Menu
Log in


Buffalo River Watershed Alliance

Log in

what's New This Page contains all Media posts

  • 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.
  • 07 Jan 2014 9:21 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Billboard stirs hog farm controversy
     

    Photo submitted 
    This is a billboard on U.S. 65 South near Western Grove. Could it be warning of impending pollution from the ADEQ-permitted hog farm in Mt. Judea near Big Creek, a tributary to the Buffalo National River?


    Posted: Monday, January 6, 2014 12:46 pm |
    Staff report | 0 comments

    A billboard, apparently calling attention to the controversial operation of a state-permitted commercial hog farm at Mt. Judea within the Buffalo National River watershed, recently went up on U.S. 65 South near Western Grove.
    The sign reads:
    “Come Enjoy the Buffalo River
    It’s Not Polluted .... Yet”
    And is followed by what looks to be an e-mail address:whos905@outlook.com
    The Newton County Times sent a message to the address asking who is responsible for the sign and its actual meaning, but received no reply as of press time.
    A sign similar in appearance, though calling attention to racial issues, appeared in Harrison late last year and has generated state-wide and national conversation.
    Though the sign at Western Grove does not specifically mention the hog farm, located near Big Creek which is a tributary to the Buffalo National River, the controversy over the farm and its location continues to spread nationally. In December the New York Times published a story about the farm and it appears on its website under the headline 2,500 Pigs Join Debate Over Farms vs. Scenery.
    Written by John Eligon, the story relates both sides of the argument for and against the farm in comments from local residents Anita Hudson, Sam Dye, Glen Ricketts and Charles Campbell; Buffalo River Superintendent Kevin Cheri, environmental and conservation groups, as well as hog industry spokespeople and state officials including Teresa Marks, the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.
    The controversy began when ADEQ granted coverage in August 2012 to C & H Hog Farms under a General Permit for Concentrated Feeding Operations (CAFOs). C & H was the first facility that sought coverage under the CAFO General Permit and to date is the only facility that has been approved under the General Permit.
    The CAFO permit program was the result of a 2003 lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency that required EPA to regulate concentrated animal feeding operations. States that had delegation from EPA for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit programs were required to either adopt the EPA permit or develop their own permit for concentrated animal feeding operations.
    ADEQ held six public hearings in 2011 before adopting the General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Such operations include hog farms, dairy farms and poultry farms. However, the agency was not required to advertise or hold public hearings locally prior to issuing the permits which raised the ire of conservation groups.
    ADEQ held an informational meeting in Jasper May 8, 2013, to provide information on the permit it already issued to C & H Hog Farms to operate.
    Marks is quoted by the New York Times reporter as saying that while the public should have been better notified about the operation before approval, she had enough confidence in the environmental integrity of the project that it would not have affected the ultimate outcome.
    “Will there be some of this waste that could reach the Buffalo River? Sure,” she said. “Will it cause an environmental problem? No, we don’t think there’s going to be any environmental harm caused.”
  • 04 Jan 2014 1:04 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Swine versus scenery?
    http://mikemastersonsmessenger.com/nytimes-hogs-verses-scenery/

    By Mike Masterson
    Posted: January 4, 2014 at 2:16 a.m.
     
    The New York Times story of the controversial C&H Hog Farms planted by Cargill Inc. and local owners in the Buffalo National River watershed last fall finally was published in late December.

    Reporter John Eligon, the Times’ Midwest correspondent, traveled to Mount Judea and the hog farm to conduct interviews and see for himself the potential for environmental calamity it presents.

    All in all, I believe Eligon did a good job of presenting both sides of the contentious matter. At least this travesty allowed by our state’s Department of Environmental Quality (cough) is now on record across the nation and the world.

    Having reported for metro papers during the Pleistocene Era, I also understand the frustration from waiting for editors to have their turns at justifying their jobs by making their changes before deeming any story fit for their standard of publication. It took Eligon’s piece weeks to make it into the Times.

    When it was published, I felt the headline writer (not Eligon) did an extreme disservice by flatly missing the point of the widespread opposition to the state’s first hog factory being plopped in the middle of such a pristine and treasured location.

    Instead of accurately reading: “2,500 Swine Join Debate over Farms vs. Potential Pollution of National River,” the headline instead proclaimed: “2,500 Pigs Join Debate over Farms vs. Scenery.” Say what? Scenery? The public concern clearly is over potentially despoiling the water quality in the Buffalo, not affecting the “scenery.”

    The dispute, from the time our state’s Environmental Quality Department granted a permit for this factory without insisting upon baseline and groundwater flow tests in this fractured limestone (karst)-riddled soil, has been over the realistic possibility that millions of gallons of hog waste being stored in lagoons and routinely spread on numerous fields adjacent to Big Creek would wind up flowing along that tributary into the Buffalo River six miles downstream.

    Special interests predictably argue that’s just fear mongering. I’d invite those folks to review the environmental disasters from just this sort of calamity happening in rivers in states such as North Carolina and Iowa.

    So, I was disappointed the Times headline writer chose to take such a wholly misleading approach to explaining the concern over this needless threat to the water quality of America’s first National River. I was even less than reassured by the comment in Eligon’s story from my email friend, Mike Martin, who routinely speaks for Cargill.

    “We believe that modern farming and environmental conservation and protecting the environment can co-exist,” he said. “A lot of the fear and concern is based on a ‘what if’ scenario that may never take place.” Can I then deduce that “may never” by definition means such contamination also “may” take place?

    That’s been exactly the point. Why risk that very real possibility occurring in this worst possible location?

    Eligon wrote that environmental groups filed a federal lawsuit against the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration in an attempt to block $3.4 million in loan guarantees awarded to C&H. The suit argues that the agencies failed to properly consider the factory’s environmental impact. The story, however, did not say that the FSA agent who shepherded that loan guarantee through his agency is related by marriage to members who own and operate this factory.

    Environmental Quality Director Teresa Marks conceded that the public should have been better notified about the factory before her agency approved it. She told the Times she had sufficient confidence in the environmental integrity of the proposal that it wouldn’t have affected the outcome in issuing her agency’s permit. Really now?

    How (as the purported leader of preserving all things environmental in our state) could Marks possibly exude such confidence?

    But then Marks plopped a chunk of pineapple on this big ol’ slice of verbal ham by actually admitting: “Will there be some of this waste that could reach the Buffalo River? Sure.”

    That’s quite an damning admission to make before the taxpayers of Arkansas for someone confidently enjoying the fruits of politically appointed office. Yet not to fear, since this same director who didn’t know her agency was approving the hog factory then said she didn’t think there’d be any environmental harm even if such a leakage scenario came to pass.

    Whew, I feel all better about this mess now. How ’bout you?
  • 02 Jan 2014 10:57 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    It's a quandary of food production: The same drive for efficiency that lowers the cost of eating also can damage our soil and water.
    Take the case of one simple, essential, chemical element: phosphorus.
    Phosphorus is one of the nutrients that plants need to grow, and for most of human history, farmers always needed more of it. "There was this battle to have enough available phosphorus for optimum crop production," says Kenneth Staver, a scientist with the University of Maryland's Wye Research and Education Center, which sits between farm fields and the Chesapeake Bay on Maryland's Eastern Shore.
    That's also the tension in this story: Agriculture on one side, and water quality on the other.
    Traditionally, farmers got phosphorus from animal manure. So if you grew crops like corn or wheat, it was good to have poultry or hogs nearby. Your grain fed the animals, and their manure fed your crops. Everything worked together.
    Then came industrial fertilizer: Big phosphorus mines; factories for making the other important nutrient, nitrogen; and railroads or highways to carry that fertilizer to any farmer who needed it.
    "With the development of the inorganic fertilizer industry, it's possible to grow grain without having animals nearby. So you can de-couple the animal agriculture from the grain agriculture," Staver says.
    And de-couple they did. Farmers concentrated on just one kind of production. So did entire regions. Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama, for instance, now produce the largest number of chickens undefined more than a billion of them every year. But they don't grow much chicken feed. They haul in grain from far away.
    As that grain flows from fields to chicken houses, or hog farms, so do the nutrients in it, such as phosphorus and nitrogen.
    Some of it goes into meat that people eat, but a lot goes into animal waste.
    This is where the problem starts. Farmers near those chicken houses or hog farms often take lots of that manure and spread it on their fields, partly just to get rid of it and partly for its value as fertilizer. Crops, however, need much more nitrogen than phosphorus. When farmers use manure to give their crops an optimal amount of nitrogen, they over-supply phosphorus.
    "This is happening everywhere," Staver says. "Where you have large concentrations of animal production, you tend to have a buildup of nutrients undefined phosphorus is the one that accumulates undefined in soils around concentrated animal-producing regions."
    Wherever it accumulates, rain washes it into streams, lakes and estuaries, where it's an ecological disaster.
    "It drives algae growth, so it ends up clouding the water. You don't get the light penetration to support the rooted aquatic plants that are important in the food chain," Staver says. "You also get these algae blooms, and when they die, they draw oxygen from the water. You get dead zones."
    In many places, environmental regulators are trying to stop this buildup of phosphorus.
    Until recently, it looked like Maryland was taking the lead. The state has a big poultry industry right beside the Chesapeake Bay, which has been choked with nutrient pollution.
    Last year, Maryland proposed new rules that would have stopped farmers from putting more phosphorus on any fields that already have too much of it. It required soil tests to determine a key phosphorus index number.
    Lee Richardson, a farmer in Willards, Md., was worried. "The word we were getting undefined if [your fields] were over 150, you weren't going to spread manure," he says. Most of his fields are over that level.
    The manure ban would have hit him two different ways.
    First, he grows chickens; if their manure couldn't go on his fields, it would have to go somewhere else. "Chances are, growers were going to have to pay to get it hauled away, and taken out of the chicken house," he says.
    Second, his corn fields still need nitrogen. Without manure as a nitrogen source, he'd have to buy the manufactured kind of fertilizer, which is more expensive.
    Richardson and other farmers protested, arguing that the new rules would inflict huge economic harm, while the environmental benefits are uncertain.
    In November, the state of Maryland backed down. It promised to study the issue some more. Kenneth Staver, from the University of Maryland, says it's not that hard to imagine a solution to the problem.
    "The obvious one is, find a way to re-distribute the phosphorus from the animal production facilities back to where the crop production is," he says. The manure would have to travel to the vast fields that farmers currently fertilize with fresh, mined phosphorus.
    Hauling manure such distances would cost money. Staver says, it's the price of cleaner, healthier water.
    If farmers have to pay that cost, growing chickens or hogs will get more expensive.
    Then we, the consumers, would pay for it, through more expensive meat.

  • 30 Dec 2013 10:21 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Arkansas Democrat Gazette - 12/28/13

    Deadly pig virus spreading in U.S.

    By Tina Parker


    A virus responsible for killing a large portion of the nation’s pig herd is accelerating, experts said Friday.

    The porcine epidemic diarrhea virus, known as PEDV, is a highly contagious corona virus that causes diarrhea, nausea and death in swine and is spread through ingesting contaminated manure,said Tom Burkgren, veterinarian and executive director of the American Association of Swine Veterinarians.

    While the association does not know how the virus is carried from farm to farm, it does know it can be transmitted through exposed clothing and equipment.

    “It can be transmitted from a shovel, boots, clothes, trucks, trailers and perhaps rodents or birds,” Burkgren said. “Anything that comes in contact with manure can be a transmission route.”

    Although it can be spread through clothing, the virus does not affect humans - only pigs.

    “There’s no concern about human or food safety at all with this virus,” Burkgren added.

    The fast-spreading virus,first diagnosed in U.S.-raised swine in May, has had a major effect on pork producers since its introduction and is attributed to more than 1.4 million pig deaths nationally from September-December alone, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department’s quarterly hogs and pigs report that was issued Friday. So far, there are no reports of the virus in Arkansas-raised pigs.

    The U.S. inventory of all hogs and pigs on Dec. 1 was 65.9 million head, down 1 percent from Dec. 1, 2012, and down 2 percent from Sept. 1, the USDA report said.

    “We’re not even looking from when the disease started in April or May,” said Altin Kalo, chief economist with Steiner Consulting Group.

    “In diagnostic lab cases, we have seen more positive cases in December,” Burkgren said. “The virus likes cooler weather and is easier transmitted in lower temperatures.”

    While there are no true impact numbers, Kalo is concerned about the impact the virus will have on the market.

    Among the 2,700 independent hog farmers that Tyson Foods Inc. buys from, there has been an increase in the virus since late October, specifically in parts of the Midwest, said Worth Sparkman, public relations manager for Tyson.

    To prevent transmission, Sparkman said his company is mindful of biosecurity on farms.

    “We’re also talking with pork industry officials about other measures meat processors and those transporting hogs can take [to] help prevent the spread of the disease(e.g. cleaning, disinfecting, reduced foot traffic from truckers),” Sparkman wrote in an email.

    The virus is common in Europe where it was first identified in 1971. The strain that entered the U.S. is virtually identical to a strain in China that was reported in 2012, said Liz Wagstrom, chief veterinarian for the National Pork Producers Council.

    “The question is how it got from China and how long it had been in China previous to that,” she said.
  • 29 Dec 2013 3:58 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/us/2500-pigs-join-debate-over-farms-vs-scenery.html?_r=1&

    By John Eligon

    MOUNT JUDEA, Ark. Anita Hudson’s moment of realization came early this year when she saw cement trucks whizzing past her home in this blip of an Ozark town. For Sam Dye, it was when an employee at the school where he once was principal pointed out bulldozers clearing a wooded area in the distance.

    Jewell Fowler, 87, found out about the farm after it had been approved. “I was just sick over it undefined I just couldn’t believe it. I’m just afraid of the stink, maybe contamination, make people sick.”

    For many months, Ms. Hudson and Mr. Dye had been among those who brushed off rumors that a large hog farm would be built here in the scenic watershed of the Buffalo River.

    But now they were confronting reality: a farm that could house as many as 6,500 hogs was being built near them, within the pristine ecosystem of the Buffalo undefined designated America’s first “national river” and overseen by the National Park Service. Since then, the operation, C&H Hog Farms undefined which began producing piglets for the agricultural giant Cargill in the spring undefined has divided the community, drawn scrutiny from environmentalists, politicians, and state and federal officials, and left many wondering how one of the largest hog operations in the so-called Natural State ended up in the heart of a major tourist area.

    For environmentalists, the development of the Mount Judea (pronounced Judy) hog farm provides a stark example of what they see as lax oversight of such farms by state and federal regulators. Many of them were dismayed last year, for instance, when the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew proposed regulations that would have required all concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to submit “basic operational information” and would have increased the number of such farms that require permits.

    But C&H Hog Farms has many supporters, who say that these farms have long dotted the watershed without causing major environmental damage. They argue that the owners of C&H followed all the required steps to obtain a permit and will do all they can to make sure that the farm does not hurt the ecosystem.

    “We believe that modern farming and environmental conservation and protecting the environment can coexist,” said Mike Martin, a spokesman for Cargill. “A lot of the fear and concern is based on a ‘what if’ scenario that may never take place.”

    The controversy simmers as a report released in October by a group of Harvard-led scientists found that nitrogen levels were too high in about half of the country’s national parks undefined in large part because of ammonia emitted into the air by agricultural operations, which can deprive fish of oxygen or drive out some vegetation in an ecosystem. This phenomenon is expected to worsen in coming decades as corporate farming increases, according to the report.

    In response to the uproar here, the state has temporarily imposed more stringent notification requirements for future CAFO applicants, acknowledging that many crucial players, including the superintendent of the river and the director of the state agency that permitted the operation, knew nothing about the project until after it had been approved.

    Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat, has allocated more than $340,000 to test and monitor the water quality in the watershed. Both of Arkansas’ United States senators undefined John Boozman, a Republican, and Mark Pryor, a Democrat undefined have said they were concerned about the location of the farm, and supported close monitoring.

    Environmental groups have filed a federal lawsuit against the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration to try to block $3.4 million in loan guarantees for the farm, arguing that the agencies had not properly considered its environmental impact.

    “I was just sick over it undefined I just couldn’t believe it,” said Jewell Fowler, 87, who found out about the hog farm after it had been approved, through a notice in a local newspaper. Born in Mount Judea, Ms. Fowler has lived for the past four decades in a wooden cabin on the banks of the Big Creek, one of the main tributaries to the Buffalo River: a quiet oasis where the trees emit a sugary scent and water laps over rocks in a soothing whir.

    “I’m just afraid of the stink, maybe contamination, make people sick,” Ms. Fowler said.

    But the farm in Mount Judea has received considerable support, not least from some residents who live close by. Many see it as an economic bright spot in Newton County, which has high poverty.

    On a recent chilly morning, a scent evoking a mucky lagoon curled over the hill where Glen Ricketts lives. He cracked a smile.

    “You smell it,” he said.

    From Mr. Ricketts’s property, looking down a valley in the distance, a pair of white triangular roofs pop up like fins amid a sea of trees. They are the large barns that house the pigs.

    “Reason why it don’t bother us, we’re just hillbillies,” said Mr. Ricketts, 55, who is related by marriage to some of the farm’s owners. “When you’re raised up around a hog, it don’t bother you.”

    Charles Campbell, 77, has permitted the farm’s owners to spray some of the manure on his land.

    “I don’t think that it would pollute the river at all,” he said. “I’ve lived in this country for, well, all my life, and cattle and hogs has been raised up and down the creek here, and to me it ain’t bothered nothing so far.”This, however, is unlike any other hog operation in the area. With just over 2,500 sows undefined producing thousands of piglets undefined C&H has more of them than all of the other hog farms now operating in the Buffalo River watershed combined.

    The farm, its operators say, produces nearly 1.5 million gallons of hog manure a year if it runs at capacity. The waste is being stored in large lagoons and sprayed as fertilizer on nearby fields, some of them close to the Big Creek. Ten of the 17 fields that will receive fertilizer will have dangerously high phosphorous levels within a year, Kevin Cheri, the superintendent of the Buffalo River for the National Park Service, wrote in a letter to the Farm Service Agency.

    Environmentalists also worry that rain could cause the manure to run off into streams and creeks, especially because of the type of topography in the area. Known as karst, it is essentially a permeable limestone rock with many cracks and caves beneath the surface that water flows through quickly and easily, potentially allowing contaminants from the manure to seep into the ground and settle throughout the watershed. Some business owners worry that pollution would devastate tourism. The river attracts more than a million visitors each year for hiking, horseback riding and canoeing.

    “There is a probably greater than 95 percent chance that we are going to see impacts of degraded water quality and major environmental degradation,” said John Van Brahana, a recently retired hydrogeologist from the University of Arkansas who has conducted tests in the area.

    Supporters of the farm argue that unlike the small operations that have been common throughout the watershed, this one uses more environmentally friendly technology to prevent pollution. For one thing, the lagoons holding the waste are larger than required and use a clay liner that will prevent leakage, supporters have said. (Dr. Brahana said he believed the type of clay the operation was using would leak.)

    C&H was the first undefined and still the only undefined hog farm in the state approved through a new general permit that officials created for CAFOs to comply with federal rules. That permit did not require the strict procedures for notifying neighbors required for other agricultural permits in the state.

    Even some of the farm’s staunchest opponents said its owners were good, hardworking people looking to make a living, but they were critical of how they went about establishing the operation.

    Teresa Marks, the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, said that while the public should have been better notified about the operation before approval, she had enough confidence in the environmental integrity of the project that it would not have affected the ultimate outcome.

    “Will there be some of this waste that could reach the Buffalo River? Sure,” she said. “Will it cause an environmental problem? No, we don’t think there’s going to be any environmental harm caused.”
  • 27 Dec 2013 10:22 PM | Anonymous
    2,500 Pigs Join Debate Over Farms vs. Scenery - NYTimes.com.pdf

    MOUNT JUDEA, Ark. undefined Anita Hudson’s moment of realization came early this year when she saw cement trucks whizzing past her home in this blip of an Ozark town. For Sam Dye, it was when an employee at the school where he once was principal pointed out bulldozers clearing a wooded area in the distance.

    For many months, Ms. Hudson and Mr. Dye had been among those who brushed off rumors that a large hog farm would be built here in the scenic watershed of the Buffalo River.

    But now they were confronting reality: a farm that could house as many as 6,500 hogs was being built near them, within the pristine ecosystem of the Buffalo undefined designated America’s first “national river” and overseen by the National Park Service. Since then, the operation, C&H Hog Farms undefined which began producing piglets for the agricultural giant Cargill in the spring undefined has divided the community, drawn scrutiny from environmentalists, politicians, and state and federal officials, and left many wondering how one of the largest hog operations in the so-called Natural State ended up in the heart of a major tourist area.

    For environmentalists, the development of the Mount Judea (pronounced Judy) hog farm provides a stark example of what they see as lax oversight of such farms by state and federal regulators. Many of them were dismayed last year, for instance, when the Environmental Protection Agency withdrew proposed regulations that would have required all concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, to submit “basic operational information” and would have increased the number of such farms that require permits.

    But C&H Hog Farms has many supporters, who say that these farms have long dotted the watershed without causing major environmental damage. They argue that the owners of C&H followed all the required steps to obtain a permit and will do all they can to make sure that the farm does not hurt the ecosystem.

    “We believe that modern farming and environmental conservation and protecting the environment can coexist,” said Mike Martin, a spokesman for Cargill. “A lot of the fear and concern is based on a ‘what if’ scenario that may never take place.”

    The controversy simmers as a report released in October by a group of Harvard-led scientists found that nitrogen levels were too high in about half of the country’s national parks undefined in large part because of ammonia emitted into the air by agricultural operations, which can deprive fish of oxygen or drive out some vegetation in an ecosystem. This phenomenon is expected to worsen in coming decades as corporate farming increases, according to the report.

    In response to the uproar here, the state has temporarily imposed more stringent notification requirements for future CAFO applicants, acknowledging that many crucial players, including the superintendent of the river and the director of the state agency that permitted the operation, knew nothing about the project until after it had been approved.

    Gov. Mike Beebe of Arkansas, a Democrat, has allocated more than $340,000 to test and monitor the water quality in the watershed. Both of Arkansas’ United States senators undefined John Boozman, a Republican, and Mark Pryor, a Democrat undefined have said they were concerned about the location of the farm, and supported close monitoring.

    Environmental groups have filed a federal lawsuit against the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration to try to block $3.4 million in loan guarantees for the farm, arguing that the agencies had not properly considered its environmental impact.

    “I was just sick over it undefined I just couldn’t believe it,” said Jewell Fowler, 87, who found out about the hog farm after it had been approved, through a notice in a local newspaper. Born in Mount Judea, Ms. Fowler has lived for the past four decades in a wooden cabin on the banks of the Big Creek, one of the main tributaries to the Buffalo River: a quiet oasis where the trees emit a sugary scent and water laps over rocks in a soothing whir.

    “I’m just afraid of the stink, maybe contamination, make people sick,” Ms. Fowler said.

    But the farm in Mount Judea has received considerable support, not least from some residents who live close by. Many see it as an economic bright spot in Newton County, which has high poverty.

    On a recent chilly morning, a scent evoking a mucky lagoon curled over the hill where Glen Ricketts lives. He cracked a smile.

    “You smell it,” he said.

    From Mr. Ricketts’s property, looking down a valley in the distance, a pair of white triangular roofs pop up like fins amid a sea of trees. They are the large barns that house the pigs.

    “Reason why it don’t bother us, we’re just hillbillies,” said Mr. Ricketts, 55, who is related by marriage to some of the farm’s owners. “When you’re raised up around a hog, it don’t bother you.”

    Charles Campbell, 77, has permitted the farm’s owners to spray some of the manure on his land.

    “I don’t think that it would pollute the river at all,” he said. “I’ve lived in this country for, well, all my life, and cattle and hogs has been raised up and down the creek here, and to me it ain’t bothered nothing so far.”This, however, is unlike any other hog operation in the area. With just over 2,500 sows undefined producing thousands of piglets undefined C&H has more of them than all of the other hog farms now operating in the Buffalo River watershed combined.

    The farm, its operators say, produces nearly 1.5 million gallons of hog manure a year if it runs at capacity. The waste is being stored in large lagoons and sprayed as fertilizer on nearby fields, some of them close to the Big Creek. Ten of the 17 fields that will receive fertilizer will have dangerously high phosphorous levels within a year, Kevin Cheri, the superintendent of the Buffalo River for the National Park Service, wrote in a letter to the Farm Service Agency.

    Environmentalists also worry that rain could cause the manure to run off into streams and creeks, especially because of the type of topography in the area. Known as karst, it is essentially a permeable limestone rock with many cracks and caves beneath the surface that water flows through quickly and easily, potentially allowing contaminants from the manure to seep into the ground and settle throughout the watershed. Some business owners worry that pollution would devastate tourism. The river attracts more than a million visitors each year for hiking, horseback riding and canoeing.

    “There is a probably greater than 95 percent chance that we are going to see impacts of degraded water quality and major environmental degradation,” said John Van Brahana, a recently retired hydrogeologist from the University of Arkansas who has conducted tests in the area.

    Supporters of the farm argue that unlike the small operations that have been common throughout the watershed, this one uses more environmentally friendly technology to prevent pollution. For one thing, the lagoons holding the waste are larger than required and use a clay liner that will prevent leakage, supporters have said. (Dr. Brahana said he believed the type of clay the operation was using would leak.)

    C&H was the first undefined and still the only undefined hog farm in the state approved through a new general permit that officials created for CAFOs to comply with federal rules. That permit did not require the strict procedures for notifying neighbors required for other agricultural permits in the state.

    Even some of the farm’s staunchest opponents said its owners were good, hardworking people looking to make a living, but they were critical of how they went about establishing the operation.

    Teresa Marks, the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, said that while

    the public should have been better notified about the operation before approval, she had enough confidence in the environmental integrity of the project that it would not have affected the ultimate outcome.

    “Will there be some of this waste that could reach the Buffalo River? Sure,” she said. “Will it cause an environmental problem? No, we don’t think there’s going to be any environmental harm caused.” 

  • 22 Dec 2013 8:53 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Hog suit roots on
    On the river

    By Mike Masterson
    Posted: December 22, 2013 at 2:25 a.m.
     
    Since many who love the Buffalo National River might be wondering on this Sunday before Christmas (when visions of spiral-sliced ham could be dancing in so many heads), I can report there is a development in that federal lawsuit filed in connection with C&H Hog Farms. The factory that was so inappropriately, and quietly, plopped down last fall near Mount Judea in the river’s watershed. You probably thought I’d plum forgotten about that matter. Fat chance.

    In its response to the civil suit filed earlier this year against the U.S. Small Business Administration and the Department of Agriculture by Earthrise Law Center, and Arkansas attorney Hank Bates along with Earthjustice (on behalf of three Arkansas conservation and environmental organizations and the National Parks Conservation Association), the Department of Justice actually conceded to several of the plaintiffs’ accusations.

    I find that unusual since it’s routine in most suits for the defendant to simply blanket-deny every allegation.Hannah Chang, senior associate attorney for Earthjustice, told me some of those admissions were worth noting.

    ◊The environmental assessment report submitted by the USDA Farm Service Agency in connection with it sloan guarantee for the hog factory does mistakenly identify the National Park Service as a “cooperating agency.” The park service contends it knew nothing about the farm being permitted until after the state had done so.

    ◊The FSA issued its assessment without further communication with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service after that agency said that threatened and protected species did indeed exist in the watershed. More on this later.◊The SBA failed to prepare a required National Environmental Policy Act analysis regarding its approval of the loan-assistance guarantee.

    ◊And the FSA did not seek to confer with the park service (overseers of the Buffalo National River) during the approval process even though they are located in the same federal building in Harrison.

    Chang said the FSA wrote in its assessment that it had obtained clearance on any endangered species in the watershed from “Arkansas Fish and Wildlife,” even though no such agency even exists. Under the Endangered Species Act, the FSA is required to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Chang said.

    In paragraph 100 of the answer, the government claims its reference to “Arkansas Fish and Wildlife” actually was meant to be a reference to the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, which, even if true, is irrelevant because the agency isn’t required to obtain determinations from the state’s game and fish department, she added. Yet then, in paragraph 113 of its response, the government claims, again inconsistently, that actually their reference was intended to be to the “U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,” she said.

    Chang said her next move will be to file an amended complaint Monday and wait until January for another government response. The briefing schedule stretches on until at least March, when the plaintiffs will move for a summary judgment in the case. By that time, I suspect the factory will be up to full steam, generating many thousands of tons of waste to be spread on fields surrounding Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo six miles downstream. Ah, the wheels of justice do grind on and on.

    Meanwhile, I sent my new email friend Michael Martin, a communications executive for Cargill, another message the other day. I wanted to know what’s new with that multinational corporation and the factory it sponsors. He responded: “Until we see, and have a chance to evaluate, whatever the final plan is from the governor’s office and University of Arkansas, we really can’t comment. We will likely have some questions, and suspect there will be follow-up discussions involving a variety of stakeholders. As far as Cargill is concerned, nothing has been taken off the table.” I’m betting especially not that spiral ham.

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

Copyright @ 2019


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software