Menu
Log in


Buffalo River Watershed Alliance

Log in

what's New This Page contains all Media posts

  • 08 Feb 2014 2:01 PM | Anonymous

     

     

    ADEQ has made  a 2nd inspection report for C&H.  Below is an edited version.  To see entire inspection go to  "Documents & Videos" and "ADEQ Compliance Inspection #2"

     

    January 28, 2014

    Mr. Jason Henson, Owner

    C&H Hog Farms

    HC 72 Box 10

    Mount Judea, AR 72655

    RE: Compliance Inspection/Complain Investigation

    AFIN: 51-00164 Permit No.: ARG590001

    Dear Mr. Henson:

    On January 23, 2014 I performed a compliance inspection of the above referenced facility in accordance with the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Additionally as part of the inspection I reviewed application field17 in response to a complaint the Department received on January 16, 2014.  A copy of the inspection and complaint reports are enclosed for your records.

     Please refer to the “Summary of Findings” section of the attached inspection report and provide a written response for each violation that was noted. This response should be mailed to the attention of the Water Division Inspection Branch at the address at the bottom of this letter or emailed to Water-Inspection-Report@adeq.state.ar.us. This response should contain documentation describing the course of action taken to correct each item noted. This corrective action should be completed as soon as possible, and the written response with all necessary documentation (i.e.photos) is due by February 11, 2014.

     If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at bolenbaugh@adeq.state.ar.us or 501-682-0659.

    Sincerely,

    Jason Bolenbaugh

    Inspection Branch Manager

    Water Division

     

    SUMMARY OF FINDINGS THE ITEMS REFERENCED BELOW IN THIS SECTION REQUIRE A WRITTEN RESPONSE

    The holding pond embankments were not stabilized and erosion rills were found within the inside banks of the holding ponds. Stabilization of the embankments needs to occur to 1) prevent sediment from entering the holding ponds which may decrease the capacity of the holding ponds, and 2) ensure the integrity of the holding ponds are maintained. Please see Photographs 1 and 2.

     The maps in the Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) do not correctly identify the land application areas.

    Specifically, there are sections of Fields 12 and 16 that are identified as application areas; however, land use contracts are not available. You did indicate you were aware of the errors and were in the process of generating new land application maps, and those sites were not being applied to. Please provide those updated maps or a date when those will be completed in your response.

     Your NMP indicates there are 630.7 available acres to land apply to. However, that includes Field 5 that was previously mentioned in the June 23, 2013 inspection report and has been removed as an application field, as well as Fields 12 and 16 which must be revised. Please revise the NMP to reflect the total acres available for application. The highlighted areas in the attached site maps indicate the approximate areas that are outlined in your NMP as application sites but are ones you do not possess land use contract for.

     At the time of the inspection you could not verify the exact number of swine on site that were above 55 lbs. and below 55 lbs. On January 27, 2014 you confirmed there were 2,499 sows (> 55 lbs.) and 700 nursery pigs (< 55 lbs.) on site. Your NMP states there will be no more than 2,500 swine (> 55 lbs.) and 4,000 swine (< 55 lbs.) on site. Please ensure you are maintaining an actual head count at all times so you do not exceed the given number of swine.

     

    GENERAL COMMENTS

    THE GENERAL COMMENTS SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRE A RESPONSE

    As a reminder, per Part 3.2.4 of your permit your annual report is due to the Department by January 31, 2014.

    Per Section B.3.c.4 of your NMP, soil samples for Nitrate-N and Phosphorus shall be taken no less than annually. This differs from Part 4.2.1.3 of your permit. Please ensure you continue to abide by the requirement of your NMP.

     At the time you indicated land application is only occurring by use of the vac tanker which coincides with your application records. Per Section M of your NMP, please ensure you only use a vac tanker on fields 1-4 and 10-17, and only use the pipeline/sprinkler system on Fields 5-9. Your NMP will need to be revised if you wish to use both practices to apply on a given field.

     A review of your application records indicated a rating of "Fair" for Field 17. When asked, you indicated the field was a "little soft" and this was noticed once you began applying and ruts from the equipment formed.

    However, you indicated you took appropriate action and immediately ceased application. Please see Photograph 3.

     The Holding Pond Level was below Must Pumpdown elevation. The level of Holding Pond 1 was low enough so that waste was not flowing over the spillway.

     Mortalities are promptly disposed of in the two incinerators that are on site. Please see Photograph 4.

    At the time of the investigation we did not note any violations pertaining to your application practices. You indicated you have implemented more stringent buffer and setback requirements than are documented in the permit.

     

    INSPECTOR’S SIGNATURE: Jason Bolenbaugh

     

     

     

     

     

  • 29 Jan 2014 6:47 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Brahana Talks
    Mike Masterson- Democrat-Gazette, January 28, 2014


    Former UA geoscience professor John Van Brahana last week addressed the state Pollution Control and Ecology Commission about the need to protect the Buffalo National River's watershed. This political body oversees the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough).

    Brahana has invested large amounts of personal time, resources and energy into voluntarily conducting water-quality testings around the controversial C & H Hog Farms at Mt. Judea that was quietly and quickly permitted by the Department of Environmental Quality. He and students have been baseline testing around the factory, critical preliminary studies that I believe should have been required of the factory and its supplier, Cargill Inc.

    "We had an eventful meeting in Little Rock. I was able to speak to the commission for the first time. We requested a temporary moratorium. We requested that the general permit be completely revised and I requested that my dye-tracing permit be approved after being tied up since early November (actually, since last summer)," said Brahana.

    Let's hope the commission listens to Brahana, whose only agenda is preserving the water quality of the country's first national river.
  • 23 Jan 2014 4:42 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Eureka Springs Independent

    Exploring Cargill statement
    ESI Staff
    Wednesday, January 22, 2014

    Editor,
    In response to Mike Martin, Cargill director of communications, [Jan. 8 Independent].
    I have searched ADEQ’s website and other documents finding that in 1992 Randy Young, executive director of Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission, initiated a study of confined animal operations in the Buffalo River Watershed. Confined animal operations were viewed as one of the greatest potential contributors of bacteria and nutrients in the watershed. The project concentrated on swine operations that the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology considered as the more eminent threat to the water quality of the Buffalo River.
    At the time of the project there were 11 permitted hog facilities. Nine of the farms were on the southern edge of the watershed high on the sandstone and shale formation of the Atoka and Bloyd Formation, around 2000 ft. elevation. Two were near but outside the watershed, also high in elevation. There were a total of 3,094 sows in 1994.
    C & H Hog Farms is located in the recharge zone of the Springfield Aquifer and isolates 2,500 sows at an approximate elevation of 900 ft. There are three other permitted hog farms in or near the Buffalo River watershed for a combined number of sows at 3,525. The other three farms are located in the Atoka and Bloyd formations on the southern edge of the watershed, high in elevation.
    The Agricultural Statistics Board, NASS USDA, shows that in 1990, on average, a sow produced 13 pigs per breeding animal per year, in 2008 the average pigs per breeding animal increased to 18.7 per year. In 2013 a sow produced 9.90-10.20 pigs per litter in a large operation like C & H’s.
    C & H Hog Farms has the largest concentration of sows in one location in the Buffalo River watershed, it is the only facility ever permitted in the Springfield Aquifer; it has larger amounts of waste per animal due to sow size and litter numbers per sow than 1990 according to statistics; it is spreading untreated manure on fields that have very shallow soils with porous rock outcrops in the middle of winter and the facility itself is within ½ mile of a school and town. The facility is .4 of a mile from Big Creek.
    Once there were 11 family jobs now there are four family jobs.
    I urge everyone to please speak out. The air we breathe and the water we drink are the basic elements in our everyday lives. We are the ones to do something to insure our future generations the same values we have known. We have the education and the research has been done, it is time to acknowledge that we make a difference.
    Carol Bitting Marble Falls
  • 22 Jan 2014 8:48 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Hog issue complex?
    By Mike Masterson
    Posted: January 21, 2014 at 2:45 a.m.

    Two avid supporters of the Buffalo National River in Newton County recently sent their concerns to state legislators.


    They asked the representatives to do everything possible to prevent the potential pollution of the treasured stream by C&H Hog Farms. That’s the deeply controversial hog factory that the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (cough) wrongheadedly permitted along a major tributary of the Buffalo.

    Patti Kent, a Newton County property owner, and Pam Fowler of Jasper also were asking what can be done legislatively to stop the possibility of hog waste polluting our river as it has in water bodies in other states such as North Carolina. The hog factory (supplied and supported by Cargill Inc. at the hamlet of Mount Judea) is spread across 600 acres, much of which is widely underlain by fractured subsurface terrain called karst.

    This mountainous limestone topography allows subterranean groundwater to rapidly flow through cracks and caves for miles into nearby streams. That means Big Creek, which is adjacent to or near the fields to be sprayed with C&H waste routinely drawn from two large lagoons, could well be threatened by contamination. Big Creek flows into the Buffalo National River about six miles downstream.

    Two legislators’ responses cite a need for balance in resolving what they contend is a complex matter. Fowler included a photograph with her message to one legislator that shows a large highway billboard on U.S. 65 near Western Grove which shouts: “Come Enjoy the Buffalo River. It’s Not Polluted … Yet!”

    Here (edited for space) are responses the women say they received: From Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Yellville: ”If I understand your thoughts correctly … you don’t believe this is a complicated issue at all. You believe that the only right solution is to do away with C&H Farm. There’s no possible way to pass legislation that makes C&H Farm illegal and mandate its removal. I’d be shocked if that legislation were to receive better than 2 votes out of the 135 legislators. Truthfully, I’d be shocked to see it receive a single vote.Do you think [you] can muster enough lobby support to move 50 percent of the Legislature to do something that currently zero percent supports? It cannot … happen. We will all continue to work for the best possible outcome in a situation none of us wanted to be in. … We will also work to not get caught in the same or similar situations in the future.” From Rep. Greg Leding, D-Fayetteville: “I can assure you we’re working to do what we can to ensure the continued protection of the Buffalo River and other extraordinary watershed resources. The current situation involving C&H is a complex one that, unfortunately, we learned about too late. It’s my sincere hope that the issue is settled in a way that’s fair to all parties and safe for our state’s water and air quality. Looking ahead, I believe there must be a balance between our ecological and agricultural concerns. We’ve got a beautiful state, and tourism is vital to our economy. But our state also plays a key role in feeding millions of people and agriculture’s just as critical to our state’s economic health. Making sure we find that fair balance is no easy task but one to which I’m committed. As to current efforts, I spoke with ADEQ this week. We should learn within days the full recommendations made by a panel we put together through the legislation passed at the end of last year’s legislative session. These recommendations should increase public notification requirements for future projects, allowing concerned parties to voice their concerns much earlier in the process. It’s a small step, but a step forward.”

    I emailed the legislators about their responses but didn’t hear so much as an oink in reply by my deadline.

    My response is that while there’s certainly no question that we humans need food to survive, unelected me sees nothing complex in legislating that hogs be mass-produced only in areas of Arkansas that don’t pose what scientists and others contend presents a clear danger to our state’s only national river. As to seeking “balance,” even I could not have found a more inappropriate and controversial place to embed up to 6,500 hogs. Where does anyone other than lobbyists for agriculture find balance in this worst possible location?

    Matters became even less balanced after I learned the director of our state’s Department of Environmental Quality admitted to not realizing her agency had issued the factory’s permit in this hypersensitive watershed until it was approved. Neither the agency’s local office in nearby Jasper nor the National Park Service in Harrison were informed this factory was being permitted.

    Simply put, this supposedly “complex” factory should never have been allowed in such a sensitive location, especially by the alleged guardians of our environmental quality. In fact, count me among those who remain surprised that the agency director still holds her political position, considering the way her agency so badly mishandled what amounted to an accommodation that (all complexities and balance aside) benefited Cargill and one family contrasted with a flagrantly unacceptable risk to a state’s national treasure.


    Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him atmikemasterson10@hotmail.com. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.

    Editorial, Pages 11 on 01/21/2014

  • 20 Jan 2014 5:32 PM | Anonymous
    ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION
    REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING
    Friday, January 24, 2014
    9:00 a.m.

    ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
    5301 NORTHSHORE DRIVE
    NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72118

    AGENDA
    (Item #03)

    I.     Call Meeting to Order - 9:00 a.m.                         

    II.     Roll Call

    III.     Approval of October 25, 2013, Commission Meeting           (Item #04)
         Minutes

    IV.     Department Reports
    A.     Director’s Report

    B.     Status of Regulations Monthly Report               (Item #50)

    C.     Division Permit Reports                              (Items #51-64)

    V.          Public Comments

    VI.     Commission Reports
    A.     Chair Lynn Sickel
    1.     Proposed Commission Meeting Dates-2014          APPENDIX I
    -     Minute Order (Adopt)                         (Items #05)

    2.     Stipends 2014                                   APPENDIX II
    -     Minute Order (Adopt)                         (Items #06)

    B.     Regulations Committee – Randy Young
                   1. Regulation No. 11, Regulations for Solid      APPENDIX III
                   Waste Disposal Fees; Landfill Post-Closure Trust     (Items #07-14)
                   Fund; and Recycling Grants Program
                        - Docket No. 13-011-R                              
                        - Lesley Morgan for Arkansas Department of
                         Environmental Quality
         - Minute Order (Initiate)

    2. Regulation No. 12, Storage Tank               APPENDIX IV
         - Docket No. 14-001-R                         (Item #15-21)
         - Lorielle Gutting for Arkansas Department
         Of Environmental Quality
         - Minute Order (Initiate)
    3. Regulation No. 15, Arkansas Open-Cut          APPENDIX V
    Mining and Reclamation Regulation               (Item #22-27)
         - Docket No. 13-008-R
         - James Stephens for Arkansas Department
         Of Environmental Quality
         - Minute Order (Adopt)

              C. Minerals Subcommittee Report                         APPENDIX VI
                   - Commissioner Simpson                         (Items #28-29)

    VII. In the Matter of City of Wynne-Denial of Temporary     APPENDIX VII
              Variance                                             (Items #30-33)
    -     Docket No. 13-010-MISC                              
    -     Notice of Denial of Temporary Variance
    -     Minute Order (Adopt)

    VIII. In the Matter of Tyson Foods, Inc.-Waldron Plant          APPENDIX VIII
    - Docket No. 13-008-MISC                    (Items #34-35)
    -     Motion to Reopen Docket and to Rescind
    Stay Order
    -     Minute Order (Adopt)

    IX.     In the Matter of Big River Steel, LLC                    APPENDIX IX
              - Docket No. 13-006-P                              (Items #36-40)
                   - Motion for Partial Relief from Stay               
                        - John F. Peiserich for Big River Steel,
                        LLC
                        - Minute Order (Adopt)
                   - Response to Motion for Partial Relief from
                   Stay
                        - David K. Taggart for Nucor Corporation and
                        Nucor-Yamato Steel Company
    -     Minute Order (Deny)

    X.     Administrative Law Judge – Charles Moulton
         A.      Recommended Decision
    1. In the Matter of Saddlebock Brewing LLC          APPENDIX X
    - Docket No. 13-002-P                    (Items #41-42)
    -     Recommended Decision (Order No. 7)
    -     Minute Order (Adopt)

    2. In the Matter of Street & Performance, Inc.     APPENDIX XI
    - Docket No. 12-017-NOV                    (Items #43-46)
         - Recommended Decision (Order No. 8)
         - Request for Oral Argument
              - John Peiserich for Street &
              Performance, Inc.
         - Minute Order (Deny)
         - Minute Order (Adopt)

    B.      Settled Cases per Regulation No. 8
         1. In the Matter of American Composting,          APPENDIX XII
         Inc.                                             (Items #47)
              - Docket No. 12-014-NOV

    2. In the Matter of Blue Steel Investments,     APPENDIX XIII
    LLC.                                             (Items #48)
    -     Docket No. 13-005-NOV                                                  
    XI.     Annual Case Report                                   APPENDIX XIV
                                                                (Item #49)

    XII. Regulation No. 2, Minerals Power Point Presentation     
    -     Ryan Benefield

    XIII.     Adjour
  • 20 Jan 2014 4:58 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    The Mountain Press, Sevier County Tenn.

    Public Notice Week: Something to celebrate
    Jan. 20, 2014 @ 12:10 AM
    FRANK GIBSON

    SEVIERVILLE  
    Residents of Mt. Judea, Ark., woke up one morning recently to learn that their small community is about to become host to a hog farm – population 6,503 hogs.

    “What really set me off was the fact that it was a done deal by the time we heard about it,” Gordon Watkins, a nearby farmer and president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, told the Arkansas Times in Little Rock.

    State and local government officials had already approved the facility and said the public notice of the permit review process was “legally sufficient.” However, the instant replay showed the only notice the state gave was on the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s website. The only recourse left for Mt. Judeans is a lawsuit.

    Stories like this abound all over the country, including in the Volunteer State. Despite that, numerous bills have been filed in the state legislature here in recent years to allow city councils and school boards among others to stop placing notices in newspapers and instead put them on their own websites.

    Stories like this also prompted newspapers nationwide to create Public Notice Week to bring attention to public notices and how important they are to our democracy. It’s been that way since 1789. Open meetings and records laws as well as public notices allow citizens to know about and participate in their government.

    Usually there is little to celebrate because bills to move or eliminate notices are always around. Some may surface yet in 2014, but this year is different. There is something worth celebrating.

    Starting April 1, Tennessee newspapers which print public notices also will post them on the newspaper’s local website and upload them to a statewide aggregate website, www.tnpublicnotice.com, operated by the Tennessee Press Association. A majority of TPA’s 121 member newspapers has been doing both for some time.

    TPA made a commitment and proposed legislation last year to formalize it. It requires newspapers to do the double posting – triple if you consider print – at no additional charge and provides that newspapers make notices easier to find with special links on their website homepages.

    TPA executive director Greg Sherrill said the new law “ensures the best of both worlds.”

    “Our leadership realized that an increasing number of our readers choose to receive their news and information from newspaper websites, which are consistently among the most-trafficked sites within any given community,” Sherrill said. “By making sure that notices are also available on these sites, newspapers can make public notices accessible to the widest audience possible. While online notices are convenient for many readers, they lack the security, durability, and ability for archival that the printed notices provide.”

    Proposed changes here and elsewhere usually center on arguments that ending the practice of advertising notices will save the government money, but random checks show those expenses rarely exceed one-tenth of 1 percent of the agency’s budget.

    Open government advocates question whether moving notices exclusively to government websites, in effect, eliminates public notice because it certainly removes the independent quality.

    Government officials everywhere argue that the issue is about newspaper revenue. Newspapers acknowledge the revenue argument, but government officials don’t acknowledge how few people visit their websites. One survey last year showed almost 150 city and county governments didn’t have websites.

    Proposals have contained no real standards for government websites. Bills here and in Pennsylvania provided they had to be available only 90 percent of the time. Citizens without computer access could get hard copies of notices at City Hall. Proponents didn’t explain how citizens would know when and where to ask.

    Public opinion surveys in other states show that super majorities of taxpayers believe that the independent publication of public notices is worth the expense.

    Webster’s defines the word “optimum” as “the point at which the condition, degree or amount of something is the most favorable or advantageous.” The new law and the services it requires newspapers to provide are about as favorable and advantageous as you can get short of a direct notice to every resident. Opponents of the change, admittedly some newspaper editorial writers, argue that notices should stay in the newspaper where the public already knows where to find them, and some previous proposals here and elsewhere have addressed that issue.

    The solution: place an advertisement in the newspaper telling citizens about the government website.

    What a novel idea.

    Frank Gibson is TPA’s public policy director. He can be reached at 615-202-2685 or at fgibson@tnpress.com.
  • 17 Jan 2014 1:54 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Northwest Arkansas Times, January 16, 2014

    Keep The Buffalo River Pristine

    Recently I had the rare and wonderful opportunity to tour the Fay Jones-designed Faubus house in Huntsville. About 30 years ago when I was a graduate student at the University of Arkansas, my mother and I stopped by the house. She was an interior designer and had heard how unique and gorgeous this house was and wanted a tour. In my youthful 20s I knew who Faubus was and expected to find an angry, bitter racist who would turn us away at the door. Instead I encountered a gracious, warm Southern gentleman who proceeded to give us an extended, unexpected tour of his residence. Years later after reading Roy Reed’s excellent biography of Faubus, I learned of a very different and important key political decision the governor made while in oftce. Faubus was the closer, the fi nal influential Arkansas leader to take a position against the Corps of Engineers and saved the Buff alo River.
    This is Gov. Mike Beebe’s final term in oft ce. He has certainly done some good things for this state, but I wonder what his legacy will be. During the past year, he has allowed the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to permit the fi rst confined animal feeding operation in Arkansas less than six miles upstream from the Buffalo River. He has allowed the head of the state agency, Teresa Marks, the remain in oft ce even though she has made many public comments stating that she was not aware that the fi rst feeding operation permit was going through and did not think this permit would be controversial. What state does she live in? Beebe has also authorized $340,000 in state taxpayer funds to conduct water quality testing and geological characterization for a highly toxic and polluting industry.
    This is corporate subsidization on the backs of poor Arkansans. Isn’t there a better use for these funds, such as supporting education? How does Arkansas benefit from this hog factory? It is anticipated to cost the Arkansas taxpayer close to $800,000 over the next 5 years to monitor and analyze this operation. Will taxes from this hog factory recoup the cost to monitor this operation?
    This river is venerated, not only for its beauty, but people from all over the country come to experience its fast clean fl owing waters. River tourism brings in revenue to all the communities that embank the river, and the state of Arkansas to an estimated $38 million per year. The risk of contamination on the river is very high. This is a fragile ecosystem and even a small seepage will be devastating. Any way you slice it, the hog factory does not make economic or environmental sense.
    Will Mike Beebe’s legacy be that he allowed one of the best things in Arkansas to become yet another poster child for corporate pollution? I hope not. Now is the time to remove this operation and keep the Buffalo as clean and pristine as possible.
    TERESA TURK
    Fayetteville

  • 14 Jan 2014 3:53 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    On January 13, 2014, the Department of Justice filed its Answer to BRWA's Amended Complaint. The next step in the agreed schedule is for the government to produce the Administrative Record on February 4, 2014.
  • 12 Jan 2014 10:20 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Cargill says no ‘flood’ of hog factories planned for Arkansas
    Becky Gillette Eureka Springs Independent
    Wednesday, January 08, 2014

    Cargill, the company buying the pork produced by the C&H Hog Farms located near the Buffalo River, has thus far responded to about 300 letters or e-mails from people concerned about how the operation might impact the nearby Buffalo National River.

    Mike Martin, Cargill director of communications, in an interview this week with the Eureka Springs Independent, said that “Cargill has no plans for further expansions or additional CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) in Arkansas; C&H Hog Farms isn’t the first of a ‘flood’ of CAFOs planned for the state.

    “We don’t have plans to have our contract suppliers increase operations or add additional farms in Arkansas,” Martin said. “Eighty five percent of hog production has left Arkansas in the past ten years. It is unlikely that will come back. This is simply a case where a family farmer wanted to expand his operation.”

    Martin said C&H Hog Farms has put into place proper controls to prevent environmental problems.
    “Be aware of the fact that in the immediate area where C&H Hog Farms exists near Mt. Judea, historically there have been more hogs in that area than there are now,” Martin said. “At one point, there were 11 hog farms in that watershed with a larger aggregate number of hogs than the 2,500 sows at C&H. Almost all of those farms have disappeared. They have gone out of business or moved. That is true of hog production in Arkansas in general.”

    Martin said some production has been moved to states like Iowa, Nebraska and Missouri that are closer to the main sources of food for hogs – corn and other grains. He said another factor of hog production moving out of Arkansas is increasing regulations restricting farming in the state.

    “It is a combination of tighter environmental regulations on farming, higher costs in the form of taxes, and more government oversight by federal agencies such as EPA and others,” Martin said. “It has made it a more challenging environment for farmers. As far as C&H is concerned, Cargill doesn’t own the farm. The farm is owned by three families who have lived in that area for several generations. They have been hog farmers for about a dozen years. About two-and-a-half years ago they asked if they expanded, would Cargill agree to take additional piglets? The lead farmer, Jason Henson, is a very responsible steward of the resources and is known for following rules and regulations. He has never been cited for anything at all. We said we would accept additional piglets if they expanded the operation.”

    Martin said C&H Farms went to an engineering firm that specializes in building or expanding farms, and had plans drawn up for construction of hog barns and waste lagoons that complied with existing laws, as well as Cargill’s requirements. The farm then applied for what is known as a general permit for CAFOs. The farm received the first general permit CAFO in Arkansas.

    “The environmental safeguards on that farm far exceed anything required by the state or federal government,” Martin said. “It has a nutrient management plan as part of the overall permitting process and focuses especially on hog waste and hog manure, which is basically used as fertilizer for hay fields in the immediate area. It comes down to doing it properly, being a good steward of resources, having a nutrient management plan approved by the State of Arkansas, and following that.”

    Martin said that animal manure has been used for fertilizing crops for thousands of years, and Cargill believes that protection of the environment can co-exist with animal production.

    “Those who oppose C&H Hog Farm are opposed to it on a ‘what if’ scenario that may never occur,” he said. “Certainly neither the farm owners, Cargill or anyone else wants to see harm come to the Buffalo National River. But anyone honest about the situation knows there are already sources impacting the Buffalo National River that have nothing to do with hog farming. There are actual real impacts to the river right now that are not being addressed.”

    Martin said the owners of C&H Farms have been very transparent about their operations, even holding media tours of the farm.
    “Both Cargill and the owners of the farm believe people have a right to see what is going on there,” he said. “There is nothing to hide. It is a pretty straightforward farm. I’ve seen people refer to the size of the farm and number of animals as large. In today’s context, it is a small- to medium-size hog operation. It is not by today’s standards a large operation. Farms have gotten bigger over time. It is a function of productivity and technology that has allowed farmers to produce more per acre or per animal. Farmers have become more productive in feeding a lot of people.”
  • 11 Jan 2014 9:09 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    http://www.eurekaspringsindependent.com/single_story.asp?StoryID=5228

    Hog factory opponents move forward to protect the Buffalo River
    Becky Gillette Eureka Springs Independent
    Wednesday, January 08, 2014

    The holidays brought new filings in the lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental groups challenging the permit for the controversial C&H Hog Farms in Mt. Judea near the Buffalo River, and the attention of one of the largest newspapers in the country, The New York Times.
    Hannah Chang, the attorney with Earthjustice representing the environmental groups, said she was not terribly surprised to learn that The New York Times was doing a story on the hog factory.

    “The problems CAFOs [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations] and factory farms are having in states other than Arkansas is well known,” Chang said. “There is a great deal of concern about it. It has affected a lot of other communities in other states. It goes beyond just this one facility.”

    Chang said another reason The Times was interested in the article is that the farm was the first such facility in Arkansas to get a general permit for a CAFO. The general permit streamlined the process, avoiding controversy by minimizing public notice and not requiring notification of agencies such as the National Park Service, which is charged with protecting the Buffalo National River – the nation’s first National River.

    “Other states have been experiencing the CAFO problems for years, so it is part of a much bigger problem,” Chang said. “It is a really big deal for this to be the first one in Arkansas and the first in the Buffalo River watershed to get this general permit. It is on the front lines of something new that could be moving into the state.”

    The lawsuit was filed by Earthjustice on behalf of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Arkansas Canoe Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society. The plaintiffs allege that the USDA Farm Services Agency and the Small Business Administration (SBA) violated federal law in providing $3.2 million in loan guarantees for C&H Hog Farms, which began operating April 15, 2013.

    Ozark Society President Robert Cross said the article was good exposure for an important issue.
    “We are particularly pleased because we believe Cargill, who is the giant agriculture company behind this, should know that the people of the country realize the dangers of this type of operation not just in Arkansas, but around the country,” Cross said. “We are concerned with the particular location of this one and surprised Cargill would support one so close to Buffalo National River because of the possibilities of environmental damage.”

    Cross said he didn’t think the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director [ADEQ] Teresa Marks came across very well in the article. Marks had earlier denied that the waste would leave the area of the hog farm where millions of gallons of untreated liquid manure will be spread on fields. But in The Times article, she said, “Will there be some of this waste that could reach the Buffalo River? Sure. Will it cause an environmental problem? No, we don’t think there’s going to be any environmental harm caused.”
    In other states like North Carolina, heavy periods of rainfall have inundated sewage lagoons leading to million of gallons of waste pouring into local rivers where it has caused major environmental damage including massive fish kills. Cross said there couldn’t have been a worse spot to spray the hog waste than the fields in Mt. Judea. They are underlain with porous limestone karst that allows contaminated seepage to reach the groundwater and then Big Creek and the Buffalo River.

    One of big concerns is that three of the fields abut the grounds of Mt. Judea School, which has 250 students.
    “This is untreated hog waste that is being spread within a short distance of the school, as well as many of the homes there,” Cross said. “The fact is that the hog waste is untreated. We wouldn’t think of spreading our own waste in a method like that. It wouldn’t be allowed. But it is allowed to spread animal waste, which is just as dangerous as human waste. A hog generates four to eight times the fecal matter as a human, so at full capacity the 6,500 hogs could produce as much excrement as a city of 35,000. Spreading around untreated waste really gets to me as a retired professor of chemical engineering who has worked on sewage treatment plants.”

    Even though waste hasn’t been sprayed on fields yet, Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA), said he has had numerous reports of offensive odors from as far as six miles from the facility, as well as in the halls and classrooms of the Mt. Judea School.

    “Hogs have a distinctive stink and there is no mistaking the source,” Watkins said.
    Cross said the permit process didn’t assess the economic impact on tourism or the environmental impact on local residents.
    “Government agencies seem to be going out of their way to protect an industrial swine facility that will produce a handful of jobs, rather than our first national river that belongs to all of us and supports $38 million in local spending and five hundred local jobs,” he said.
    In response to the lawsuit in December, the USDA and SBA denied violating any federal law. Earthjustice amended its complaint in late December adding some new facts and claims regarding violation of the Endangered Species Act.

    “The government should be responding to that by the end of January,” Chang said. “We have agreed with the government on a briefing schedule. This is a case where we are asking the court to review what the agencies did in creating the loan. We filed the original complaint in August, and a lot has been going on since then. The state government is now using taxpayer money to do additional monitoring and studies, which is good because ADEQ gave it such a quick review but now wants to monitor it. Assuming everything goes forward as planned, briefings should be finished in early May, and then the court should decide to schedule oral arguments.”

    Chang said the environmental groups have a strong case in showing that the federal agencies didn’t give the permit the proper scrutiny.
    “That is a major weakness that the government just sort of rubber stamped it,” Chang said.

    A positive outcome to the case could have nationwide implications if it makes it more difficult to get government-backed loans for CAFOs.
    “We’re optimistic,” Cross said. “We are also looking at other legal options. There are certainly some other significant areas that can be explored. In this current lawsuit, the other side has such a weak case we believe we will prevail to have the loan guarantee withdrawn. We are hopeful the real force behind this, Cargill, will see the light one of these days and do something about this. The best outcome for everyone would be to have the farm moved.”

    Cross said residents who want to have an impact on the issue should “not be quiet about it. Write to the governor. Write to the ADEQ. Write letters to the newspapers. Contact Cargill’s new president. Don’t let the issue die.”

    Watkins said people should also write their state and federal representatives and ask that this facility be closed and no more be allowed in the Buffalo River watershed. People can visit the BRWA website (www.brwa.org) to learn much more and donate there, or on the sites of the coalition partners, to help support the efforts.

Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization

Copyright @ 2019


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software