Addendum issued for Big Creek first quarterly report
 Newton County Times

Posted: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 11:00 am
 
FAYETTEVILLE  The University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture's Big Creek Research and Extension Team has issued an addendum to the first quarterly report on its study of a hog farm in the Buffalo River Watershed.


The addendum correctly identifies the fields sampled by the team. The addendum, available at http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/bigcreekreport.quarter1addendum.pdf, addresses maps in the original report issued Jan. 31, that contained fields that were incorrectly identified in the original management plan for the C&H Hog Farm in Mount Judea.

Is it profiling?
By Mike Masterson
Posted: March 4, 2014 at 2:26 a.m.

Questions for candidates
In the ongoing campaign for governor between Republican Asa Hutchinson and Democrat Mike Ross, I believe each candidate during their statewide campaign stops should be asked some simple yet hardball questions about the state’s wrongheaded permitting of that hog factory in our treasured Buffalo National River watershed. Below are six I feel they each should answer honestly rather than in typical political doublespeak.
In fact, they are welcome to respond in this space at my email address and I will gladly tell the state.
What legislation would you support to protect our land and rivers in karst areas of north Arkansas from factory hog farms?
What’s your specific position on the role of the state Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality, and the governor’s office toward adequately protecting Arkansas’ precious groundwater and surface waters from agricultural pollution?
Which is more significant to you, protecting the business of the Cargill-sponsored hog factory or the state’s tourism business of the Buffalo River?
What would you specifically do to resolve the ongoing matter of this hog factory versus the pollution of the Buffalo River?
Would you take whatever actions are necessary to reinstate the moratorium on factory hog farms in the state’s ultra-sensitive karst regions, in particular, for the Buffalo National River watershed?
Would you appoint members to the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission with ties to the agricultural industry, or those with scientific/ environmental backgrounds?

Hog farm foes: Map flawed, redo permit
By Ryan McGeeney
Posted: February 21, 2014 at 5:24 a.m.
 

A coalition of environmentalists and lawyers is asking the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to reopen the permitting process for a Newton County hog farm because of discrepancies in the farm’s original permit application.

In a Feb. 12 letter to the department, lawyers with Earthjustice, a nonprofit litigation firm, claim the owners of C&H Hog Farms in Mount Judea intentionally misrepresented the location and available acreage of several grassland fields on which they plan to spread manure.

The hog farm, a large-scale concentrated animal feeding operation, is permitted to house approximately 2,500 adult sows and as many as 4,000 piglets at one time. According to the farm’s nutrient management plan, which outlines how its operators will handle the estimated 2 million gallons of waste annually, the owners lease or own approximately 630 acres of grassland in Mount Judea, separated into 17 fields.


 

The farm abuts Big Creek, 6 miles upstream from its confluence with the Buffalo National River.

According to the let-ter, the farm owners falsely claimed that they had a land use agreement with the owner of an area labeled “Field 5,” an approximately 24-acre tract belonging to Tommie Wheeler of Vendor, according to Newton County deed records cited by Earthjustice.

The farm’s nutrient-management plan includes signed land-use agreements with several landowners, using both narrative descriptions and latitude and longitude coordinates to identify the fields. Although the contract that identifies “Field 5” includes coordinates that describe Wheeler’s property, it is signed by Shawn Ricketts. Jason Henson, who co-owns C&H Hog Farms with two of his cousins, Richard and Philip Campbell, said Ricketts is a nephew of Richard and Philip Campbell.

“It was a typographical error,” Henson said. “I have the land-use agreements and the soil sample from the actual land, but when the engineers drew up the maps, the fields were misprinted on the map sheet.”

Attempts to reach Wheeler and Ricketts for comment were unsuccessful.

In their letter to the Environmental Quality Department, Earthjustice lawyers also cite discrepancies in portions of two other tracts, fields 12 and 16, which account for more than 100 acres. While the farm’s land-use agreements for those fields are signed by Barbara Hufley, approximately 34 acres within those fields are owned by other landowners with whom the hog farm owners do not have land-use contracts.

During a Jan. 23 compliance inspection of the hog farm, a department inspector noted the discrepancy in fields 12 and 16. In a Feb. 6 reply to the department, Henson acknowledged the discrepancy, writing that a certified nutrient management planner was revising the maps for fields 12 and 16, and the corrected maps would be submitted by March 30. The discrepancies in the two fields account for about 34 acres, or about 5 percent,of the 630 acres.

Robert Cross, president of the Ozark Society and a signatory to the Earthjustice letter, said that regardless of the revisions the farm owners are now making, the fact that the department granted a permit based on inaccurate information means the permitting process should be revisited.

“We think the whole permit should be reopened,” Cross said, noting that when Henson and his partners first applied for the general permit, they largely avoided public scrutiny because it was the first of its kind in the state. “In August 2012, there was a public comment period, which no one commented on, because no one knew anything about it.”

Teresa Marks, director of the Environmental Quality Department, said she and her staff had reviewed the letter from Earthjustice, as well as documentation associated with C&H Hog Farms. She said that while the total acreage available for spreading manure would need to be recalculated, there still appeared to be sufficient acreage on which to spread the farm’s manure. Additionally, Marks said the farm operators had not applied manure to any of the areas in dispute and so were not in violation of the terms of their permit.

Earthjustice lawyers also asserted that the inaccuracies in the farm’s mapping have led to a waste of taxpayer money. In September, the state Legislature appropriated about $340,000 from the Arkansas Rainy Day Fund to pay for a longitudinal study of the water and soil in the area surrounding the hog farm. The proposed study came in response to widespread concern that nutrients from the farm’s hog waste could pollute both groundwater and surface water in the area and reach the Buffalo National River.

Shortly after the study funds were appropriated, University of Arkansas professor of soils and water quality Andrew Sharpley and his research team began contacting landowners in Mount Judea, asking for permission to gather soil and water samples on land that is scheduled to receive manure from the hog farm.

Sharpley and his team settled on three sites to conduct their research, fields 1, 5 and 12, which include two of the three fields identified by department inspectors as being incorrectly mapped on the farm’s nutrient-management plan.

In a Feb. 8 letter to Sharpley, the owners of the three properties in question, fields 5, 12 and 16, emphasized that they do not have land-use agreements with C&H Hog Farms and have not granted permission to Sharpley to enter their property or conduct research there. The letter is signed by Wheeler, Ronnie Campbell and Samuel Dye.

Campbell’s wife, Judy Campbell, confirmed byphone that she and her husband had been approached by representatives of C&H Hog Farms about the possible use of their land for application of hog waste and that they had declined. Attempts to reach Dye were unsuccessful.

Sharpley said he had been aware of the mapping discrepancies for some time, and neither he nor members of his research team had trespassed on any of the fields in question.

On Feb. 7, the Big Creek Research Team released its first quarterly report, outlining its research methods and plans for future research. The report includes a map of the 630 acres identified in the hog farm’s nutrient-management plan, with fields 1, 5 and 12 highlighted. Although the “Field 5” highlighted in the report’s map is Wheeler’s property, Sharpley said his researchers were working on the adjacent Ricketts property, for which Henson has a land-use agreement.

“I elected to use the old maps in the permit for the quarterly report. That’s where the misunderstanding originated,” Sharpley said. “The fact is, we haven’t been on those fields mentioned in the letter. We’ll never be on any property we don’t have prior, expressed permission to be on.”

Sharpley said that in the early stages of his research, he realized that the existing map in the nutrient-management plan - the same map that eventually appeared in his team’s quarterly report - was incorrect, but he felt it was outside the scope of his responsibilities to publicly call attention to the discrepancy.

“I chose at that time not to raise the issue,” Sharpley said. “I’m there to do the science. I felt [the map] was somebody else’s issue. I continued to talk about what we were actually doing and the science in the report. In hindsight, it would’ve been better to redo the report with the correct map.”

Monica Reimer, a Florida-based lawyer with Earthjustice, said even if Sharpley is gathering water and soil samples on the Ricketts field, the research is a waste of time because C&H Hog Farms will likely never spread manure there.

“The whole point of spending the taxpayers’ money was to determine the risk of pollution or environmental harm that was being caused by C&H,” Reimer said. “So instead, what’s happening is, they’re looking at fields that aren’t part of C&H, or they’re doing all this work on a field that is not in C&H’s [nutrient-management plan].

“It seems like there’s this train wreck of things that are happening as a consequence of the misrepresentation that took place at the very beginning,” Reimer said. “And no one seems to be interested in trying to resolve [these problems].”

Marks said that changes to the hog farm’s nutrient management-plan map constitute only minor revisions that are not cause to reopen the permit for public comment. However, Henson and his partners have applied to the department to change the method of manure application on several of the grasslands within the plan, constituting a “major modification,” which does allow for public input.

Wednesday, the department announced that the public hearing for the modification is scheduled for March 24 at 6 p.m. at the Jasper School District cafetorium at 600 School St. in Jasper.

Marks said she and her staff expect to get strong feedback during the public comment period, although she stipulated that public comment will only be allowed on the portion of the permit being modified, not on the entire permit. The department began accepting written public comments on the modification Wednesday.The comment period will remain open until 4:30 p.m. March 24.

Henson said he himself had requested the public hearing for his farm’s proposed modification.

“They’re trying to ruin my name now, but the truth is, we have nothing to hide,” Henson said. “I’m the one who asked for the public hearing. I don’t want them coming back to say ‘we didn’t know.’”

Front Section, Pages 1 on 02/21/2014

 

A bipartisan plea
 
By Mike Masterson
This article was published today at 3:07 a.m. Arkansas Democrat Gazette

 
You likely haven’t read the bipartisan op-ed co-bylined by former U.S. Reps. Ed Bethune, a Republican, and Democrat Vic Snyder. They spell out the obvious need for our state to revoke the permit for the Cargill-sponsored hog factory that the state Department of Environmental Quality (cough) inexcusably permitted in the treasured Buffalo National River watershed.

Their piece, published by The Hill newspaper in Washington, is an account from two men who served Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District. Bethune held the office from 1979 to 1985, Snyder from 1997 until 2011.

The politically oriented Hill publishes daily while Congress is in session. I’m convinced the space I’m allotted sometimes is best filled by the opinions of others with whom I (and many others) agree. So their story (edited for space) follows:

“In 1972, something miraculous by today’s standards happened in Congress. A Republican [Rep. John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison], working with Democratic colleagues, passed legislation that was then signed by a Republican president. The bipartisan effort created the Buffalo National River, America’s first. …

“Saved once from harm, the Buffalo faces a new and impending pollution problem-a poorly placed industrial hog farm-that will likely change the nature of this magnificent river.

“The Buffalo is an ecological jewel that meanders 135 miles through the heart of the Ozark Mountains. When this free-flowing stream of pristine waters, carved bluffs, and dramatic waterfalls became part of the National Park System it was to be spared from dams and development-or so we thought.

“Just a few miles away, on a major tributary of the Buffalo, a factory farm of 6,500 pigs is now operating. The animals are owned by international conglomerate Cargill and raised by a local group called C&H Hog Farms. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) granted the permit without public hearings or even putting a public notice in a newspaper. Not even the National Park Service, the agency charged with protecting the Buffalo, was consulted.

“How did this happen? It was a combination of failed leadership among multiple agencies and a political culture that favors Big Ag.

“There have been pig farmers in the Buffalo River watershed in the past. But these were mom and pop operations with a hundred or so head. Such farmers are becoming extinct, being put out of business and replaced by industrial farms, not just in Arkansas but across America. Agriculture is an important part of our state’s economy. But locating a factory hog farm next to a national treasure is irresponsible and the damage to our billion-dollar tourism industry will be irreversible.

“The pigs at C&H Farms will generate as much fecal matter and urine as a city of 35,000 people. The 2 million gallons of waste per year is being flushed untreated into lagoons and then spread over hay fields. When the rains come, the runoff will flow into Big Creek and then into the Buffalo River downstream.

“But runoff is not the only problem. The Ozarks consist of porous limestone rock called Karst geology. Anything placed on the land leaches through the fissures and into the underground water system. The Buffalo National River is being threatened from above and below. And then there are the noxious fumes that residents and school children of the community of Mount Judea, Ark., must endure. The state’s response so far has been to set aside money to monitor the amount of water pollution. All that means is that we Arkansans will be the first to tell the world that “hog doin’s” have found their way into our precious Buffalo River.

“What are the chances of water pollution from this factory hog farm? Nationally known Arkansas hydrologist Dr. Van Brahana, who is studying the region’s hydrology, says that there is a 95 percent probability rate. Even ADEQ Director Teresa Marks admitted in a recent New York Times article that pollution was certain. There are many places suitable for a factory hog farm, but the watershed of a national river is not one of them. The feces and urine from the hogs create a toxic brew of pollutants. It threatens the Buffalo’s unique ecosystem and endangers the health of local residents and park visitors.

“The Buffalo is the crown jewel of The Natural State and an intricate part of the Ozark heritage, but it belongs to all Americans. It is one of the few unspoiled environments in America-a timeless, spiritual haven. … It is also an economic engine generating more than $38 million and 528 jobs in one of the poorer areas of the state. Compare those numbers to the five or so low-paying jobs provided by the factory hog farm.

“More than 40 years ago, a disparate group of visionaries formed an alliance to create America’s first national river. … Now a coalition of local and national groups is trying to save it again. We, as former Arkansas congressmen from different sides of the aisle, are joining that fight. The permit must be revoked and the factory hog farm moved from its current location. We understand that factory farmers have a right to make a living, but not at the expense of a national river and the surrounding community.”All I can add is, “Amen, congressmen.” Oh, and suppose you might pass the bacon?

Arkansas Times

Errors in Mt. Judea farm’s permit draw criticism

But no manure spread in wrong area, ADEQ says.

BY

 David Ramsey  

ON 

February 20, 2014

C&H Hog Farm, located in the Buffalo National River watershed and the first facility in the state to get a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit, continues to stir controversy amid fears from conservationist groups that the farm poses environmental risks.

Its permit allows C&H to house 6,503 hogs, which belong to Cargill, by revenue the largest privately held company in the nation and the sole customer for C&H. Last September, the legislature approved the expenditure of $340,510 in state funds to implement pollution testing and monitoring by a team of University of Arkansas water and soil experts at the Mt. Judea farm, which is in close proximity to a major tributary of the Buffalo River. (Should the legislature approve it, testing in future years would cost around $100,000 annually.)

A coalition of public interest groups — including the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society — has been sharply critical of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s oversight of the state permitting process. The groups also filed suit last August against the federal agencies that backed C&H’s loan guarantee, over alleged problems with the environmental assessment and public notice requirements. The latest complaint from the coalition involves errors in the nutrient management plan (NMP) for spreading hog waste as fertilizer, submitted by C&H as part of its permitting process and approved by ADEQ.

The coalition wrote a letter to ADEQ last week suggesting that these errors in the NMP — incorrectly mapping three of the 17 fields used by the farm for spreading hog waste — may have led the state-funded pollution monitoring to take place on the wrong fields.

In fact, according to Andrew Sharpley, the soil scientist leading the C&H monitoring project, the UA team became aware of the errors before the testing and only tested in the proper areas. However, the coalition believes that the errors in the plan continue a pattern of mistakes, omissions and flaws in the regulatory process and should prompt ADEQ to reopen the permitting process.

ADEQ first discovered the mapping errors when officials did their first inspections of the site in July and again in January. Most of the fields that C&H uses to spray waste as fertilizer are owned by local farmers and leased to C&H. In the permit’s NMP, two of the fields — Field 12 and Field 16 — had erroneous borders that included small portions of land that had not been leased to C&H. Another field, Field 5, was in the wrong location entirely.

The agency sent C&H letters informing the farmers of the errors; C&H responded by acknowledging the mistakes and stating that they would revise the map as requested by ADEQ.

ADEQ Director Teresa Marks said that the hog farm had not spread manure on any of the areas that are not owned or being leased by C&H. They have also not spread manure on the proper Field 5 that is being leased by C&H, because that field is not correctly included in the NMP, which instead incorrectly listed land not leased by C&H as Field 5.

“They will not land-apply on that field until the discrepancy is resolved,” Marks said. She said that there was no hard and fast timeline for C&H to make the necessary corrections. “It’ll be a minor revision,” she said. “We don’t feel as if the mistakes that were made in the permit, at this point … are something that we’re going to call in the whole NMP over. Especially since there’s been no harm caused — there’s been no spreading on those fields that was not appropriate. We want it to be corrected, but there has been no unlawful spreading at this point.”

Hannah Chang, an attorney with EarthJustice, a California-based environmental law firm that is part of the legal team representing the coalition, sharply disagreed with Marks’ assessment.

“If they want to add this new Field 5 … that’s north of the current Field 5, that is not in the NMP,” Chang said. “It’s not even in the picture. That’s a substantial change under their general permit. So they need to get public notice and comment and follow an actually transparent process that involves the public, everything that didn’t happen in the first place.”

Further confusing matters, the first quarterly report from the UA testing team used the incorrect maps from the NMP, leading the coalition to believe that the scientists had tested the wrong areas altogether, and causing alarm among some landowners that their property — not leased to C&H — had been tested without their permission. These Mt. Judea landowners sent a letter to the UA research team expressing their concern.

Sharpley, the scientist heading the testing, said that he didn’t correct the maps on the quarterly report because UA’s role, by design, is supposed to be completely independent of both state agencies and the relevant stakeholders.

“The fields were improperly designated,” Sharpley said. “We knew those fields were mapped wrong … before we did any testing. We’ve been monitoring the fields that we have permission to monitor, the fields that were permitted to receive manure.”

Since the errors in the NMP were a matter to be resolved between ADEQ and C&H, Sharpley didn’t think it was his place to highlight the errors in his quarterly report. “In hindsight, I would have done things differently,” he said. “It’s a lot of confusion, and it’s unfortunate.”

Regarding the concerned landowners, Sharpley said that the UA group did not do testing on any land not leased to C&H. The scientists did test on the field leased to C&H but not correctly labeled in the NMP. Though C&H cannot spread on that field until the NMP is corrected, Sharpley and ADEQ said that this testing would be useful in establishing a baseline for future monitoring.

“If there is a clarification that makes this all make sense, we’re happy to know it,” Chang said. “If the UA study could be revised in a way that actually tests the land that will be receiving impacts from C&H waste, then all the better.”

But, Chang said, these problems don’t inspire confidence in the NMP or the regulatory process. “These misrepresentations confirm the fact that it really did fly under the radar and that there just wasn’t a careful eye to this application,” she said. “The fact that these misrepresentations took place are reason enough to reopen the whole permit. It’s not just reopening it with respect to this field, but with respect to the entire permit because the permit was applied for and approved based on information that was not fully disclosed. Under the regulations, that’s plenty of grounds for ADEQ to reopen it and at least get public comment.”

Gov. Mike Beebe’s spokesperson Matt DeCample said that the important point was that “they tested the fields where the nutrients were being spread. They didn’t miss any of those fields.

“There’s no bad news [in the first report], which is great. But to really allay concerns, it’s going to take more than the first round of tests, and we know that. We have confidence in the process and the science.”

Errors in Mt. Judea farm's permit draw criticism
But no manure spread in wrong area, ADEQ says.
by David Ramsey
 
C&H Hog Farm, located in the Buffalo National River watershed and the first facility in the state to get a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit, continues to stir controversy amid fears from conservationist groups that the farm poses environmental risks.

Its permit allows C&H to house 6,503 hogs, which belong to Cargill, by revenue the largest privately held company in the nation and the sole customer for C&H. Last September, the legislature approved the expenditure of $340,510 in state funds to implement pollution testing and monitoring by a team of University of Arkansas water and soil experts at the Mt. Judea farm, which is in close proximity to a major tributary of the Buffalo River. (Should the legislature approve it, testing in future years would cost around $100,000 annually.)

A coalition of public interest groups undefined including the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society undefined has been sharply critical of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's oversight of the state permitting process. The groups also filed suit last August against the federal agencies that backed C&H's loan guarantee, over alleged problems with the environmental assessment and public notice requirements. The latest complaint from the coalition involves errors in the nutrient management plan (NMP) for spreading hog waste as fertilizer, submitted by C&H as part of its permitting process and approved by ADEQ.

The coalition wrote a letter to ADEQ last week suggesting that these errors in the NMP undefined incorrectly mapping three of the 17 fields used by the farm for spreading hog waste undefined may have led the state-funded pollution monitoring to take place on the wrong fields.

In fact, according to Andrew Sharpley, the soil scientist leading the C&H monitoring project, the UA team became aware of the errors before the testing and only tested in the proper areas. However, the coalition believes that the errors in the plan continue a pattern of mistakes, omissions and flaws in the regulatory process and should prompt ADEQ to reopen the permitting process.

ADEQ first discovered the mapping errors when officials did their first inspections of the site in July and again in January. Most of the fields that C&H uses to spray waste as fertilizer are owned by local farmers and leased to C&H. In the permit's NMP, two of the fields undefined Field 12 and Field 16 undefined had erroneous borders that included small portions of land that had not been leased to C&H. Another field, Field 5, was in the wrong location entirely.

The agency sent C&H letters informing the farmers of the errors; C&H responded by acknowledging the mistakes and stating that they would revise the map as requested by ADEQ.

ADEQ Director Teresa Marks said that the hog farm had not spread manure on any of the areas that are not owned or being leased by C&H. They have also not spread manure on the proper Field 5 that is being leased by C&H, because that field is not correctly included in the NMP, which instead incorrectly listed land not leased by C&H as Field 5.

"They will not land-apply on that field until the discrepancy is resolved," Marks said. She said that there was no hard and fast timeline for C&H to make the necessary corrections. "It'll be a minor revision," she said. "We don't feel as if the mistakes that were made in the permit, at this point ... are something that we're going to call in the whole NMP over. Especially since there's been no harm caused undefined there's been no spreading on those fields that was not appropriate. We want it to be corrected, but there has been no unlawful spreading at this point."

Hannah Chang, an attorney with EarthJustice, a California-based environmental law firm that is part of the legal team representing the coalition, sharply disagreed with Marks' assessment.

"If they want to add this new Field 5 ... that's north of the current Field 5, that is not in the NMP," Chang said. "It's not even in the picture. That's a substantial change under their general permit. So they need to get public notice and comment and follow an actually transparent process that involves the public, everything that didn't happen in the first place."

Further confusing matters, the first quarterly report from the UA testing team used the incorrect maps from the NMP, leading the coalition to believe that the scientists had tested the wrong areas altogether, and causing alarm among some landowners that their property undefined not leased to C&H undefined had been tested without their permission. These Mt. Judea landowners sent a letter to the UA research team expressing their concern.

Sharpley, the scientist heading the testing, said that he didn't correct the maps on the quarterly report because UA's role, by design, is supposed to be completely independent of both state agencies and the relevant stakeholders.

"The fields were improperly designated," Sharpley said. "We knew those fields were mapped wrong ... before we did any testing. We've been monitoring the fields that we have permission to monitor, the fields that were permitted to receive manure."

Since the errors in the NMP were a matter to be resolved between ADEQ and C&H, Sharpley didn't think it was his place to highlight the errors in his quarterly report. "In hindsight, I would have done things differently," he said. "It's a lot of confusion, and it's unfortunate."

Regarding the concerned landowners, Sharpley said that the UA group did not do testing on any land not leased to C&H. The scientists did test on the field leased to C&H but not correctly labeled in the NMP. Though C&H cannot spread on that field until the NMP is corrected, Sharpley and ADEQ said that this testing would be useful in establishing a baseline for future monitoring.

"If there is a clarification that makes this all make sense, we're happy to know it," Chang said. "If the UA study could be revised in a way that actually tests the land that will be receiving impacts from C&H waste, then all the better."

But, Chang said, these problems don't inspire confidence in the NMP or the regulatory process. "These misrepresentations confirm the fact that it really did fly under the radar and that there just wasn't a careful eye to this application," she said. "The fact that these misrepresentations took place are reason enough to reopen the whole permit. It's not just reopening it with respect to this field, but with respect to the entire permit because the permit was applied for and approved based on information that was not fully disclosed. Under the regulations, that's plenty of grounds for ADEQ to reopen it and at least get public comment."

Gov. Mike Beebe's spokesperson Matt DeCample said that the important point was that "they tested the fields where the nutrients were being spread. They didn't miss any of those fields.

"There's no bad news [in the first report], which is great. But to really allay concerns, it's going to take more than the first round of tests, and we know that. We have confidence in the process and the science."

Renew moratorium

Pig farm threatens Buffalo River
 
By Former Reps. Ed Bethune (R-Ark.) and Vic Snyder 
(D-Ark.) - 02/12/14 06:03 PM EST