what's New This Page contains all Media posts

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060012454

Court backs EPA, greens in CAFO privacy lawsuit
Tiffany Stecker, E&E reporter
Greenwire: Wednesday, January 28, 2015
 

A federal judge ruled for U.S. EPA yesterday in a lawsuit filed by agribusinesses angry about the agency providing information on large livestock farms to environmentalists.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery for the District of Minnesota denied the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council's motion for summary judgment, saying they lacked standing because the information's release didn't cause "actual or imminent injury" to the livestock farm operators who had provided data to EPA under Clean Water Act permitting.

"It's not only a win for environmental groups and EPA, but for open government," said Scott Edwards, co-director of the nonprofit Food and Water Justice.

At issue was EPA's release in early 2013 of hundreds of pages of documents on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pew Charitable Trusts, which had requested the data under the Freedom of Information Act. These documents disclosed farmers' names, addresses and geographical coordinates, as well as information on pollution discharges (Greenwire, Feb. 21, 2013).

After the farm groups complained, EPA asked the environmental nonprofits to return the materials so the agency could resend versions that had personal data redacted. Then EPA accidentally provided too much information a second time in May 2013 (Greenwire, May 3, 2013).

FOIA safeguards personal or medical information that would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

Environmental groups filed the request to know more about nutrient runoff from the farms. Manure from CAFOs can release excessive nitrogen and phosphorus, which feed algae blooms in waterways that smother aquatic life and contaminate municipal water supplies.

"The real importance [of this case] is that the states and the federal government have not done a good job of regulating agriculture and CAFOs," Edwards said. Edwards' group, a part of Food and Water Watch, had intervened in the case on EPA's side with the Environmental Integrity Project and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

In her opinion, Montgomery added that the agriculture groups' argument failed to prove farmers were likely to be further victimized as a result of the information's release. Swine producer Rick Grommersch told the court that activists with the group Compassionate Action for Animals entered his property to take photographs of his farm, in a declaration submitted by the trade associations.

But the incident on Grommersch's farm took place in 2006 -- years before EPA received the FOIA requests, Montgomery said. This underscores "the ease with which activist groups can identify the location of large farms," she wrote.

The Farm Bureau and Pork Producers Council also presented an affidavit to the judge from Minnesota dairy farmer Patrick Lunemann, who alleged that his privacy had been violated. Environmental groups soundly disputed this claim when they discovered that Lunemann's name, his wife's name and their farm's address were available on his dairy's website and Facebook page.

The agriculture and livestock groups submitted five other declarations in which CAFO operators claimed the information would make them "more likely to receive disturbing threats and potentially targeted criminal activity," as well as acts of terrorism like the introduction of diseases in the food supply.

The CAFO document release sparked bipartisan outcry from Capitol Hill in 2013 as lawmakers called for investigations into the incident and introduced bills to block the agency from releasing such data (E&ENews PM, June 6, 2013).

The story drove an even deeper wedge between EPA and the agriculture community, which has traditionally distrusted the agency.

Michael Formica, chief environmental counsel for the National Pork Producers Council, said he is almost certain his group will appeal the "ludicrous" decision.

Montgomery is "arguing that if someone's name appears in the phone book, it means you can get all sorts of other information on them and release it," Formica said.

Furthermore, he said, the judge didn't mention whether EPA was required to protect the farmers from threats by handing the data to groups that could use it to invade private property. The fact that addresses were publicly available online does not nullify the responsibility to protect parties, he added.

As far as the groups' standing to look out for their members, Formica points to the Supreme Court case Friends of the Earth Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., in which a complaint from a single member of the environmental group was enough to justify Friends of the Earth's representation.

"We're disappointed. It's very disappointing," Formica said.

If an appeal is granted, the case will be considered in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, released a statement saying the decision should be concerning to farmers, ranchers and citizens in general.

"This court seems to believe that the Internet age has eliminated the individual's interest in controlling the distribution of his or her personal information. We strongly disagree," Stallman said.

The plaintiffs have 60 days to appeal the decision.

Groups sue EPA over animal confinement air pollution
Donnelle Eller, deller@dmreg.com 7:55 p.m. CST January 28, 2015
- 
Evidence is mounting that large animal-confinement operations are polluting the air and hurting public health, according to two lawsuits filed Wednesday that could have broad ramifications for Iowa, the nation's largest pork producer.

A coalition of eight groups seeks to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate air emissions from large pig, cattle, dairy and other livestock facilities.

The environmental and animal-welfare coalition is asking a federal judge to "compel the Environmental Protection Agency to finally act to address unchecked toxic air pollution from factory farms, a large and growing industry that's almost entirely escaped pollution regulations for decades," said Tarah Heinzen, an attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project, a group leading the legal challenge.

The coalition includes the Sierra Club, Humane Society of the United States, and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement.

But Iowa pork producers and a Iowa State University professor say there is no evidence that large animal confinements pose a hazard.

In Iowa, the livestock industry, led by pig, poultry and cattle production, generated $14 billion in cash receipts in 2013, federal farm data shows.

Heinzen said the EPA estimates the country has 20,000 livestock operations. Large dairy and swine operations emit 100,000 pounds of hydrogen sulfide annually, contributing to acid rain and regional haze, Heinzen's group says.

"These facilities emit a large number of air pollutants, such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, fine particles and greenhouse gases, sometimes at levels that threaten nearby rural residents, factory farm workers and the animals themselves," she said.

Each of the facilities "can contain thousands or even millions of animals, along with vast quantities of waste. To give you a sense of scale, factory farms produce more than 500 million tons of manure every year in the U.S.," more than three times the amount of waste humans produce, she said.

Residents "who breathe ammonia suffer eye irritations and a variety of respiratory symptoms," Heinzen said. "Ammonia also reacts with other chemicals in the air and contributes to the formation of small particles that lodge deep in the lungs that cause heart attacks and premature death.

"Studies have shown that air near factory farms sometimes exceed acceptable ... ammonia exposure levels," she said.

But Daniel Andersen, an Iowa State University professor, said research is inconclusive about the confinements' public-health impact.

Large animal-confinement operations use complex ventilation systems to prevent animals and workers from exposure to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, said Andersen, an associate professor of agricultural and biosystems engineering professor.

"By the time that air would make it to a neighbor, concentrations are very, very low. They're at levels we would naturally encounter in our daily lives," he said. "People have tried to study it, but it's been difficult to find a link."

Rosie Partridge disagrees. She said she's often forced inside her home in the fall, her hair and clothes reeking from the smell of neighboring pig-confinement operations.

Worse, she and her husband, D.G., struggle with headaches, nausea and breathing problems, the result, she says, of exposure to ammonia and hydrogen sulfide that comes from confinement operations housing 10,000 pigs within a mile of her rural Sac County home.

She said the couple, both in their 70s, sometimes has to leave for days at a time while manure is applied to fields.

"The smell is horrid," she said.

Heinzen said the federal government has done too little to protect residents from air pollution emanating from large animal-confinement facilities.

"The federal Clean Air Act mandates the EPA protect public health and the environment from air pollution, but the EPA has failed to live up to its promise in rural communities," she said. "In fact, the EPA has failed to use its Clean Air Act authority to address factory farm emissions for 45 years."

The lawsuits the groups filed Wednesday in Washington, D.C., federal court are designed to force the EPA to act on petitions the Humane Society filed in 2009 and the Environmental Integrity Project filed in 2011 on animal-confinement emissions.

The Humane Society's petition asks that the EPA determine that large animal confinements are a source of pollution and set performance standards. The Environmental Integrity Project asks the EPA to set health-based standards for ammonia.

The groups' lawsuits Wednesday ask a federal court to push the EPA to take action within 90 days.

An EPA spokeswoman said Wednesday the agency would review the litigation. The EPA says agriculture contributes 10 percent of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, while the energy needed to warm and cool homes, run businesses, and fuel for transportation accounts for 70 percent of harmful gases.

Ron Birkenholz, a spokesman for the Iowa Pork Producers Association, said he disagrees with the coalition's charge that confinement facilities degrade the health of workers or nearby residents.

"We believe the barns are safe, or we wouldn't continue building them," he said.

The association, Birkenholz said, is funding research at universities such as Iowa State to improve operations, including odor reduction.

Andersen said manure is injected into farmland to reduce the smell and help prevent it from moving into waterways. And even though millions of tons are generated annually, it's a fraction of the fertilizer that's needed to raise crops in Iowa and elsewhere in the nation, he said.

Birkenholz said: "We're working to be a good neighbor in rural Iowa. Yes, at times, there may be odor. But the activists think it's a constant problem, but that's just not the case."

 

Arkansas Democrat Gazette

Publication:Arkansas Democrat-Gazette NW; Date:Jan 27, 2015; Section:Editorial; Page Number:7B

Good news for us?
A judge rules

Mike Masterson



Afederal judge in Washington state ruled earlier this month on a case that likely sets a national precedent for preserving the cleanliness of our own state’s natural waters and streams such as our treasured Buffalo National River.

District Judge Thomas O. Rice of Spokane ruled that manure waste from an industrial dairy farm in that state posed an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to the environment and drinking water there.

The judge determined 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,” an Associated Press story reads. “Any attempt to diminish the dairy’s contribution to the nitrate contamination is disingenuous, at best,” the judge wrote in granting a partial summary judgment.

This finding matters a great deal legally, according to the story. For instance, an attorney for Public Justice said this marked the first time a federal court has ruled improperly managed manure to be a solid waste, rather than a beneficial farm product.

It’s also the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which specifically governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, was applied to farm-animal waste.

More importantly to our state and others, the judge’s ruling now means similar contamination standards can be applied to natural waters and private wells across America should animal-waste generators be discovered polluting with their animal manure and waste.

 
Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Editorial: Legislature should fund Buffalo River water study
Legislature should fund Buffalo River water study
Posted: January 26, 2015 at 1:32 a.m.
 
In the debate over operation of a large hog farm near the Buffalo National River, supporters of the agricultural operation and those who fear its impact on the environment ought to be able to agree on one thing: Monitoring is the way to know.

The history of C&H Hog Farms is filled with controversy -- over the information in its applications for permits, over the state's administrative granting of permits, and over the response of state leaders to the potential for damage to the river. The operation is allowed to house 2,500 sows and as many as 4,000 piglets. It's located in Mount Judea near Big Creek, about 6 miles upstream from where it meets the Buffalo National River.

The river, of course, is one of the Natural State's most beautiful and popular destinations for visitors. The National Park Service estimated its recent annual figures at more than 1 million visitors who spent about $46 million.

State officials have said the operators of the first large-scale concentrated animal feeding operation for swine within the Buffalo watershed did everything they were supposed to do, so there's little that can be done about a legally operating facility.

The permitting of the farm has sparked a move to ban further encroachment on the national river by such agricultural operations. Of particular concern is the potential environment impact of the abundance of waste hogs produce.

Now comes word that the only state-sanctioned and state-funded study of water quality in the area around the hog farm is running out of money, and there's no plan in place to continue. The University of Arkansas study, led by Professor Andrew Sharpley, was designed as a five-year effort, but it only received funding for the first year.

State lawmakers continue to weight whether to impose a permanent ban on medium and large hog farms in the river's watershed. It seems only reasonable to conclude the way to reach a conclusion is through water quality data. That takes research, and that takes money.

How can state lawmakers legitimately evaluate what's happening in that watershed without an independent study? A year is simply not enough -- and results have so far been inconclusive.

Arkansas cannot afford to get this wrong. The Buffalo River is too valuable. If it ends up polluted, it will take untold millions and a long, long time to overcome the damage to the river's reputation.

Fund the study, lawmakers. It's money well spent.

Commentary on 01/26/2015

Arkansas Democrat Gazette

An unnecessary bill

Keep data open

Mike Masterson

Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, may have good intentions in wanting to exempt academic research data as it’s being gathered by state universities from provisions of the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
But his recently introduced House Bill 1080 is, in my opinion and that of many others, unnecessary and a truly bad proposal that makes me wonder where such an idea originated.
Surely it can’t involve the fact that Rep. Douglas (elected in District 91 in 2013 without opposition) is a former president of the Benton County Farm Bureau, or serves on the House Agriculture Committee, or is in the leadership of the Illinois River Watershed Partnership. No way he’d be carrying water for those special interests.
Douglas explained the rationale behind his bill to veteran political reporter and observer Doug Thompson by saying he doesn’t believe disclosing snippets of data gathered while research is under way tells the people of Arkansas worthwhile information until the entire project is completed. However, the people can see the data after what could be years of research is completed.
That argument leaves me scratching my noggin since it runs counter to this Ozark boy’s limited understanding of pure-dee common sense.
It certainly wouldn’t affect the outcome of any research to reveal findings along the process. That’s especially valid if the study is examining a subject as potentially serious as the potential contamination of our Buffalo National River, or the Illinois River.
We the public who pay for the public research (as we do for Douglas’ elected services) deserve to know what’s being discovered rather than waiting long periods to know when something as toxic as hog waste has possibly contaminated the river.
Thompson reported that various topics of research by public universities and colleges are monumentally important to the people of Arkansas, including fluoridation of drinking water, as well as water quality in the Buffalo and Illinois rivers.
Douglas said that taking a couple of days of data from a two-year research study is comparable to “watching two or three frames out of a two-hour movie. You can’t really tell anything from that.”
But what relevant difference does it make whether Arkansans are following developments as they unfold? And why would Douglas, as a politically connected farmer by career, care enough to want to change a perfectly good law (among the best in the nation) unless it’s to manage the flow of any potentially negative and embarrassing results from being released to we the people?
Surely there would be no concern with disclosing positive results along the way.
Should the ongoing University of Arkansas water-quality studies hypothetically show that bacterial and chemical contamination from animal waste is occurring within the Buffalo National River and its environmentally sensitive, karst-riddled watershed, why should we the people need to wait years to learn that?
Revealing such findings as they are shown to be occurring clearly would generate a public outcry even longer and louder than what already has arisen since our state wrongheadedly allowed a controversial Cargill-supplied hog factory into the fragile watershed.
And therein lies what strikes me as one possible motive behind proposing this kind of misguided and unnecessary law.
What politico, corporation or responsible party would want to face a barrage of negative headlines and the pressures from further revelations should a devastating waste spill occur within the watershed?
Thompson reports research information withheld by the bill from the public until final conclusions are reached would include “manuscripts, preliminary analyses, drafts of scientific or academic papers, plans, or proposals for future research and pre-publication peer reviews, the papers, plans, or proposals for future research and pre-publication peer reviews.”
Douglas did concede that his bill needs further refining and that you and I could still examine, under the law, the methodology and scope and subjects involved in such studies.
The people of Arkansas just wouldn’t be able to know what’s being found along the way, not until those conducting the study at a state-owned college or university say their work is officially concluded, on their timetable.
By the way, why wouldn’t the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (chuckle) be up in arms over this kind of bill that restricts public access to significant environmental information?
I like what reader Joe Nix had to say about Douglas’ misguided bill now sitting in the House Education Committee: “So the state pays for research to determine impact, if any, of the hog farm on the Buffalo but public can’t see [ongoing] results … such legislation has far reaching implications for science in general.”
Let’s hope, for all our sakes, that this troublesome bill languishes in the education committee until its justifiable demise.
—–––––v–––––—
Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.

Farms Can Be Held Liable For Pollution From Manure, U.S. Federal Court Rules

By Ayesha Rascoe

WASHINGTON, Jan 16 (Reuters) - A U.S. federal court has ruled for the first time that manure from livestock facilities can be regulated as solid waste, a decision hailed by environmentalists as opening the door to potential legal challenges against facilities across the country.

A large dairy in Washington state, Cow Palace Dairy, polluted ground water by over applying manure to soil, ruled Judge Thomas Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on Wednesday.

"The practices of this mega-dairy are no different than thousands of others across the country," said Jessica Culpepper, an attorney at Public Justice, one of the firms that represented the plaintiffs, a collection of public advocacy groups.

The case is scheduled to go to trial in March to decide the extent of the contamination and the clean-up.

This is the first time the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste, has been applied to animal waste from a farm.

Industrial livestock operations produce hundreds of millions of tons of manure annually.

The district court ruling, if upheld, could affect any large livestock facility that produces more manure than it can responsibly manage, including poultry, beef and hog farms, Culpepper said.

An attorney for Cow Palace said on Friday that it plans to ask for an appeal.

"There's a reason no court has ever done this. It's because the statute was not intended to apply to these situations," said Debora Kristensen, an attorney for Givens Pursley, a law firm that represented Cow Palace.

Kristensen said Cow Palace has already entered into a voluntary agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which enforces the act, to address water contamination concerns.

Fertilizer is not considered waste under the act, but the district court found that Cow Palace was applying more manure to crops than needed. In one instance, the plaintiffs in the case said Cow Palace applied more than 7 million gallons (26 million liters) of manure to an already "sufficiently fertilized field."

The district court said Cow Palace's excessive application transformed the waste, which is "an otherwise beneficial and useful product," into a discarded material.

The court found that Cow Palace's management of its manure violated the "open dumping" provisions of law.

Unlike other federal contamination laws, the act requires violators not only to stop polluting, but to clean up any damage it has caused.

The case is Community Association For Restoration Of The Environment, Inc. et al v. Cow Palace, LLC et al, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, No. 13-CV-3016 (Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)

UA hog study

Speaking of bacon, it's time to decide if our state will cough up a few hundred thousand more tax dollars so the University of Arkansas geosciences folks can continue monitoring that hog factory our state allowed into the precious Buffalo National River watershed back in 2012.
Former Gov. Mike Beebe, under whose administration this factory with up to 6,500 wrongheadedly gained entry to the most environmentally sensitive region of our state, initially allocated $340,000 for the university to monitor possible hog-waste contamination in the watershed.
That expenditure thus far has resulted in "inconclusive" results based on examining a fraction of the spray fields.
Now the decision on whether a lot more money is needed to continue studying the millions of gallons of waste from the swine factory: If the location isn't critical, why spend so much money and energy to monitor the castoffs being regularly sprayed on watershed fields?
Truth is, it matters a lot. The state created a terrible situation that now we are paying to police. What's wrong with this picture? And why is this Cargill-supplied factory being so coddled? Yes, the factory jumped through the state's hoops for a permit, but those upfront requirements clearly weren't close to stringent enough, as evidenced by the game of "pay money, watch and see" we're playing now.
Denying a hog-factory permit in this location to begin with would have saved so much time, energy and taxpayer dollars.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
Editorial on 01/20/2015

 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