what's New This Page contains all Media posts

Beebe Calls for Inspections and Possibility of Legislation for Hog Farm on Buffalo River
UALR Public Radio
 
By JACOB KAUFFMAN
 
Governor Beebe's Weekly Radio Address


Buffalo National River
The newly built C&H Hog Farm near the Buffalo River may be getting additional water quality inspections. Governor Mike Beebe says he wants to use $250,000 of surplus money to have the University of Arkansas monitor potential waste run-off from the farm.

The operation is the first Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation in the state. In his weekly radio address, Beebe said the unique designation of a national river requires extra protections.

“I recognize that the stakes are especially high when the Buffalo River is involved. There may be future legislation involved to address this specific issue. For the immediate future I expect that this extra monitoring will put minds at ease and ensure that America’s first National River will always be protected and preserved.”

Beebe said this is an extraordinary step not necessary for other farms.

“I chose this action for two reasons. First, we all share the desire to preserve the pristine nature of the Buffalo River. In addition, this hog farm is the first in the state to receive what is called a CAFO, or concentrated animal feeding operation permit.”

Beebe will be asking the Legislative Council in November for funds to be used by the University of Arkansas for increased monitoring.

The Governor says if the results show harm, the state could take action, including a cease and desist order.

Why I’m not Cargill’s CEO

Mike Masterson


As you might imagine, I, too, receive lots of messages. So it was no surprise to see an email from someone signed only as “A Concerned Arkansas Legislator” arrive in the inbox.
This one told of “an interesting rumor” floating around the state Capitol. It claimed Cargill Inc., the multinational supplier of up to as many as 6,500 swine to the controversial C&H Hog Farms ensconced in the Buffalo National River watershed at Mount Judea, is against water-quality testing and monitoring proposed by the governor in concert with the University of Arkansas.
Opposed? How could that possibly be? Why wouldn’t the ultimate provider for this waste-producing hog factory that relies solely on consumer support want to know if its product might be polluting the Buffalo? I’d sure want to know if I was involved in anything so destructive to God’s Country. Wouldn’t you?
The unconfirmed Arkansas politician who addressed the message “to whom it may concern,” sure seemed informed enough to me.
“It’s my understanding that U of A, Farm Bureau and the farmers support the testing but Cargill isn’t on board,” the email read. The politician goes on to say at least two people from the Farm Bureau and UA say the University of Arkansas is continuing to work on a proposal. “I’m not sure why Cargill is opposed but I hear Farm Bureau and the farmers want to know if the farm is polluting. They don’t believe it is but want to fix it if something isn’t working. I hope you can find out more …”
Well, without hamming it up too badly, I went to rootin’ around in hopes of bringing home the bacon in terms of some kind of clear response from pork-providing Cargill.
Can’t believe I just wrote that sentence. Actually, it tickled me pink.
When a cloud of mental hickory smoke lingered after my email exchange with Michael Martin of Cargill’s communications division, I still felt shamefully ignorant of where exactly the mega-corporation stands on even having the water tested and monitored in the national river’s watershed.
See if you have any idea of the corporation’s position from the following messages. If so, feel free to share your insights.
Me: “Hi again Michael MartinundefinedCan you please tell me where Cargill stands with regard to the governor’s proposal to have the University of Arkansas perform water quality studies and monitoring in and around the C&H Hog Farms and the Buffalo River watershed to ensure there is no contamination escaping from the hog CAFO. I … hear … Cargill is opposed to such studies while the Farm Bureau and others support having them done. So to set (and keep) record straight, does Cargill oppose or support such studies funded by the state? My best, and yes, I did in fact have crispy bacon for breakfast this morning.”
Martin: “Mike: 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 hope this is helpful.”
Me: “MikeundefinedHmmm. So does that then mean you support the state conducting water quality analysis studies and monitoring in the watershed at all? I’m kind of slow, Mike, and sometimes need things spelled out real clearly.”
Martin: “As you might imagine, we can’t comment on a proposal we haven’t seen. We will be in a better position to comment once we’ve seen the proposal and have an opportunity to evaluate it to determine if it will involve monitoring in a way that accounts for all sources that currently, or potentially, impact the river.”
No comment? All sources that currently or potentially impact the river? How can any animal-waste pollution or its sources possibly be known unless the runoff and groundwater is analyzed first?
Now, if I ran Cargill (I considered applying as its CEO, but they don’t much care for pesky columnists leading their corporation), I’d be bending over backwards to make sure none of my consumersensitive product was polluting something as ecologically sensitive as the country’s first national river and its watershed.
Why would I be even remotely opposed to supporting such studies unless I was concerned about what they might reveal?
Since I don’t have a problem making political contributions, I’d be eager to cough up say, oh, 5 seconds of my corporation’s worldwide earnings (it is America’s largest privately held corporation) to pay for such analyses ourselves rather than depending on the beleaguered Arkansas taxpayers and their “rainy day fund” in a relatively poor state.
To socialize that responsibility (which ought to belong to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality anyway) rather than willingly being accountable for my own swines’ waste sounds downright hoggish to me.
But as I’ve already told you, I’d likely make one boorish CEO for an all-bidness Cargill.
 
Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.

UA delays plan for testing near hog farm

$250K to monitor hog farm; Experts to map locations to drill monitoring wells and establish testing sites.

Beebe: state-funded independent monitoring of hog farm doesn't need landowner permission

Posted by David Ramsey on Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:48 PM



As noted on John Brummett's blog yesterday, Gov. Mike Beebe plans to proceed with a request for legislative approval to spend $250,000 in rainy day funds on testing and monitoring at theC&H Hog Farm in Mt. Judea. The facility has stirred controversy because of its proximity to a tributary of theBuffalo River and concerns about impacts on the community of Mt. Judea. Beebe said that he was hopeful that C&H undefined and surrounding landowners who have agreed to let C&H spray hog waste as fertilizer on their fields undefined would be on board. However, if approved by the Legislative Council, the state would have the legal authority, Beebe said, to proceed with the program with or without the permission of C&H or the owners of the spray fields.

"We’d always do normal monitoring under existing laws," Beebe said. "I felt like, with all of the concern that exists with regard to potential harm to the Buffalo or any of the watershed up there, I just thought we’d go further, be double sure and put in extensive monitoring undefined so if there is a problem, if the fears are legitimate, then we’ve got data and can immediately take steps to do whatever it takes to protect the environment." The monitoring would be conducted by water experts from the University of Arkansas, who are still developing the details and scope of the program.

Beebe said that administration officials would make a presentation on the program at the next Legislative Council meeting (set for next month). "I don't anticipate any problem," he said.

There have been murmurs that Cargill, the owner of the hogs and the farm’s sole customer, has given pushback to the idea (Cargill told us they had no comment until they see the actual proposal).

The governor, who said that he has not spoken directly with Cargill, said "we don't care about that."

The Farm Bureau and a bipartisan group of legislators undefined including Democrats Greg Leding and Warwick Sabin and Republicans David Branscum and Kelly Linck undefined have been generally positive about the idea of third-party testing. C&H has as well, though any resistance from Cargill would likely give them pause.

"We are hopeful for something that all parties can agree on," Farm Bureau spokesman Steve Eddington said. "Certainly the governor has some latitude to pursue testing and monitoring. But anything that significant is going to work best when all the appropriate parties are in agreement on the best way to accomplish it. We continue to work with the farmers at C&H to protect their interests."

The potential monitoring program would be led by Andrew Sharpley, a renowned soil and water quality expertat the University of Arkansas. Sharpley's team would in effect be deputized by the state, under the auspices and authority of ADEQ, to conduct their study. The governor said that after researching the question, his office has concluded that the state has the authority to do so "with or without landowners' permission" from either C&H or owners of the spray fields.

ADEQ Director Teresa Marks said that she has not yet had extensive discussions with the U of A researchers about the project. "We want to go ahead and let them do whatever they need to do to make sure they get a good and thorough study," she said. Marks said that if they discovered a problem linked to the farm, they could potentially recall and revise either the general permit that C&H is operating under or the specific nutrient management plan C&H developed as part of the permit (in either scenario, C&H would be given a period of time to make corrections, during which they could continue to operate under the general permit).

"If none of that works, ultimately it could all be denied," Beebe added. He said that it was important that the study focus on any possible environmental harm directly connected to the operation of the farm. "If that shows there’s harm to that river then it would be my instructions that we do whatever is necessary to immediately cease that harm," he said. Beebe said it was difficult to speculate on state response because it is unknown what the potential U of A study will find, but in the case of an extreme problem: "if it was catastrophic, all immediate remedial action including but not limited to 'cease and desist' would be an option available for the state."

One point to bear in mind politically: the phrase "with or without landowners' permission" is certain to raise the hackles of folks in Newton County; there is the potential for an ugly fight if not everyone gives the okay to the testing program.

Beebe moves to have UA monitor hog farm
August 14th, 2013, 9:07 am

Gov. Mike Beebe tells me this morning that his office has formally asked the Legislative Council to approve at its next meeting his release of $250,000 in rainy-day funds to contract with University of Arkansas specialists to intensify normal water-quality monitoring in and around the C&H Hog Farm and the Buffalo River.

Beebe confirms there has been a little resistance to this enhanced monitoring from Cargill Foods, which contracts with C&H and other ara landowners, but that, essentially, he doesn’t care.

He says Cargill is not a party to the state’s dutiful consideration of how might beef up in this case the normal regulatory oversight provided by the state Environmental Quality Department.

The normal procedure is for DEQ to do periodic checks of the Buffalo itself and to require the landowner to submit samples and stand for on-site inspections.

In this extraordinary case, Beebe says, that simply didn’t strike him as sufficient.

What these UA scientists would do is set up monitoring wells, and then keep those wells checked frequently, at points chosen by the experts above and below the Buffalo.

The idea, Beebe says, is to arm the state with plenty of authoritative scientific data should it see a need to move to restrict farm operations to protect the Buffalo.

http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/hog-farm-near-buffalo-river-raises-concerns-for-watershed-and-community/Content?oid=3013811

We reported last month that Gov. Mike Beebe, lawmakers, and various stakeholders were in discussion about the possibility of state-funded testing and monitoring on the C & H hog farm in Mt. Judea, which has sparked controversy because of its location by a tributary of the Buffalo River. The testing and monitoring would be conducted by water experts from the University of Arkansas and paid for via state rainy day funds, pending legislative approval. Now we're hearing murmurs that the idea may have hit a roadblock because of resistance from Cargill, which owns the hogs and is the farm's sole buyer.

Yesterday, I received an anonymous email from someone claiming to be a state legislator, which stated "it is my understanding that U of A, Farm Bureau, and the Farmers support the testing but Cargill isn't on board." I cannot confirm that this actually came from a legislator, though at least one person heavily involved in negotiations over the possible testing program said off the record that it had.

Matt DeCample, spokesman for Gov. Beebe, said, "We are starting to get some pushback from Cargill, so that's something to be worked out. [Cargill has] resistance to the idea of ongoing university monitoring...currently that's the biggest obstacle." DeCample said that governor's office had not spoken to Cargill directly but had heard from others involved in the negotiations that Cargill was resistant.

Cargill spokesman Mike Martin said that the company had not taken a position and was unable to comment until they saw an actual proposal.

"We have not taken anything off the table at this point. It it ultimately the property of the farm owners. It's ultimately their decision. In terms of how we feel about it, we'd have to analyze what's being proposed before we can comment. If the question is, 'Do we have some concerns about monitoring?' The answer is that we would have to see what’s proposed because it depends on how it’s done and what’s being done, who’s doing it, who’s going to be involved in analyzing it, how it’s going to be reported."

The Arkansas Farm Bureau declined to comment specifically on Cargill's role. "Should all those involved agree that a third-party study is in the best interest of this family farm, we are certainly supportive of that effort," spokesman Steve Eddington said. "We understand those discussions are ongoing."

I was in Mt. Judea a few weeks back and asked C&H farmer Jason Henson about the possible testing program and he said it was "yet to be determined. It's up to several different people and groups." He said he was for it "because I think it will prove that everything we're doing is scientifically sound."

After the jump, the full anonymous email, signed "a concerned Arkansas legislator."

To Whom it May Concern:
There is an interesting rumor floating around the Capitol that Cargill is against the proposed water quality testing offered by the Governor and the UofA. It is my understanding that UofA, Farm Bureau, and the Farmers support the testing but Cargill isn't on board. The Farm Families are afraid to buck Cargill for fear of losing their contract and everything they own.

I can't get anyone to confirm this rumor. Beau Bishop with Farm Bureau and Mark Cochran with UofA both tell me that UofA is still working on a proposal. I'm not sure why Cargill is opposed but I hear Farm Bureau and the farmers want to know if the farm is polluting. They don't believe it is but want to fix it if it something isn't working.

I hope you can find out more but it sounds like Cargill is actually being the bully we all think they are.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Arkansas Legislator

As promised

It’s off to court we go

Mike Masterson


Folks at a coalition of conservation and citizen groups warned that a lawsuit awaited unless things changed radically with the controversial C&H hog factory approved by our state to grow thousands of Cargill Inc.’s hogs in the Buffalo National River watershed.
Sure enough, those groups filed that lawsuit last week in the U.S. Eastern District against the U.S. Farm Service Agency, the Small Business Administration, and others, seeking to nullify $3.4 million in federal loan guarantees those agencies made to help create the hog factory.
The suit alleges these agencies violated numerous regulations and laws, basically contending they didn’t properly notify the public and failed to conduct a thorough and proper environmental assessment as legally required. The USDA has maintained all along that its Farm Service Agency acted properly. But it’s evident to me how miserably this was handled when even the local National Park Service office responsible for protecting the river wasn’t even notified of the farm’s location until after the state’s Department of Environmental Quality had permitted it and the loan was guaranteed.
Many of us out here believe the approvals were accomplished as quietly as possible. And any realistic concerns expressed after the permitting and questionable federal loan guarantee have been ignored by an arrogant and defensive bureaucracy.
This hautiness was on display most recently when the highly regarded Earthjustice environmental law firm, which filed the lawsuit, issued its specific concerns to the federal agencies, giving them until July 8 to try and arrive at a suitable plan to resolve the matter outside court. Instead of rational responses, Earthjustice received only the sound of silence.
“It’s incredible to think the agencies involved would be so slipshod, indifferent, and evidently blindly confident that they could get away with putting the Buffalo National River at significant risk with something as huge as this CAFO hog farm. The over 110 allegations, and 12 cited violations of laws or well-vetted regulations speaks to the magnitude of the risk to the American citizens’ river that the Small Business Administration and Farm Service Agency have enabled. It’s sad and aggravating the courts have to be called upon to undo this mess,” said Ozark Society Director Duane Woltjen.
So last week came the promised suit, to be presided over by Judge Price Marshall, a former clerk for U.S. District Judge Richard Arnold. One news report indicated Marshall could be familiar with related issues since Arnold, while in private practice, won federal rulings that required full review of decisions made by federal agencies as they related to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. That act applies to the new lawsuit.
Among questions I hope are resolved: The extent of the role a Farm Service Agency supervisor (whose wife is related to C&H Farms owners) played in securing his agency’s loan approval, along with his supervision of the extensively questioned environmental assessment submitted with that application.
As for testing, Gov. Mike Beebe intends to request $250,000 in rainyday funds from the Legislature for a University of Arkansas study to obtain some actual facts about runoff patterns in this watershed.
I asked Beebe’s aide, Matt De-Cample, about the request. “Here’s where things stand,” he responded. “The governor does intend to request $250,000 in rainy-day funds from the General Assembly to use for groundwater study and monitoring. To this point, no formal announcement or announcement date has been scheduled. There are additional landowners who would have to participate for any such study and monitoring to be successfully executed. We don’t want to jump the gun and announce anything or submit our formal request to the Legislature until everything is in place. While Arkansas Farm Bureau and Cargill and others have been involved in discussions surrounding the development of this study and monitoring idea, there were no requests to our office to delay any scheduled announcement. We’ll announce when we feel everything is in place that needs to be.”
I’m sure most taxpaying voters across Arkansas will eagerly await this announcement.
Farewell, Chris Battle
Shortly after arriving as editor of the Northwest Arkansas Times in 1995, I was fortunate to hire one of the best and brightest political reporters and editorial page editors I’ve known. Chris Battle had a divine gift for drawing laughter and tears from readers with his wit and compassion. He went on to become a top aide and campaign manager for Asa Hutchinson and then a leading executive with The Adfero Group, a Washington-based public relations firm.
Chris died at age 45 last week after battling kidney cancer for four long years. He leaves behind a wife and two children. Gone from here, yet always alive in the minds and hearts of so many who knew him, including my own.
 
Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.

UA plan to test hog farm’s land isn’t ready to go

Funding vote is put off, too

By Ryan McGeeney

Posted: August 9, 2013 at 2:07 a.m.

 
A plan to begin testing for nutrients and pollutants in the soil and groundwater in the area near a Newton County hog farm has been indefinitely delayed, a University of Arkansas administrator said this week.

Mark Cochran, vice president for the University of Arkansas’ Division of Agriculture, said university researchers are piecing together a proposal to measure the environmental effects of swine production at C&H Hog Farms, located in Mount Judea.

“It’s a work in progress,” Cochran said. “There’s a beginning, middle and end to this process. We’re still trying to get our team [to C&H Hog Farms] to make the necessarysite visits.”

Cochran said the idea to begin frequent water and soil testing around the farm began when co-owner Jason Henson approached agents at the Newton County Extension Office, which provides agricultural support to farmers through the university.

The farm, which holds the state’s first and only federal permit for a large-scale concentrated animal feeding operation under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, has attracted public scrutiny since its construction earlier this year, largely because of its proximity to Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo National River.

Calls to Henson seeking comment for this story were not returned.

The plan has been the topic of several closed-door discussions between Division of Agriculture administrators, state legislators and Gov. Mike Beebe since mid-July, according to Beebe spokesman Matt DeCample.

DeCample said the governor hoped to address public concerns over possible pollution of ground and surface water in the area through the study.

“A lot of Arkansans have particularly strong feelings regarding the river,” DeCample said. “They’ve made it clear to us.”

DeCample said Beebe is requesting state legislators set aside $250,000 from the Arkansas Rainy Day Fund to initiate the study.

“It’s not a done deal yet,” DeCample said. “There’s no formal deadline. It’s a matter of getting all the landowners on board.”

The C&H Hog Farms production facility sits on an approximately 40-acre parcel west of Big Creek, surrounded by approximately 630 acres for which the operators have landuse agreements to spread the manure produced by the 2,500 sows and 4,000 piglets the facility is permitted to house. The acreage is composed of 17 fields, three of which areowned by Henson. The other 14 fields are owned by eight other landowners.

Legislators were scheduled to vote on the $250,000 allotment during an Aug. 1 meeting of the Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review Subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council, but the vote was removed from the agenda at the last minute because Cochran had not yet provided a finalized proposal to legislators or to the governor’s office, state Rep. David Branscum, R-Marshall, said.

Branscum said a vote on the appropriation had been placed on the agenda for the subcommittee’s Sept. 5 meeting.

Cochran declined to say whether the study proposal would be complete before the Sept. 5 meeting.

Northwest Arkansas, Pages 9 on 08/09/2013