what's New This Page contains all Media posts

ADEQ notified C&H yesterday of a necessary permit modification with a new notice of intent and nutrient management plan.  This will be a major modification requiring a public notice on ADEQ's website with a 30-day comment period.  We will post when public notice has been made and comment period is open.  Access letter at link below:

JUDGE FILES SCHEDULE IN HOG FARM SUIT

By　Ryan McGeeney

Posted: February 9, 2014 at 1:41 a.m.

A lawsuit seeking a new environmental assessment of the possible effect of a Newton County hog farm on its natural surroundings has moved one step closer to resolution.

Judge D.P. Marshall Jr., a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Western Arkansas Division in Little Rock, issued a finalized legal-proceedings schedule Wednesday in Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, et al., v. Department of Agriculture, et al.

The schedule is the 25th document filed in the case that began in August when Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental litigation group, filed suit against defendants that include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Small Business Administration and several top administrators in branches throughout both agencies.

The lawsuit questions the validity of the environmental impact study conducted by the Farm Service Agency in support of loan guarantees that were issued to the owners of C&H Hog Farms, a concentrated animal feeding operation built last year in Mount Judea. The farm, which is permitted by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to house about 2,500 full-grown sows and as many as 4,000 piglets at any one time, is near Big Creek, a major tributary to the Buffalo National River. In addition to seeking a new environmental impact study, the suit asks the court to enjoin the loan guarantees.

According to documents previously filed in the case, on March 6 lawyers for the plaintiffs are to file a request for summary judgment asking the judge to issue a ruling in their favor with out them presenting additional evidence in the case, along with a brief supporting their argument. On April 7, lawyers for the defendants are scheduled to file a motion opposing the request for summary judgment.

While the suit, which grew out of a public outcry over the Environmental Quality Department’s decision to issue a wastewater permit to a facility that’s estimated to generate more than 2 million gallons of manure a year near a national park, and a perceived lack of adequate public notice, it’s likely thathog farming in Arkansas will remain essentially unchanged.

The production facility, which contracts with Cargill Inc. to provide weaned piglets for eventual processing as pork, is surrounded by about 630 acres of grasslands on which C&H Farms operators are permitted to spread the hog manure as fertilizer. According to an inspection dated Jan. 23, operators at C&H Hog Farms began spreading the manure in late December 2013, applying more than 100,000 gallons of the waste on 40 acres between Dec. 27 and Jan. 20.

Although C&H Hog Farms is the first and only operation in Arkansas to receive a general permit for concentrated animal feeding operations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Arkansas began regulating similar operations in 1992 under "Regulation 5" individual permits. Federal permits for concentrated animal feeding operations didn’tappear until 2003, according to Environmental Protection Agency documents. The initial regulations were finalized in 2008.

According to the state department’s permit database, there are more than 260 facilities in the state that have active individual permits for concentrated animal feeding operations.

Nearly three-quarters of those are hog operations. Most of the rest are either dairy farms or chicken egg producers. Only one farm - at the Arkansas Department of Corrections Cummins Unit in Grady - has a Regulation 5 permit for general livestock.

Sevier and Howard counties have the most Regulation 5 hog farms in the state, with more than 50 active individual permits for concentrated animal feeding operations between those two counties. But hog farms dot the northwestern half of the state. And though much of the public debate over C&H Hog Farms centers on the wisdom of having a large farm so close to a river, there have been multiple Regulation 5 concentrated animal feeding operations within the river’s watershed for decades.

Mike Martin, a Cargill spokesman, said neither public debate nor the ongoing lawsuit are likely to affect the company’s decisions regarding farm contracts in Arkansas. "Cargill currently has no plan to significantly alter its hog production footprint in Arkansas," Martin said. He said the company considers many factors when working with contract farms, and the regulatory environment is only one of them.

Martin said Cargill currently has contracts with 87 hog farms in Arkansas, and that C&H Hog Farms is "a relatively small [concentrated animal feeding operation] by today’s standards."

Regardless of the success or failure of Earthjustice’s suit against the USDA, the case is likely to have very little of an effect on the future of hog farming in Arkansas, said Steve Eddington, a spokesman for the Arkansas Farm Bureau.

"I don’t hear complaints about environmental regulations, other than that they’re in place, and they’ve got to comply," Eddington said of farmers. "I’m not hearing, ‘Well, I’m not going to do this because of the environmental regulations.’"

Eddington said the biggest thing that affected hog farming in the state was the decision by Tyson Foods Inc. more than a decade ago to stop contracting with hog farmers in the region.Tyson Foods was a major "integrator" in terms of buying weaned piglets from multiple farmers for slaughter operations.

In 2002, Tyson began phasing out contracts with more than 130 hog farmers in Arkansas and Oklahoma, according to previous Arkansas Democrat-Gazette articles. The move meant that Arkansas ceased being a primary pork-producing state. Between 2004 and 2013, hog inventory in the state fell from more than 325,000 head to about 115,000, while overall U.S. farmed hog inventory rose from about 60 million head to about 66 million over that same time period.

Jerry Masters, executive vice president of the Arkansas Pork Producers Association, said the effect of Tyson’s decision on independent hog farmers was felt immediately.

At one time "we were 10th in the nation in hog production," Masters said. "When Tyson pulled out, we lost 65 percent of production in just a few months. Now, we’re not in the top 20. It was a dramatic, dramatic change in the industry in our state."

Masters said current efforts to change the notification requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations in the state are unlikely to dissuade future generations of farmers from entering the business. "I really don’t think it’ll have an effect," Masters said. "Agriculture is more than a job or career, it’s a way of life."

One result of the public outcry over the permitting process for C&H Hog Farms was the creation of a special committee, appointed by Gov. Mike Beebe, to make recommendations to the state Legislative Council about changes in notification policies regarding future concentrated animal feeding operations permits.

Environmental Quality Department spokesman Katherine Benenati said the five-member committee met twice last year - on Nov. 18 and Dec. 20 - and submitted its recommendations to the Legislative Council on Jan. 16, after reviewing comments received during a public comment period.

Ross Noland, a lawyer with the Little Rock-based lobbying group Arkansas Policy Panel and a member of the recommendation committee, said the committee’s recommendations were based in large part on practices in neighboring states. The recommendations included requiring permit applicants to notify property owners adjacent to the proposed facility, the county judge of the facility’s county, mayors of all municipalities within 10 miles of the site, and the superintendents of the school district that serves the area in question.

A co-chairman of the Legislative Council, state Sen. Bill Sample, R-Hot Springs, said the recommendations report won’t be discussed until the legislative fiscal session ends, probably in March or April. At that point, Sample said, the report will likely be referred to a standing committee, such as the Budget Committee, for review. That committee will then report its recommendations back to the Legislative Council.

Another outcome from public concern over C&H Hog Farms was the allocation of more than $340,000 in state funds to conduct extensive, ongoing water and soil testing in and around the Big Creek Watershed. Andrew Sharpley, a professor with the University of Arkansas Department of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences, was appointed to lead the Big Creek Research and Extension Team.

Sharpley said his research team had been working with residents, who have been collecting weekly water samples since September 2013 to establish "baseline data" for water quality in Big Creek, the Buffalo National River and some wells in the area.

Sharpley said the samples are analyzed at a UA laboratory in Fayetteville for nitrogen phosphates, ammonia nitrate, e.coli and a number of nutrients. Sharpley said periodically researchers will send "blind samples" to other EPA-certified labs in the region to verify their overall findings.

On Friday, the researchers released their first quarterly report, which primarily detailed existing conditions in the area. According to the report, the team will begin installing surface and subsurface monitoring equipment during the coming quarter.

Northwest Arkansas, Pages 11 on 02/09/2014

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

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.

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

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

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

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.

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