By NWA Democrat-Gazette

Posted: November 2, 2018 at 1 a.m.

What’s the point?

Until dependable science declares it impossible for a hog farm to pollute the Buffalo River, the state’s stance should favor the river.

The easy answer is to save the Buffalo River at all costs.

Whether that answer gets to the heart of the matter depends entirely on what question is being asked.

The Buffalo River, at least since C&H Hog Farms was permitted near one of its tributaries, has become Arkansas' version of global warming: Whether a massive hog farm operation can co-exist near the nation's first national river is to be answered in science, but people on opposite sides of the discussion can't agree on the fundamental point of whether the river needs to be saved .

Before anyone's head explodes, there is no one suggesting that the Buffalo River should be harmed. Nobody we've heard suggests polluting its flowing waters is a desired accomplishment. There is no one campaigning for the right to lay waste the land and waters visionary Arkansans and others managed to preserve with a federal designation in 1972.

But there are huge difference of opinion about what it takes -- and about what government should do -- to protect the river and its surroundings.

Whether it's the Buffalo River or Beaver Lake, it's possible to find people still ruffled by what they view as the encroachment of the federal government. Don't forget that any formation of a federal lake or nationally protected river requires the taking of property -- with compensation -- from those whose ownership stands in the way of the governmental purpose. Arkansas remains a strong property rights state, and it should be. Generally speaking, property ownership must convey strong rights of use, or what's the point?

The fate of the Buffalo River, however, can hardly be considered "generally speaking." It is a very specific instance of a natural resource -- the natural resource -- deserving of environmental protection, no less deserving than the Grand Canyon or Yosemite. Letting harm come to the Buffalo River is no less an affront to Arkansans than, say, suggesting the mascot of the University of Arkansas be changed out of respect for hog producers.

The Arkansas Hillbillies? The Arkansas Travelers (we think that's taken)? The Arkansas Mockingbirds? No, no and no. The people of Arkansas wouldn't stand for it. Nor should they stand for any equivocation on the subject of the Buffalo River.

That no doubt was on the minds of people who raised the subject the other day in one of candidate/Gov. Asa Hutchinson's town hall meetings. This one was in Bentonville, where plenty in the audience wanted to hear more about state action involving the 6,500-hog operation in the Buffalo River's watershed. The hog farm received its first permit to operate in 2012, but the secrecy in which that happened has drawn severe criticism.

In 2015, the state put a five-year ban on new medium or large hog operations within the river's watershed, a move that gave people concerned about pollution some breathing room. But C&H has continued to operate and has asked for a new permit. It's future is tied up in legal wrangling involving the application process and how the state has handled it.

Critics and backers of the hog farm believe they have science on their sides. Findings of pollutants and the development of algae growth in the waters closest to the farm raise serious questions, but both sides end up questioning the others' science.

Hutchinson provided no real comfort in his town hall meeting. He, and any governor, has to walk that line between protecting the river and appreciating property rights, a major issue in the farming culture of rural Arkansas. No reasonable person wants to do harm to agriculture in Arkansas either. There's a lot of farmland in Arkansas, you know.

But there's only one Buffalo River, and Arkansas needs to get its house in order when it comes to protecting it. In our minds, the benefit of the doubt goes to the river.

At a minimum, that means taking the necessary steps to ensure harmful agricultural practices are steered clear of its watershed. But look at that: we let ourselves off the hook by including the word "harmful," right? What is harmful? If C&H isn't harmful, what to do?

Science is where the answer must be found, but protecting the river until that science provides clear answers is a necessity.

Commentary on 11/02/2018