the analyses, but we will make every effort to do as such as we can so there's no gaps," Sharpley said. The study has measured water and soil samples since late 2013, when it first began trying to establish a baseline from which to draw conclusions on future water and soil conditions. The study is being done in three fields around the farm along Big Creek, which C&H Hog Farms sits along. Sharpley's team, which is also working with the U.S. Geological Survey, hasn't been able to access more fields around the hog farm because the researchers don't have permission from landowners. Sharpley has said he would like to do more. So far, Sharpley said, the study has shown peaks and falls in some minerals and e.coli. The data showed a spike in e.coli in early 2014. "It's too early to say that there's no impact. It's too early to draw any conclusions," Sharpley said, noting researchers haven't been able to discern consistent patterns in the data in such a short time span. Environmental groups opposed to the hog farm's presence in the Buffalo River watershed continually note another study being done by a retired University of Arkansas Geosciences Department professor, Van Brahana. He believes his voluntary research indicates a decrease in dissolved oxygen in Big Creek both last summer and this winter. Low levels of dissolved oxygen can be damaging to aquatic life, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Brahana and volunteers are studying the water in Big Creek and around it, including minerals and the flow of the water. Brahana's team has put dyes in the water to detect patterns showing the interconnection of water basins, Big Creek and the Buffalo National River. Brahana said his team has spent $14,000 on that study, with a lot of time and equipment being donated. "We watch both of the activities and read the reports with interest," said Duane Woltjen, vice president of the Ozark Society, adding he believes Brahana's study is particularly important. Richard Davies, director of the Arkansas Department of Tourism, said the UA study is important because of the value of the Buffalo National River to tourism and the difficulty of turning around a bad reputation that could come with too much pollution. "I hope that we would continue to monitor it from now on," he said. C&H Hog Farms is permitted to house about 2,500 sows and as many as 4,000 piglets at a time. It's in Mount Judea near Big Creek, about 6 miles upstream from where it meets the Buffalo National River. C&H Hog Farms is the first large-scale, swine-concentrated animal-feeding operation to receive a Regulation 6 permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality inside the Buffalo National River watershed. It's still the only one, as the watershed has a temporary ban on new medium and large hog farms. The Buffalo National River had more than 1 million visitors in 2013 who spent about $46 million collectively, according to National Park Service data. Metro on 01/17/2015
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2015-01-14/how-chipotle-got-religion-on-sustainable-pork
Federal judge rules against Washington state dairy, says manure pollution threatens water Article by: NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS , Associated Press
Updated: January 15, 2015
SPOKANE, Wash. — A federal judge has ruled that a large industrial dairy in eastern Washington has polluted drinking water through its application, storage and management of manure, in a case that could set precedents across the nation. U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane ruled Wednesday that the pollution posed an "imminent and substantial endangerment" to the environment and to people who drink the water. Rice wrote that he "could come to no other conclusion than that the Dairy's operations are contributing to the high levels of nitrate that are currently contaminating — and will continue to contaminate ... the underlying groundwater." "Any attempt to diminish the Dairy's contribution to the nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best," Rice wrote in the 111-page opinion, in which he granted partial summary judgment in favor of environmental groups that sued the dairy. A trial has been scheduled for March 23 in Yakima to decide how much pollution the Cow Palace dairy of Granger was causing and what steps should be taken as a remedy. Jessica Culpepper — an attorney for Public Justice, who helped represent the environmental groups — said this was the first time a federal court has ruled that improperly managed manure is a solid waste, rather than a beneficial farm product. This is also the first time that the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, was applied to farm animals, Culpepper said. Those standards can now be applied across the nation, Culpepper, of Washington, D.C., said. Attorneys for Cow Palace said they were already considering an appeal, regardless of the trial outcome. "It may very well be that the appeal will happen sooner than expected," said attorney Brendan Monahan of Yakima. The civil lawsuit was filed by environmental groups — including the Community Association for Restoration of the Environment and the Center for Food Safety — and relied only on the likelihood of unlawful pollution, not absolute proof as in criminal cases. According to the ruling, Cow Palace has 11,000 cows that create more than 100 million gallons of manure each year. The decision "connects these industrial dairies to contamination of the drinking water of thousands of lower Yakima Valley residents," the environmental groups said in a press release. The manure is spread on fields, turned into compost and stored in large impoundments. "They were storing it in lagoons that are leaking like crazy," Culpepper said. "It will take a lot of work to clean it up." The environmental groups sued on behalf of thousands of families in the lower Yakima Valley who rely on groundwater through wells. The valley is a heavily agricultural area located about 150 miles east of Seattle. "It is long past due that these dairy factories be held accountable for their toxic waste and compromising of human health," said George Kimbrell, attorney for the Center for Food Safety. Rice's ruling criticized the Cow Palace and its owners, Bill and Adam Dolsen, saying they appeared to minimize the dangers posed by nitrates, including "Blue Baby Syndrome," a condition that can result when babies consume formula mixed with nitrate-contaminated water. "Alarmingly, Defendant Cow Palace's briefing seems to suggest that this Court wait to act until a young infant in the area is first diagnosed with methemoglobinemia, a health effect that occurs at the lowest dose of nitrate consumption," Rice wrote. Cow Palace owners said they are deciding what to do next. "We are reviewing the ruling and will be charting a course forward with our attorneys," president Adam Dolsen said in a statement. "We understand that this case has wide-reaching implications that extend far beyond the Yakima Valley and throughout agriculture," Dolsen's statement said. Rice also rejected Cow Palace's defense that septic tanks contribute significantly to contaminated groundwater, noting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found that 224 residential septic systems near the dairies produced less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the waste generated by the other dairy defendants. The environmental groups in 2013 filed lawsuits against Cow Palace, Liberty Dairy, H&S Bosma Dairy and George DeRuyter and Son Dairy. The case against Cow Palace was scheduled for trial first. The dairies are located close to each other, and the facts and arguments are the same in all four lawsuits, Culpepper said. The dairies contended that manure was a beneficial farm product. "We argued there was so much manure it can't be used as a beneficial product," Culpepper said. A 2012 EPA study showed that 20 percent of the 331 wells tested in the lower Yakima Valley had nitrate levels above federal drinking water standards, posing a serious danger to the more than 24,000 residents who rely on private wells. Nitrates can cause other severe health problems such as several forms of cancer, autoimmune system dysfunction, and reproductive problems.
Teresa Turk
Public Viewpoint
Northwest Arkansas Times
December 24, 2014
What Will Beebe’s Legacy Be?
According to a recent column by John Brummett, outgoing Governor Mike Beebe enjoys over a 60% approval rate by the citizens of Arkansas. This is an incredible statistic given the Republican wave that just swept through Arkansas’ November election. For the most part, the Governor has served our state well during his eight year tenure-implementing the highly successful (just copied by Utah) private option despite well -organized Republican opposition.
This past month, the Governor has taken some heat for pardoning his son. Unlike his actions with his son, the governor said he regretted allowing the placement of a huge hog feeding operation near the Buffalo River. The Governor doesn’t seem to have a strong personal connection with the river. Has he ever camped out on a gravel bar telling stories with his friends and family while staring at a gorgeous limestone bluff? Has he ever watched a pair of bald eagles dive for fish at the bow of a kayak? Has he ever felt that bone-chilling whoosh of water as he shot through a narrow white water rapid?
Evidence exists that the Buffalo River is already being contaminated by hog waste. This data is from the National Park Service that, unlike the University of Arkansas, has been collecting water quality information on Big Creek, upstream and downstream of Carver (where Big Creek enters the Buffalo) before and after the C&H hog farm became operational. The only thing that has changed in the past year is the over 2,000,000 gallons of hog waste produced by C&H stored in 2 unlined lagoons and then spread on 17 fields that are in close proximity to Big Creek.
The governor has stated on several occasions that if there was any evidence of the C&H operation polluting the Buffalo, he would shut it down. Is this enough evidence? In addition to the E. coli spikes, what about the unprecedented large algal blooms in both Big Creek and the Buffalo that occurred this spring and summer? How much more evidence do you require before acting?
This river is a profoundly personal experience for many Arkansans. Pardon the river and fix this mistake of your administration before it is too late. Shut the hog factory down not only to preserve your legacy, but to preserve the river for Arkansas and posterity. It deserves a second chance.
Click here for related data
Earthjustice - Because the Earth needs a good lawyer
A DAY IN HOG HEAVEN AFTER JUDGE ORDERS FEDS TO EVALUATE FACTORY FARM'S IMPACTS By Marianne Engelman Lado | Thursday, December 18, 2014 In early December, environmentalists and community members celebrated a rare win against industrial agriculture and federal malfeasance in Arkansas. In a court case brought by Earthjustice, U.S. District Judge Price Marshall issued a decision finding that federal agencies illegally guaranteed loans to C&H Hog Farms, a factory farm near the Buffalo National River, without first effectively evaluating the potential environmental impacts of this swine operation. The Buffalo National River was established as America’s first National River in 1978, and it is one of the few remaining undammed rivers in the lower 48 states. The river’s 135-mile course is cherished for its untouched beauty and the diversity of its roaring rapids and tranquil pools that hug the Ozark Mountains. The park was designed to protect the historical and cultural history of the region, which was first settled close to 10,000 years ago. The region is home to over 300 species of fish, insects, freshwater mussels and aquatic plants – including the endangered Gray bat, Indiana bat and snuffbox mussel. Unfortunately, this pristine wilderness is now also home thousands of pigs and their waste: supported by American tax dollars. C&H Hog Farms, a producer for Cargill, Inc., one of the largest privately held corporations in the United States, is the first large concentrated animal-feeding operation (CAFO) in the Buffalo River watershed and the first to receive an operating permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. In order to get the permit approved, the company proposed a plan for managing the waste of its 6,500 pigs. The plan indicated that the pigs create more than one million gallons of waste-filled water every year, approximately the equivalent to the waste generated by a city of 35,000 people. This contaminated water is stored in two small, unlined and uncovered settling ponds in a region geologically known for its porous limestone. These ponds are then periodically drained, and the liquid waste is sprayed over nearby fields on the banks of a tributary to the Buffalo National River. In 2012 C&H applied for $3.6 million in loans from Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas. To receive these loans, the hog farm applied for loan guaranties from two federal agencies. The first agency, the Small Business Administration, guaranteed 75% of a $2.3 million loan without taking any action to evaluate environmental impacts. The second backer, Farm Service Agency, was required by standard practice to prepare an environmental assessment before granting C&H’s request. In the words of the district court, the evaluation prepared by this agency “was cursory and flawed. It didn’t mention the Buffalo River. It didn’t mention Big Creek,” the tributary next to the sprayfields. “It didn’t mention the nearby Mt. Judea school. It didn’t mention the Gray Bat.” The evaluation concluded without explanation that measures to prevent environmental harm were unnecessary and then quietly published the notice of its conclusions only in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a state-wide Little Rock-based newspaper , despite a requirement that the agency also publish in a local or community paper. Not surprisingly, they received no comments, and in August 2012, the agency established that C&H Hog Farms would have no significant environmental impact and guaranteed 90% of another $1.3 million loan. In a letter from the Buffalo National River Superintendent, Kevin Cheri, to the Farm Service Agency, Cheri claimed this finding was “very weak from an environmental point of view.” Despite the fact that the Farm Service Agency’s evaluation identified the National Park Service as a cooperating agency, Cheri made clear that the National Park Service had not been informed about the environmental review until after it was complete. The letter identified 45 problems with the evaluation. Because of the minimal public communication about this assessment, few people living near the C&H property realized what had been approved on the backs of federal taxpayers before it was too late, and the farm began operating in 2013. Judge Marshall’s finding that these federal agencies are liable for their wanton disregard of environmental safeguards and inadequate impact evaluations confirms a standard that should apply when future factory farms look for federal support. If the ruling is not appealed, agencies around the country may be called to meet environmental standards that have not been effectively applied to loan guarantees for these facilities. This decision is an important step forward in preserving the Buffalo National River, and a poignant reminder of the public’s crucial role in protecting communities and the environment.
Eureka Springs Independent
Guestatorial Cargill Op-Ed response Dane Schumacher Wednesday, December 17, 2014 There are times in the course of human events, when things are so unbelievable I just have to gasp in amazement. That was my first reaction to food giant Cargill’s comments, as reported in a recent Eureka Springs Independent article, following the latest developments on the Buffalo River: A U.S District Court Judge found on Dec. 2 that in the case of the Cargill-supplied 6500-hog industrial facility located in the Buffalo River Watershed at Mt. Judea, the Farm Service Agency and Small Business Administration illegally guaranteed loans to the hog farmers, and the court now requires the agencies to re-do their Environmental Assessments within one year.
In the article, Cargill Pork Division President Mike Luker characterizes the farm owners as “three local families who have resided in rural northwest Arkansas for eight generations, farmed the land for half a century… raised hogs for more than a decade… grew up near… Mount Judea, learning to swim in local creeks… fish in local ponds…” This is all true enough. But it’s in the next paragraph where things start to get amazing. Luker paints the farmers as doing everything right, by the book, according to EPA rules, as if no court had just found serious flaws with environmental analyses that paved the way for the farm. From what Mr. Luker suggests, one wonders how such stalwart citizens could be suffering the brunt of legal actions.
Well, according to the court decision, the proceedings that enabled their farm’s existence were not so stalwart. Whether the farmers knew what they were doing in the events conspiring to establish C&H Hog Farms, or they just believed things would be all right if they followed the questionable lead of big business and state agencies, is not known. For sure, they allowed themselves to be propped up by Cargill and others on a platform as legally porous as the ground surrounding the farm. And somewhere in those proceedings and consequent illegal actions is where the culpability for this mess lies.
Under false pretenses, we now have a very large hog farm up and running in the Buffalo River watershed, coupled with numerous assurances of safety offered after the fact and in denial of the almost certain pollution of the river. “State of the Art,” the latest,” the “safest” – these are words and terms bandied about by Cargill to describe this first industrial size hog farm in the watershed, a refrain echoed by the hog farm owners, the powerful American Farm Bureau Federation lobby, and even the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
Cargill has publicly stated it intends to drain the current clay-lined lagoons holding two million gallons of feces and urine and rebuild them with plastic-like liners. In addition, they are entertaining the idea of something called a “plasma arc” system to zap the untreated waste and release it into the atmosphere, an expensive and questionable process that has never been fully tested on this type of byproduct.
While I appreciate Cargill trying to right a wrong, the singular right thing to do is relocate this facility to an appropriate location and remove its threat to one of the state’s finest rivers. Their offered solutions leave me asking “Why, if it ain’t broke, are they trying to fix it?” Do they, too, recognize that this “state of the art” CAFO is no match for the forces of karst geology, and will almost certainly compromise the Buffalo River?
Thankfully by court order, the validity of this CAFO in the watershed, put in place by faulty loans and faulty environmental analyses, must be thoroughly re-examined. And if in the process this family of farmers loses what they’ve gained under false pretenses, then let us cast our scrutiny on those who perpetuated the false pretenses.
Finally, with the new court findings and a more revealing and honest appraisal up ahead, if C & H, Farm Bureau and/or Cargill really had the community in mind, wouldn’t they find an honorable way to move the hog operation from its current inappropriate location, and not waste precious time?
Dane Schumacher Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
KATV
Gov. Beebe discusses early career, legacy and retirement Posted: Dec 11, 2014 9:55 AM CST
Updated: Dec 11, 2014 9:55 AM CST By Roby Brock, Talk Business & Politics LITTLE ROCK (KATV) - Democratic Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe spent an hour on stage Wednesday with political columnist John Brummett to discuss the outgoing governor's political career, legacy and plans for retirement. The event, which was held for the Little Rock nonprofit LifeQuest, was recorded for this week's edition of Talk Business & Politics, which will air on KATV Channel 7 Sunday at 9 a.m. and subsequently on TalkBusiness.net. Beebe and Brummett discussed a variety of personal, professional and political topics in a casual, comfortable one-on-one setting before a live audience that was ripe with mutual ribbing, serious reflection and the interjection of laughter from a crowd of more than 100. Brummett is a political columnist with the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and is a contributor to Talk Business & Politics. ACCOMPLISHMENTS & OBSERVATIONS The governor analyzed what he thought occurred in recent election cycles that have bolstered Republican elected officials up and down the ballot despite his own popularity. He said that political moods swing back-and-forth and that Republicans must prove they can govern capably to continue to earn voters' trusts. He said he hoped to help Democrats rebuild the party in Arkansas after the losses incurred in 2010, 2012 and 2014 – momentum he said was largely caused by the unfavorable view of President Barack Obama. Beebe warned that if Republicans swung too far from the mainstream with its governing style, namely referring to Tea Party supporters, voters would reassess their recent endorsements of the GOP. Beebe named two accomplishments of his time as Governor that he hoped would be transformational and long-lasting. One was the Payment Reform Initiative that he sees as bending the cost curve on health care costs through a episodic care model versus a fee-for-service model. He also said he wanted Arkansas to have a higher self-esteem through his leadership – a “swagger” that would reflect a can-do mindset for the state. “Not a negative Texas one (swagger), but a good positive one,” Beebe said. Beebe also admitted failure – and regret – on one major issue: an industrial hog farm that was permitted in the Buffalo River watershed in Newton County. The controversial Concentrated Animal Farming Operation (CAFO) was permitted through the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and opened for business nearly two years ago despite legal challenges. Critics say the waste from the plant will pollute the Buffalo River, while supporters contend there is a system in place to protect waste from leeching into the stream. Brummett said a voter he spoke to in Northwest Arkansas said the hog farm and its potential negative impact on the environment would be a part of the governor's “place in history.” “[This man said] you were asleep at the switch. Your whole administration let that happen. Was there something you and your administration could have done?” Brummett asked. “Could I have raised the alarm earlier? Yes. You're absolutely right,” Beebe answered. “Was someone asleep because we didn't? The answer is, ‘Yes' because I didn't know about it.” “Who's supposed to tell you?” asked Brummett. “It's my fault. It's my fault. If my people – whether they're agency heads or agency personnel, or even my own staff – if I don't know it, it's still my fault,” said Beebe. He added, “I wish it was never there. I've stopped all future ones. We have put all sorts of stuff from the University of Arkansas to monitor, and at the first opportunity that it looks like there's leeching in that Buffalo watershed, we will take the appropriate steps to stop it. We have followed the law. I don't really like the law. I think they ought to change the law, so that CAFO's don't exist anywhere around a watershed going forward and we're going to do the best we can to make a better situation out of a bad situation. If I had it to do over, it wouldn't happen.” Beebe also said that he would have fought the Hempstead County-based Turk power plant – a clean coal plant – but said it was too far along in the building process to reverse course when he became governor. “Natural gas is much cleaner, and we've got a lot of it,” said Beebe. “I wish the plant (Turk) was there – I wish it was a natural gas plant.” RETIREMENT When he leaves office in January, Beebe will have wrapped up a political career that began in 1981. He has served as a State Senator, Attorney General and Governor. As he has repeated many times, he said running for elected office is not in his future political plans. But Beebe hasn't announced what he may do besides play golf, read and stay out of his wife's way when the first couple returns to their hometown of Searcy. “I don't have any immediate plans to do anything. I am open to some things,” he said, admitting he may get bored. “There are just so many rounds of golf you can play and there's only so many books you can read… I've conjured in my mind some options – none of which are full time. I've said I may serve on a board or two. I've said I may teach a college course. I may consult, but not as a lobbyist because I don't want to do any of that stuff.” “I don't plan on doing anything full-time. I plan on letting it evolve. I plan on taking it easy and see what happens. If I get too bored, we'll go figure out something. We'll go tear something up and try to fix it,” Beebe added. A portion of the hour-long conversation will air on Talk Business & Politics on KATV Channel 7 Sunday at 9 a.m. The full interview will be hosted on TalkBusiness.net following Sunday's TV program.
NWAOnline Newspapers (AR) Benton County Daily Record (AR) December 11, 2014 Lawmakers Should Protect The Buffalo Section: Opinion Page: 5A Critics of banning large or medium hog farm operations within the watershed of the Buffalo National River say fear, not science, is driving those fighting to preserve one of the jewels of Arkansas tourism. Well, let’s embrace fear, as they call it. No, we don’t suggest fear should drive public policy, but state lawmakers need to recognize many Arkansans who support protecting this incredible river have some justification for fears. They aren’t based on the science or lack of science involved in permitting hog farms. Instead, they’re based on a lack of trust in Arkansas’ environmental protection policies and leadership.
The existence of the area’s first, and we hope only, operating large-scale hog farm on Big Creek in Mount Judea, about six miles from where the creek meets the Buffalo River, is Exhibit No. 1 in demonstrating the concerns of Arkansans. The way that operation gained approval, without adequate notification of even the U.S. National Park Service much less interested Arkansans, has convinced many residents the state’s environmental protection leadership can’t be trusted.
The hog operation, known as C&H Hog Farm, wouldn’t be affected by a ban because it has already been granted permission to operate. The question is whether it serves Arkansas’ best interests to allow more hog farms in the watershed that feeds one of its most iconic and popular natural features. Remember, this is The Natural State, right?
Perhaps state lawmakers must be reminded there’s nothing like the Buffalo River anywhere in Arkansas. It draws more than 1 million visitors a year who spend an estimated $46 million while they’re here, according to the National Parks Service. In whose world does it make sense to threaten all the work that’s gone into establishing the Buffalo National River as a destination for nature lovers? Even if one accepts the proposition that the thousands of piglets and hogs can be contained with no contamination of the environment, do Arkansans want to allow even the possibility that the area around the river could become known as prime territory for additional hog farm operations?
And if Cargill, for which C&H Farms produces its animals, believes one operation there is a success, why wouldn’t it promote the establishment of other farms in the area?
It’s natural (there’s that word again) for farmers across Arkansas to react with their own fears to any state regulatory scheme that might get in the way of agricultural operations. Indeed, if you’re going to farm in this state, you’re going to be near a waterway.
But we’re not just talking about any waterway here. We’re talking about the Buffalo River, a natural resource the state should, as a matter of policy, protect at all costs.
The Illinois River, which starts in Arkansas and flows into Oklahoma, has a long history of man-made pollution that the two states have fought over for years. Its watershed was degraded over the years by chicken farms and hog farms. Does Arkansas want to wait until that happens to the Buffalo before its lawmakers realize action is needed?
One hog farm is there. That’s enough. State lawmakers should protect the watershed from further encroachment, and that can be done without threatening farmers elsewhere.
Long flow the Buffalo River. Arkansas should make an enduring commitment to preserve the river as one of the state’s great resources.
Memo: WHAT'S THE POINT ? The Buffalo River is an unmatched Arkansas natural resource that continues to draw a million visitors a year. It should be jealously protected by the state Legislature and state agencies.
Copyright 2014, Benton County Daily Record.
American College Of Environmental Lawyers
Old MacDonald Had a Farm [Loan] E-I-E-I-O My Posted on December 10, 2014 by Charles Nestrud
On December 2, 2014 the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas enjoined the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) (together the “Agencies”) from making any payments on their loan guaranties to Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas (Bank), pending the Agencies’ compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Bank had loaned nearly $5 million to C&H Hog Farms, Inc. (C&H) in 2012 for the construction of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO), collateralized by a guaranty from the United States. The court’s decision paves the way for potential alteration of the collateral agreement terms, over two years after the non-party Bank had closed and funded the loan. Such court action could jeopardize the farm loan guaranty program. In its decision the court found that the SBA failed to conduct any environmental review of its loan guaranty or to consider the impact of that loan on the endangered Gray Bat that resides in an area near the CAFO, and that the FSA’s environmental impact and endangered species reviews were inadequate; the Agencies’ actions thereby violated both NEPA and ESA. The court’s injunction precludes the Agencies from making any payment on their loan guaranties to the Bank until they have complied with their obligations under NEPA and ESA, giving them a year to do so. In August of 2012, and as provided under state regulation, C&H received a General No Discharge Permit (Permit) from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) that addresses the management of manure, litter, and process wastewater generated from the CAFO. The Permit authorizes up to 6503 swine, at a location along a creek that discharges to the Buffalo National River, the nation’s first national river. Upon completion of FSA’s review process and issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact in August 2012, C&H obtained an initial construction loan of $3.6 million, 75% of which was guaranteed by SBA. C&H later received a $1.3 million loan, with 90% of that loan guaranteed by FSA. Both loan guaranties were required by the Bank. The loans were funded, construction was completed, CAFO operations commenced, and C&H has been making timely loan payments. In August of 2013 the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and several other organizations sued the Agencies, alleging that the CAFO permit contemplated at least occasional discharges of waste into surface waters that could pollute the Buffalo National River, and that the Agencies had violated NEPA, ESA, and certain other federal requirements. The plaintiffs requested that the loan guaranties be enjoined, pending a further environmental review. On December 2, 2014 an injunction was issued. C&H and the Bank were not parties to the litigation. The significance of this decision is not the finding of a NEPA or ESA violation. What is surprising, and noteworthy, is the Court’s conclusion that such agency action was sufficiently related to a loan arrangement between two entities that were not party to the suit, leading to possible rewriting of that loan two or more years after it was negotiated and closed, and the funds dispersed. The court concluded there was a sufficient causation nexus because “[w]ithout the guaranties, there would’ve been no loans. Without the loans, no farm.” In addition, the Court concluded that requiring further NEPA and ESA review would in fact redress the plaintiffs’ injuries for the loans already made since the Agencies have an “ongoing role in monitoring any conditions placed on their guaranties,” thereby suggesting that further restrictions could well be placed on C&H’s operation of the CAFO. The Agencies have now agreed to undertake the additional review within the mandated 12 month time period. That review may result in no additional restrictions, or in restrictions that C&H can carry out without difficulty. With C&H being current on its loan payments, this decision may ultimately have no practical impact on C&H or its Bank. However, the “oh my” scenario is equally possible, because the court’s decision has no limits on the scope of additional restrictions that may be imposed. As noted by the court, “[t]he federal agencies, through guaranty conditions, have control over C&H’s case-relevant behavior” and “it’s likely that more environmental review will change how C&H operates its farm.” If C&H is unable to meet those restrictions, resulting in a loan default, the Bank will lack the guaranty it required to fund the loan in the first place. Thus, the court has authorized the guarantor to re-write the terms if its guaranty, post hoc, to the severe detriment of the non-party Bank. With a six year statute of limitations on filing a NEPA claim, what farm loan guaranty is safe from being altered or eliminated as a result of judicial action? Will Old MacDonald be prohibited from obtaining next year’s crop loan until the Agencies complete an EIS, a process that will take a year to complete and likely cause him to miss the planting season? And what about other endangered species that could implicate the validity of other farm loan guaranties? EPA’s proposed habitat designation for two newly listed endangered mussels will encompass over 40% of the area of the state of Arkansas, impacting one third of all property owners in the state, most of which are farmers. In addition, the broader implications of this decision on security interests cannot be overlooked. There were no parties in the litigation to argue that relieving the United States from its debt/collateral obligation would unfairly reward the Agencies for their failure to comply with NEPA and ESA. The Agencies certainly did not advance that argument. In fact, the injunction is what the Agencies requested, the court noting that its “Order will follow generally the terms [of the injunction] suggested by [the Agencies].” The Court even ordered the Agencies to “modify or void the loan guaranties as they deem appropriate in light of their revised and supplemented NEPA and ESA analysis.” The impact upon the agricultural loan program is clear, since these loans are routinely traded as federally insured securities. The Arkansas Farm Bureau has succinctly identified the potential implications of this decision: “[The opinion] probably just made it a whole lot harder for the next guy who’s trying to get a farm loan, regardless of where they are.” You can take that to the bankundefinedor not!
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us