Menu
Log in


Buffalo River Watershed Alliance

Log in

what's New This Page contains all Media posts

  • 23 Sep 2015 6:44 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Toxic CAFOs

    What's in the water

    By Mike Masterson

    Posted: September 22, 2015 at 2:19 a.m.

    The good folks of Arkansas are by no means alone with concerns over the treasured Buffalo National River being contaminated by hog waste from a large factory farm like the hundreds that have replaced traditional family farms nationwide.

    John Ikerd is a professor emeritus at the University of Missouri, and has spent years studying environmental effects from hog and other domestic animal factories as they've sprung up nationwide, including here with the hog factory in the Buffalo watershed at Mount Judea.

    In a recent article, Ikerd says, "nowhere are the public concerns and controversies about agriculture more prominent than for CAFOs--frequently called 'factory farms.'"

    He cites Peter Goldsmith of the University of Illinois, who researched the public legitimacy of factory farms. Goldsmith found that as those sites "grow larger, they create more problems and the intense controversy surrounding CAFOs incites strong local public participation." I'd say that pretty much describes the atmosphere here when it comes to the potential contamination of the country's first national river, with hog waste routinely spread on fields underlain by fractured limestone six miles upstream.

    Those who've participated in public hearings in Illinois consistently indicated "no confidence" in that state's laws that supposedly regulate the activities of CAFOs or of the laws' enforcers. Goldsmith found that 70 percent of those opposed to these proposed facilities and 89 percent of public statements made by local residents and interested citizens challenged the legitimacy of proposed CAFOs; just 5 percent of residents supported the factories.

    Ikerd cited an EPA study from 1998, which found 35,000 miles of streams in 22 states and groundwater in 17 states already polluted by industrial livestock operations. "At the time, the EPA was preparing to sue CAFO operators for violating the Clean Water Act. But there was a change in the political administration in D.C., so no action was taken, and no similar studies have been done since," Ikerd said.

    "As a last defense, CAFO operators claim they are doing a better job of manure management than the traditional independent farmers they displaced. However, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources has documented a three-fold increase in 'impairments' of water bodies in Iowa between 2002 and 2012, years when CAFO were rapidly replacing independent Iowa family hog farms," he wrote.

    Ikerd said that because of growing opposition, "the 'industrial agricultural establishment' has launched a nationwide, multimillion-dollar propaganda campaign designed to--in their words--'increase confidence and trust in today's agriculture.'

    "Food Dialogues, just one initiative of the broader campaign, is sponsored by the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance--an organization whose funders and board members include the American Farm Bureau Federation along with Monsanto and DuPont--both of which have pledged $500,000 per year to the campaign. The campaign features the 'faces of farming and ranching'--articulate, attractive young farmers obviously chosen to put the best possible face on ... industrial agriculture."

    Ikerd referred to a study by Friends of the Earth that said "front groups" spend more than $25 million per year to defend industrial agriculture.

    The professor determined Americans increasingly must glean reality from fallacy in determining which kind of agriculture and food system they'll accept. "For decades, defenders of industrial agriculture had accused their critics of relying on emotions and misinformation rather than 'sound science,'" he wrote. "Now that the scientific evidence is mounting against industrial agriculture, public relations experts are advising advocates to emphasize 'emotional appeals,' such as 'the faces of farmers'--dismissing 'sound-science' as no longer effective in shaping public opinion."

    Ikerd noted that despite claims to the contrary, "the growing public concerns about industrial agriculture are confirmed in reams of highly credible scientific studies."

    He said a Pew Charitable Trusts report from 2008 concluded "the current industrial farm animal production (IFAP) system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals themselves." The commissioners, including a former governor and a former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, said, "the negative effects of this system are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore. Significant changes must be implemented and must start now."

    "Five years later," Ikerd wrote, "an assessment of the industry's response to the Pew Report by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health indicated few if any positive changes had been made. Meanwhile the scientific evidence supporting the initial indictment of CAFOs has continued to grow."

    A vast majority of Arkansans believe our state erred far beyond common sense when it permitted a large CAFO (up to 6,500 sows and offspring) into the Buffalo National River watershed regardless of any PR efforts trying to convince them otherwise.

  • 23 Sep 2015 6:40 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Arkansas Times


    Group presses state for action on Buffalo watershed hog farm

    Posted By Max Brantley on Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:35 PM


    The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance continues to press the state Department of Environmental Quality for action on the hog farm in Mount Judea on a tributary of the Buffalo River.

    In a letter to department director Becky Keogh, the Alliance makes a formal complaint that the department should study the impact of a 6,500-hog feeding operation on the environment. The letter says past requests for study had been met only with promises of continued study. The letter also said it had found no evidence the C & H Hog Farm had obtained the required permits for construction of the ponds to hold hog waste.

    The letter faults the department for inadequate response to sampling by the University of Arkansas that could indicate permit violations. The letter lists experts who've found environmental harm from the operation. It concludes the department should hold a hearing on the matter, whether the department decides to reopen the permits granted for the operation or not. Said the letter:


    Our clients are prepared to show that there have been violations of the permit, that it was obtained through misrepresentation and failure to disclose all relevant facts, and that it continues to pose a danger to human health and the environment. Its continued operation is a threat to neighboring residents, property and business owners in its vicinity, students of the nearby Mount Judea school and the more than 1.3 million eople who visit the Buffalo National River each year.

    I've asked for a response from ADEQ.

    Here's the letter to ADEQ. 

    UPDATE from ADEQ:

    The letter is under review at this time.

     

  • 18 Sep 2015 6:56 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Farm Bureau ‘whereases’

    Posted: September 18, 2015 at 1:54 a.m.

    Occasionally I’ll read something that sets my head to shaking left, then right, and I’ll mumble, “you gotta be kidding!”
    It happened again last week after receiving a copy of resolutions conceived by the Newton County Farm Bureau board and approved by a majority vote of members during their meeting in Jasper.
    With limited space, I’ll share what strikes me as the bureau’s four most relevant yet nonbinding resolutions as they pertain to our state wrongheadedly permitting the controversial hog factory in the Buffalo National River watershed.
    Resolution One: “Whereas the EPA and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality have worked to formulate permitting to entities to operate under exacting guidelines for Confined Animal Feeding Operations, whereas documented scientific testing and studies have concluded these guidelines meet or exceed safeguards to protect the environment and general public, whereas certain radical environmental groups have challenged these proven and accepted guidelines based on emotion, supposition and unscientific reasoning, therefore be it resolved that existing CAFO rules be deemed adequate and sufficient in determining permitting eligibility and subsequent agency oversight.”
    Resolution Four: “Whereas individuals with agendas against farmers and agriculture can make complaints to ADEQ or any state or regulatory agency, whereas these complaints are often unfounded or bogus and are intended for harassment, whereas ADEQ or any state or federal regulatory agency, by law, is required to investigate these complaints, whereas these instances take up valuable time and resources, be it resolved when such claims are made out of spite and are frivolous, individuals shall be compelled to compensate both the farmer and the state or federal regulatory agency involved for such action.”
    Resolution Five: “Whereas the ‘endangered species’ criteria sees to take precedence over other considerations, whereas this designation often hinders or halts other important considerations, whereas Farm Bureau policy and legislative action have set the following priority criteria as it pertains to water—water for human consumption first, agriculture needs second and recreation third—be it resolved such considerations be given to ‘endangered species’ whose habitat is water.”
    Resolution Seven: “We encourage a ‘user fee’ for individuals using the Buffalo River to offset Emergency Service Funding for volunteer fire departments, first responders and law enforcement to be levied on hotel rooms, canoes and other tourist services, payable to county general fund. Said fund fee of $1 or more per individual. Newton, Searcy, Marion and Baxter County residents shall be exempted.”
    One Newton County Farm Bureau member of about 100 attending the
    meeting said it bothered him that the three owners of C&H Hog Farms are Farm Bureau members and two of those are on the board that fashioned the resolutions.
    Dist. 83 State Rep. David L. Branscum of Marshall also spoke at the meeting. He told me he didn’t have any specific comments on these resolutions.
    None of this attitude and selfserving agenda comes as a surprise to me, especially considering how the ADEQ so kindly shepherded the General Permit for this swine factory in the national river’s watershed through its process so quickly and quietly.
    I can say with certainty there are a number of respected and experienced geoscientists (who also have not a thing against authentic farmers or agriculture) who say they’ve already documented elevated levels of microbes and contaminants downstream of the factory since our state approved it. The factory is allowed to house as many as 6,500 swine in the watershed and began spraying the resulting waste across fields on the porous karst-riddled ground surrounding Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo.
  • 13 Sep 2015 3:08 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Read the whole story here:

    CAFO's: The facts about factory farms

    John Ikerd
    johnikerd.com
    Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:12 UTC

        

     
    Comment: The economics of CAFOs:

    • There are approximately 15,000 CAFOs in the US, which raise 50% of all animals used for our food.
    • The largest food processors hold the greatest share of the market, so they wield more power, both economic and political.
    • CAFOs receive a wide array of subsidies, both direct and indirect, such as crop subsidies on the corn and soybean used to feed CAFO animals. This in turn means more money in the pockets of feed producers like Monsanto.
    • Because CAFOs are not held accountable for the environmental and health damage they do, they don't have to worry about those costs, putting more into their pocket. Those costs are absorbed by the public at large.
    • There are also the economies of scale: once a farm is automated for a large number of animals, doubling that number does not mean a doubling of costs. Organic costs more to produce - as much as 20% more - than CAFOs and factory farms because they require more labor (no use of dangerous of chemicals), more costly fertilizer, higher labor costs for crop rotation, more money spent on organic certification, slower growing time, greater post-harvest handling costs to avoid cross-contamination, and more spacious (and thus more expensive) living conditions for livestock. And of course they don't receive the aforementioned subsidies.

  • 09 Sep 2015 8:38 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Eureka Springs Independent


    Five-year ban approved no hog factories on the Buffalo River Work to close existing facility continues 

    Becky Gillette
    Wednesday, September 09, 2015

    Supporters celebrated a significant victory last week when the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission approved a five-year ban on permits for new factory hogs farms in the Buffalo River watershed. The moratorium came about as a result of concerns about the existing C&H Hog Farm located near Mount Judea, which local residents protested was approved quietly with inadequate reviews about the wisdom of allowing 6,500 hogs to be raised in an area where the leaky karst topography could allow waste to contaminate surface and underground water supplies.

    The ban includes a compromise whereby the University of Arkansas’s Big Creek Research and Extension Team (BCRET) will continue to monitor and assess the current hog facility’s impacts and report its findings to the governor, legislators and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).

    According to the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA), the hog factory produces millions of pounds of waste per year certain to produce both water and air pollution. Many in the community depend on wells for household water, and there are concerns that wells will become polluted.

    In late December 2014, the BRWA and other partners won a U.S. District Court decision that found federal agencies arbitrarily and capriciously guaranteed loans to the C&H factory farm near the Buffalo National River by failing to take a hard look at environmental impacts and failing to follow proper procedures to protect threatened and endangered species potentially affected by the facility. As a result, a new Environmental Assessment was conducted. But the BRWA alliance believes the draft EA is substantially flawed.

    “It fails to engage in the alternatives analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act, ignores key facts and science, and only cursorily reviews information it does gather in assessing the impacts of an unprecedented 6,500-swine concentrated animal feeding operation operating on karst terrain in the watershed of the iconic Buffalo National River,” Dane Schumacher, member of the BRWA board, said. “A glaring error that pervades the draft EA’s assessment is its unfounded conclusion that ‘there are no karst features within the C&H Hog Farms parcel.’ According to experts in hydrogeology, C&H is undoubtedly located on karst. This fact is of central importance to an accurate assessment of C&H’s impacts because karst is characterized by rapid underground drainage and groundwater flow to surface waters.  The EA’s willful blindness to the geologic context of the C&H facility and the significance of this context for impacts on water resources is the antithesis of the hard look required under NEPA.”

    Schumacher said Electrical Resitivity Tomography tests done by Oklahoma State University in December 2014 reveal karst features beneath two spray fields being studied. The OSU report states:

    Bedrock at each site contained potential pathways for groundwater flow. One difference between the sites that may be useful for application evaluation is the possibility of hog manure electrical signatures present on Field 12.

    There appears to be a large sinkhole feature caused by dissolution or collapse of underlying rock or soil, within the weathered bedrock in one area that stretches nearly 200 ft. long and 75 ft. deep.

    At a draft EA hearing in late August in Jasper, geologist/hydrogeologist Tom Aley presented oral and written testimony on behalf of the BRWA. Aley said that the EA conducted for the Farm Services Agency and Small Business Administration, which provided taxpayer funded loan guarantees for the hog facility, “shows a gross lack of understanding of the intimate and integral interactions of surface water and groundwater in karst areas of the Ozarks. The EA fails to recognize that this entire hog farm operation and the associated manure disposal fields (with the exception of portions of Field 17) are located on top of a well-developed karst aquifer within the Boone Formation and possibly other deeper geologic units.”

    Aley said the manure storage ponds pose a significant risk of creating off-site water quality problems due to leakage into groundwater supplies. He said they are also at risk of catastrophic sinkhole collapses that could introduce large amounts of manure into the underlying karst groundwater system.

    Another point is that the EA described the BCRET study as an “in depth case study of the C&H Hog Farms.” The BCRET team was established in late 2013 as a response to citizen concern about the adverse environmental impacts of the farm.

    “Despite a platoon of PhDs and a squad of lesser degreed people, there is very little information about the BCRET ‘in depth’ study that has been incorporated into the EA,” Aley said. “The apparent explanation for this is that the study is long-term academic research. It is not a gathering and assessment of information useful for determining health and environmental impacts expected to result from this hog operation or for protecting the River and springs that feed it.  It is certainly not what people concerned with the Buffalo National River had expected from the appointment of this august body.”

    Aley, who has donated his time to study the impacts of the hog factory, urged the FSA and SBA to cancel the federal guarantees for these loans.

    “You FSA and SBA agency folks have made a major blunder in providing federal guarantees for loans for the C&HG Hog Farm,” Alley said. “With the information in my assessment, and with other important information you will gain from others, you will have more than sufficient information to properly assess the prudence of providing federal guarantees for these loans. There is no credible reason to drag this on by moving forward into an Environmental Impact Statement. Such a move will only further discredit the competency and integrity of your agencies and continue to damage water resources and the Buffalo National River. I urge you to use information from this public hearing and cancel the federal guarantees for these loans.”

    ADEQ has submitted clarifications with respect to the EA performed related to the existing permit requirements and the applicable regulations,” said Katherine Benenati, public outreach and assistance division chief, ADEQ. “We are continuing to monitor the C&H farm,” she said.

  • 06 Sep 2015 10:42 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

     Okay, but ...
    'Hognitive' dissonance
    By Mike Masterson

    I'm no psychologist, yet it strikes me our state is roiling in a state of cognitive (I prefer hognitive) dissonance when it comes to the controversial and divisive C&H Hog Farms it allowed into the Buffalo National River watershed.
    I'll explain. First off, our state in 2012 allowed this factory containing up to 6,500 sows and their offspring to set up shop along Big Creek, a major tributary of the country's first national river.
    Not only did the state issue the factory's permit in such an inappropriate location, but our Department of Environmental Quality (cough) actually went out of its way to give permission through its new, less-restrictive General Permit, then seemingly cleared all hurdles in what became a quiet push toward rapid approval.
    The deal was done so quickly and darned near silently that not even the National Park Service or the Department of Environmental Quality's own local regulatory officers in nearby Jasper knew it was finished until it was. The state agency's own former director said she didn't know her staff had issued the permit until it had been. The way this piggy permit greased through the state's permitting process stretches my boundaries of logic and reason.
    Then the approval became public knowledge and an enormous, sustained after-the-fact public stink arose that began with a detailed complaint by the National Park Service.
    How other than hognitive dissonance could I best describe the new and admirable five-year-ban on any new hog factories in the Buffalo National River watershed approved by our Legislature and the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission?
    So sometime this month, this ban on any other concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) planting themselves in this unique watershed will take effect. The entire region is underlain by the limestone-riddled Boone karst formation, which readily transfers subsurface water through cracks and caves in all directions for great distances. The majestic Buffalo flows about six miles downstream.
    But the ban doesn't affect C&H because, well, the same state that now has banned others exactly like it due to the very real possibility they could pollute our national river with hog waste also issued the permit and blessings to spew millions of gallons of raw waste along so-called spray fields.
    In some instances those fields border Big Creek and come within a short distance of the Mount Judea school. In addition, the state's permit allows the two hog waste ponds to leak up to 5,000 gallons of the stuff for each acre.
    State geoscientists and the National Park Service already are documenting notably elevated levels of microbes and bacteria in groundwaters between C&H and the Buffalo, especially during heavy rainfall.
    We taxpayers are shelling out $750,000 over five years so a University of Arkansas geoscience team (more state) can monitor the levels of waste flowing from this (state-approved) factory in a now CAFO-banned region. That, in itself, strike anyone else as dissonant?
    Imagine all this state effort, and state money, and state testing, and state legislation and state time to ensure this single hog factory, which the Arkansas "Environmental Quality" folks today would ban from the watershed because of possible waste contamination, yet remains while generating millions of gallons of waste annually in that sacred place.
    Some believe the factory is being, and has been, coddled for political reasons. Oh, surely they are misguided! One thing, however, is certain in my pork-chopped mind. The mishandling of this mess constitutes an acute and expensive hogitive dissonance that could have been easily avoided back in 2012 if the justifiable concerns and restrictions had been in place that exist today.
     
    ------------v------------
    Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com.
    Editorial on 09/06/2015

  • 04 Sep 2015 3:45 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Arkansas Times


    Group says new hog farm environmental review flawed


    Posted By Max Brantley on Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:00 PM


    A new environmental assessment of the C and H factory hog farm in the Buffalo River watershed is "significantly flawed." So says theBuffalo River Coalition, which is fighting the waste-producing operation in the pollution susceptible territory.

    The new assessment followed a lawsuit in which a federal judge found the first review by federal agencies guaranteeing loans for the hog feeding operation insufficient.

    The Coalition wants a thorough review that "does not ignore facts and science," according to a headline on its news release. You can read their filing here. The news release follows:

    Buffalo River Coalition submits comments to federal agencies calling for thorough environmental review that does not ignore facts and science

    Little Rock, Arkansas – Today the Buffalo River Coalition submitted comments detailing significant flaws and omissions in an Environmental Assessment prepared by two federal agencies to determine impacts of an industrial hog factory located in the Buffalo River watershed. In December 2014, an Arkansas federal court found that federal loan guarantees approved by the Farm Service Agency and Small Business Administration that enabled the C&H Hog operation to be built just six miles upstream of the Buffalo National River — the country’s first national river and a beloved national park — violated laws to protect our nation’s natural resources. The court ordered the two agencies to revisit their process and prepare a new Environmental Assessment within a year.
    The new draft Environmental Assessment is substantially flawed. The Buffalo River Coalition, which includes the Ozark Society, the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Arkansas Canoe Club and the National Parks Conservation Association, note in their comments that the assessment ignores key facts and science showing the potential for significant adverse impacts from this 6,500-swine facility. The assessment fails to consider the facility’s impacts on water resources, air emissions, and on the public health and quality of life of local communities and the nearby Buffalo National River.

    The coalition comments call for the Farm Service Agency and Small Business Administration to go back to the drawing board and conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement that considers ALL available science and data. The coalition is calling for the agencies to take a hard look at the impacts of what more than 2.6 million gallons of waste a year from the massive hog operation, in karst setting and in a sensitive watershed, is having on the region. Additionally, the agencies must consider the odor and air quality impact on human health and the local communities and the impacts on national park resources at the Buffalo National River, which attracts nearly 1.5 million visitors annually who spend more than $50 million in nearby communities.

    Concerns from the Buffalo River Coalition include:

    “I believe that the draft Environmental Assessment erroneously asks us to take a “Don’t worry, be happy” approach to the negative impacts of the C & H factory on water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo National River.” stated Alan Nye, President of the Ozark Society. “There are serious problems with the draft report, including its failure to appreciate the karst geology of the factory location and the fields to which the hog waste is applied. Further, we view the Big Creek Research and Extension Team’s Big Creek water testing indicating higher nitrate concentrations downstream of the C & H factory to be a potential water quality impact from the factory.”

    "This assessment cherry-picks data which supports its no-impact conclusions while ignoring contradictory information," said Gordon Watkins, President of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. "The Big Creek Research and Extension Team (BCRET) is claimed to be "the best available scientific information," yet the assessment selectively ignores BCRET data indicating possible contamination of well water, ground water and Big Creek, and the presence of porous karst subsurface features. Most glaringly, it ignores extensive scientific data from other sources, such as the National Park Service, Dr. Van Brahana and other experts in the field — data that strongly suggest that C&H is indeed potentially impacting surface and groundwater including both Big Creek and the Buffalo River. This assessment barely gives a passing glance at potential environmental impacts, much less takes the "hard look" required by the court."

    “This assessment ignores water quality data that the National Park Service has been monitoring and collecting for more than two years, showing that potential impacts to water resources near the Buffalo National River are evident,” said Emily Jones, senior program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. “We must continue our work to keep the water quality safe for people to swim, fish, and float at Buffalo National River.”
    “The assessment is not only incomplete but also incorrect,” said Bob Allen, President, Piney Creeks Chapter of the Arkansas Canoe Club. “Data from the Oklahoma State University resistivity testing clearly show that the facility and spray fields are underlain with karst, and Big Creek Research and Extension Team studies show both nutrient and bacterial pollution of Big Creek. Combined, this shows a threat to the health of the Buffalo National River downstream and several endangered species in the area.” 

    Hannah Chang, attorney with Earthjustice, the public interest environmental law firm that represented the Coalition in court and on the comments: “All eyes are on these two federal agencies as they go back and engage in the public process and undertake the consideration of impacts that the court found they had failed to do in the first place. There is ample scientific evidence showing potential significant impacts from this hog facility, and the agencies must consider that in order to comply with the law.

  • 03 Sep 2015 3:05 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Hog Factory Threatens Fish and Wildlife on Buffalo River - National Wildlife Federation


    National Wildlife Federation

    9/3/2015 // By Kelly Wagner


    In a natural wonderland in northwestern Arkansas, the Buffalo National Scenic River runs through picturesque terrain that serves as a home to a number of endangered species, including the Gray Bat. But now, a massive hog factory poses an ecosystem and health challenge, threatening the well-being of local fish and wildlife.


    America’s First National Scenic River

    The free-flowing Buffalo River and the surrounding land is cherished by wildlife watchers, anglers and canoers alike. The river runs through woodlands, awe-inspiring bluffs, and hollows for 135 miles as it flows eastward through protected wilderness as America’s first national scenic river. Four species under the Endangered Species Act call this area home.

    The river is an extraordinary area for wildlife watching—fifty different mammal species can be found in the area. While hiking or canoeing, you may spot a black bear in the woods or view a mountain lion traversing a variety of habitat. You may see Elk relaxing under shade trees along the river in the summer. Evidence of other large mammals such as bobcats and coyotes can also be found.


    Bad Location

    Creating a massive hog factory within the Buffalo River’s headwaters is  a bad idea, but that is exactly what some government agencies allowed several years ago. Due to limited public notice during the permit approval process, county residents and National Parks Service (NPS) employees were not notified about the permit request thus missing their only opportunity to comment on the disastrous impacts this large hog factory might have on the river. Now, a 6,500 hog facility sits only a 100 feet in some places from Big Creek, a major tributary in the Buffalo River headwaters.

    Many residents will tell you that family farms are welcomed in the county, and then reassure you that this massive hog operation is not one of those. Recently, a federal judge declared that the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration violated laws protecting natural resources by authorizing this facility. The agencies were forced to do a draft environmental assessment that is disappointingly flawed. Their report concluded the facility will have no impact on water resources. There is no impact from a hog operation that creates more than 2 million gallons of waste each year?

    Interestingly, data from the study they used for their assessment found rising nitrate levels downstream from the facility and an increase in E. coli at their well, the trenches and an ephemeral stream nearby the facility’s field. Monitoring by the National Park Service (NPS) agrees, noting that E. coli was found at the confluence of Big Creek and Buffalo River. The NPS also found low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels at the confluence, likely a result of algae feeding on the nitrates. This spells trouble for fish and other inhabitants who depend on the river.

    Health and Environmental Threat

     

    The placement of the facility is a direct threat to the scenic river’s water quality and all who depend upon and enjoy it. Sitting near the stream, the operation also poses a serious risk to the river system during major floods. Reduced oxygen levels may impact fish populations in the upper Buffalo River such as smallmouth bass, perch, catfish and other aquatic life in the river.

    The poor water quality will have a domino effect impacting non-aquatic life as well:

    The endangered Gray bat lives year-round in the limestone caves in the area. While the species struggles for survival, a fatal disease known as white-nose syndrome is now jeopardizing bats in the area. To add insult to injury, their primary diet is aquatic insects such as mayflies and caddisflies that are highly sensitive to polluted waters. Losing their main food source could be a double-whammy for the endangered Gray bat.

    Water contamination is also a threat to human health. NPS’s unwelcomed discovery of E. coli downstream is not surprising though. The facility and the permitting government agencies failed to acknowledge one simple fact that this facility is on a type of land called karst that is common in this area. The porous rock below allows pollutants to easily seep into the water supply. Many of the citizens depend on well water in their homes that is now jeopardized by this facility.

    Needless to say, nobody wants to swim or canoe either when E. coli is in the river, so it may take a toll on the recreational industry that generates much needed revenue for this region. River otters won’t get much of a choice though.

    Beyond water pollution, there is also a number of impacts that the flawed government report ignored or underplayed such as the health impacts from decreased air quality emitted by 2 million gallons of waste each year. Studies have shown that these massive facilities take a toll on the health of facility workers and nearby residents. What will happen to wildlife adjacent to this property?

    This is not about theoretical impacts before a project begins though. The facility was allowed to start running without much scrutiny, and now scientific evidence is building against the facility. The fact that the recent court-mandated assessment ignores proof of water and air pollution is unacceptable.

    Take Action

    The 6,500 hog factory at the headwaters of the Buffalo National Scenic River poses a threat to the health of fish, wildlife and humans as it contaminates the water and the air. This is not the first controversial battle to protect the river, and we hope citizens will speak up again to protect America’s first national river.  Let the agencies that permitted this facility know that you reject their claim of zero impact on the ecosystem.

    Update: Thank you to everyone who submitted comments to protect America’s first national scenic river. Comment period is closed, but we will keep you posted on this important conservation issue.

  • 02 Sep 2015 8:18 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Arkansasonline


    Between the lines: Few pigs, sooiee
    State gives ban on farms near Buffalo River a five-year try
    By Brenda Blagg

    There will be no more medium and large hog farms permitted in the Buffalo National River watershed for at least the next five years.
    The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission approved a temporary ban late last week, culminating a lengthy regulatory process.
    Understand, the decision does not affect C&H Hog Farms, the huge operation in Mount Judea that opened in 2013 and is the reason the state even considered a ban.
    The commercial farm is in uncomfortably close proximity to the Buffalo, the nation's first national river and a mecca for out-of-state tourists and Arkansas travelers alike.
    The National Park Service reports more than 1.3 million people visited the Buffalo in 2014, spending $56 million or more at area businesses. Clearly, the river is not just a scenic natural treasure but also a major economic driver in Northwest Arkansas.
    It is fiercely defended by river enthusiasts, environmentalists and others, all of whom see themselves as stakeholders in the river's legacy.
    Consequently, the 2013 introduction of that huge commercial hog-farming operation near the river roiled the region and, indeed, the state.
    The loudest outcry has come from those who fear pollution of the watershed and degradation of the pristine river; but there is another side of the argument from those who might want to use their land for a similar operation.
    Mind you, since the uproar over C&H Farms, no one has sought a permit for any such thing. But this ban means no one will be allowed to put in such a farm, even if they might be so bold as to try, for at least five years.
    For those unfamiliar with the ongoing controversy, the state Department of Environmental Quality granted C&H its permit to hold up to 2,500 sows and 4,000 piglets. The site where all these animals could be confined at any one time borders Big Creek, just six miles from where the creek meets the Buffalo.
    The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission oversees the state Department of Environmental Quality, the permitting agency. Its action last week not only establishes a temporary ban but requires the department's director to initiate a rule-making process either to delete the ban or to make it permanent five years after it goes into effect.
    The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission just made its decision last week, so the ban won't be effective for a few days more after official papers are filed.
    Keep in mind that controversy about C&H, how the farm came to be and how it operates reaches beyond the state government level. This ban of new farms is strictly about what the state of Arkansas can do now.
    Efforts at all levels to stop the C&H operation have been stout, but unsuccessful. So concerns continue from environmentalists, Buffalo River enthusiasts and neighbors to the swine farm.
    Not only do some fear pollution of the watershed from the runoff of hog waste (contained on site in ponds and applied to fields in the watershed), opponents complain that the concentration of so many hogs in a small area creates odor that is carried through the countryside.
    They can find some solace in the fact that the numbers of hogs permitted on the hillsides won't multiply any time soon.
    But whatever C&H is or isn't doing to the watershed will continue unabated by the ban.
    The commission's action last week will stall future medium and large hog-farming operations while studies on the impact of the C&H operation on water quality in the watershed continue. A University of Arkansas System study conducted by the Division of Agriculture is scheduled to observe the impact for four years. Plus, a parallel study by a university professor is being conducted as well.
    Presumably, the science will ultimately prevail.
    Meanwhile, smaller farms could still go into the watershed; but the ban will mean no new operation may have more than 750 swine that are 55 pounds or larger, or more than 3,000 swine under 55 pounds.
    That still sounds like a lot of animals; but, again, no one has been seeking permits for new hog farms in the watershed. Maybe they won't want to go through the fight that would await.
    To be sure, those who think any ban is an infringement on property owners' rights probably aren't happy with the compromise struck for a temporary ban of any kind. And those who wanted a permanent ban aren't happy either.
    But this ought to help protect the Buffalo a while longer.
    Commentary on 09/02/2015

  • 31 Aug 2015 8:15 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Newton County Times

    Five year ban on new CAFOs in Buffalo watershed

     

    Posted: Monday, August 31, 2015 4:00 pm

    Staff report | 0 comments


    Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission adopted last week changes to its regulations that  will prohibit new permits for large swine facilities in the Buffalo River Watershed. The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Ozark Society petitioned the Commission in April of 2014, to initiate both rulemakings. The petitioners are Arkansas nonprofits dedicated to conservation and sound public policy.

    According to a press release from the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, the changes to Regulations 5 and 6 prohibit the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director from issuing new permits in the next five years for swine operations in the Buffalo National River Watershed with 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds. The rules require the ADEQ Director to initiate rulemaking at the conclusion of that five-year period to either continue the ban indefinitely, or remove the ban.

    “Today’s decision is great news for all Arkansans and the protection of the Buffalo River,” said Barry Haas, a member of the Panel’s Board of Directors. “We thank Governor Hutchinson, the Legislature and the APC&E Commission for their support to protect one of Arkansas’ most treasured natural resources.”

    The new regulations do not impact C&H Hog Farm, the existing permitted facility in the Buffalo River Watershed, which is the subject of litigation.

    “Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is grateful for the work of the petitioners, the Ozark Society and APPP, and their attorneys, Sam Ledbetter and Ross Noland, for shepherding this important rule change through the maze of legislative and bureaucratic review over the past two years. While we would have preferred to see a permanent ban on swine CAFOs in the Buffalo National River watershed, we also understand that the issue is controversial and has moved beyond sound environmental science and into the realm of politics where compromise is the rule,” noted Alliance president Gordon Watkins of Parthenon. “We are glad to know that the watershed will have some level of protection and a 5-year moratorium is certainly better than nothing.

    “We are, however, concerned however that ADEQ will be depending entirely on the study being done by the Big Creek Research and Extension Team when making its determination in 5 years as to whether to extend or remove protections. We feel that the BCRET study, as it is currently designed, is flawed, inadequate and will provide insufficient data to make such an important determination and that other, more comprehensive and extensive studies such as are currently being done by the National Park Service, the Karst Hydrogeology in the Buffalo River Watershed team (KHBNR), and others, must be equally considered.”

    Watkins noted that the Alliance membership will be working to both encourage BCRET to strengthen its monitoring efforts, as well as to support other independent and unbiased efforts to closely examine the impacts C&H is having on Big Creek and the Buffalo River. “We will make every effort to insure that all relevant data is considered when making a final decision regarding permanent protection of the Buffalo."

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

Copyright @ 2019


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software