New Threat to the Buffalo River

[Half Ton]

Most of the research out there is usually based from agricultural related aspects. Mostly because AG is a large source of impairments nationwide, the research follows the issues because the money flows better for research, and land grant universities are where most of the research takes place. For this river there are many other biological type studies that just simply measure population sizes and occurence or not of creek living critters. They can indicate issues, but don't measure the pollutants in the river over time.

I have a vew more recent links for you Codger, though you have probably found them by now.

Here is a great scientific study, with lots of research from a few of the best in the world dealing with research in their respective fields. http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/9686/PDF" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; It will get you from near 86 to 2001.

Interesting info within....

same thing shorter version research summary: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/public ... 115=151044" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's one from the USFS about the "worlds largest drum circle" but it's a conference procedings and not a peer reviewed scientific publication. I saw this one presented.

A success story from a decade ago....this report mentions one heck of a good approach to take.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/succe ... III_AR.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A NPS document that is very good as well from 2004 http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/plannin ... screen.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A document made for NPS http://cpcb.ku.edu/media/cpcb/datalibra ... t_2005.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; kinda technical though.

And then....why not another recent press article. This one talks about some of the petitions that are going around out there and the people that got them started......http://www.couriernews.com/view/full_st ... y-hog-farm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here is a link to a group with the right approach in mind. http://www.buffaloriverfoundation.org/whybrf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Probably many of the same folk that are fired up about this issue, but with a public face and mouth that lends itself to being listned too by, and able to work with the local non 70's era move in crowd that own most of the land in the watershed and can do in large part what they desire on those properties....good or bad. Now they may not be diverse in that they include a wide variety of stakeholders, but they are at least a little less prickly and acceptable to the local population I'll bet.

You know a good side to the farm going in, is that a lot of people are now fired up about the river and more research money and opportunities will manifest themselves and we can all have a better idea about the water quality of the river in relation to land management scenarios or even tourist impacts.

Additionally, if all the people that care so much about this river say to themselves...."hmm, I wonder about what's going on in the other watersheds that I visit, work in, or live in? I wonder if I could make a positive difference or at least try?" AND there could be more stewards overall in the state(s) paying more attention to more watersheds.

[Canoe_Codger]

Thanks for the links. I'll look them over as soon as I have time.

I am curious about the repeated mention of the "seventies move-in crowd" though. Many of those folks likely have children who have grown up there and now have children of their own. In that regard, they are not that much different than the people who lived there when they arrived, the '30's,'40's,'50's,'60's move in crowd. I suspect, though I don't know for a fact, that a good percentage of them have education levels above the average of the earlier residents. What is it that they are assumed to be doing/have done that is different and more detrimental than the previous residents?

I did find the NPS BNR impact plan for 2011 but it was just an outline of what they proposed to do. But it did include a section about LNT education for visitors to the river. But with sequester cuts...

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[Half Ton]

Clean buff wrote "Like, for instance, 'the one I lost Bud', I believe that the Buffalo River should be clean and pristine, and I take it that since you believe 'it hasn't been for decades', that you don't, yet, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you do, since your rejoinder was an affirmation of what Debbie posted. And I am still unclear as to what, exactly, you are advocating for, or how you propose to achieve it."

Pristine can never happen for a river that receives waste water discharges of any kind. "Pristine and clean" is catchy though! Pristinest and cleanest as possible is possible though, and achievable on top.

I am advocating for "the cafo is not the greatest threat to the river" instead Maybe "the greatest most near term and looming potential threat."

I am also advocating the "hedge you bet" strategy that this one is over and spilled milk vs. "we are going to stop this"

Reason being, if most of the people that own most of the land aren't alienated by a perceived threat to their way of life....then they are more open to listening and learning more about how they can help protect the river in real time on their property. Building consensus vs creating enemies.

You bet it's a national river, and for all, and a GEM. However, the local people own most of the land and are mostly in charge of what happens to the river over time based on their land use and land mgmt decisions. No kind of outside influences are going to change that.

So my approach is not much different, but a little more based in fact and building social Capitol within the watershed to achieve buy in from watershed residents. Different from federal intervention and having a bunch of people sign the petition to ban a CAFO which alienates locals ownong mostnof the land - who also eat cafo food almost every day of their life.

Stopping the cafo at all costs is not the best long term strategy. Especially if the result is a defeat. Working the buffalo river watershed alliance to bring in farm bureau, county judge(s), recreationists, national parks staff, tourist businesses, city decision makers, and so on in a balanced way to achieve buy in is exactly what I would do and 100% fully support. I think many of the landowners that need a dose of "buy in"would take that bait. Then work to form a watershed management strategy for the entire watershed with a role for everyone to play.

Work with, not against.

I have to stay active in the thread to keep reiterating these points, because they are important to varying degrees and keep getting turned into something they are Not or are questioned to an extent the begs For expansion. Really, I'm just trying to share some lessons I've learned from such trlated endeavors from sociopolitical experiences with stakeholders on similar situations and subject matter so that the other part of the issue (what happens in the rest of the watershed and if therebis but in or not) is not over looked and is understood to an extent by all. Including rural folks that might like to farm, own a lot of land, and can have a very large impact on the river.

CleanBuffH2O - I hope that answers some of your questions and please know that I don't intend to be an enemy. I do intend to try and keep the record straight and expand the range of conversation on the topic. You are right we should not be bickering amongst, but I'm the only one that can offer up this perspective that's willing to take all of the hits because it is that important.

Where else could you come up with an opponent that will share a strategy to win over? My argument is not loved in this case, I understand, but making sure that others understand it is perceived as important for the Buffalo is what I am up to. It's not easy, that is for sure.

Nice words of Lincoln by the way. Thanks for genuinely working to understand. Now do that with more of the people that are against people being against them....if only in a perceived way.

Codger - my comments were purely in relation to rural sociology and land holdings. Big obstacle to overcome, but not .

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[jrex]

Amen!

[summerbee]

The following is a quote taken from the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. I appreciate the writer's focus, succint ability to convey concerns & pointed absense singular pronouns. Paragraph 3 is particularly germane.
The notice is short, but I hope to attend the upcoming meeting in LR. Considerable energy has been expended on this thread's life since inception. I should hope to see many of your faces in attendance if I am able to make it down & will hang on your very word as you direct your arguments towards the opposing camp.
Or.....you can fiddle and Rome can burn.

Nameste' Ya'll.


Our Battle to Protect the Buffalo National River

10 Mar 2013 9:00 AM

The second "Battle for the Buffalo River" will have many chapters. We begin here and now. If we lose the battle to protect water quality, we lose it all. Our wild river will be dead.


Nothing is more fundamental to the environment than water quality -- it is the first issue. We now know that threats to the watershed can come from anywhere, even agencies empowered to protect the environment can fall short of what is needed. Bureaucracies.grind down all but the most determined. We must change them.


Wisdom will be required to build consensus when we disagree about other issues. Those disagreements could prevent us from working together to protect the watershed. Some will try to pit us against one another, we need to stay united.


Our work together will also require our dedication and vigilance over many years to monitor threats, and change policy at the local, state and federal level. We are in for the long haul.


If the river is poisoned and killed because we can't work together, we will have nothing left to disagree about. We must unite to protect the BNR watershed and present a united front. The future of our wild river depends upon us getting this right.

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[SteveGabbard]

So does the PC&E meeting mean that this is not a done deal? I thought in a previous post someone said construction had started.

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[DeBo]

The APC and E Commission holds regular monthly meetings to consider different issues, usually involving permits and regulation changes. At the and of the regular meeting there is a comment period for members of the public to speak about issues that concern them. If you wish to speak you must sign a comment card and hand it to a staff person.

This is not a formal hearing. It is only an opportunity for people to be heard. I plan on being there.

[summerbee]

Deb,
Would you kindly inform us of the outcome of the upcoming meeting as well as any other future opportunities to participate? For me, and several others I know who would have liked to have driven down from NW Ark, the notice was too short and I could not adjust my work schedule. There are many in this neck of the woods, not all affilated with the ACC, who are equally invested in the Buffalo and motivated to take action regarding this issue.
My friends and I have written/called the ADEQ and gotten the same generic response. Now, on to the next step.
Many thanks.

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[CleanBuffH2O]

[Deleted by Author]

[we66erno1]

I'll be there!