Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

I received this response this afternoon:
Dear Mr. Esche:

Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the possible impact of a new hog farming operation (C&H Farm) in the vicinity of Mt. Judea, AR. We are providing the following information in an attempt to answer questions we have received from several sources regarding this matter.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated Federal Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on February 12, 2003 with additional portions revised in 2008. Based on the Federal Requirements, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality developed the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) General Permit ARG590000 which was public noticed on February 10, 2011 and April 18, 2011 in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette throughout the state. Multiple public hearings were held to make the public and the regulated community aware of the requirements of this permit and allow them the opportunity to voice their concerns and make any comments. During the comment period, the Department received numerous comments from the public, regulated community, and other state and federal agencies which were addressed in the Response to Comments and included with the final permit package. The final CAFO General Permit was issued on October 6, 2011 and made effective on November 1, 2011.

A copy of the permit, fact sheet, and public notice were sent via email to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Arkansas Heritage, the EPA Region 6, and the Arkansas Department of Health for review. None of those organizations objected to the issuance of this permit.

Under the CAFO General Permit, any operator wishing to obtain coverage must demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements of the permit by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI); a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 122 and 412 and that has been developed in accordance with the Natural Resource Conservation Service Practice Standard Code 590 including the 2010 Arkansas Phosphorus Index; a Disclosure Statement; a permit fee; an ADEQ Form 1; and plans and specifications stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Arkansas.

C&H Hog Farms submitted a Notice of Intent on June 13, 2012. The Notice of Intent was reviewed and determined to be complete on June 25, 2012. In accordance with Condition 5.1 of the CAFO General Permit, the Notice of Intent was public noticed on the ADEQ website for 30 days starting on June 25, 2012 and Notice of Coverage for this facility was issued on August 3, 2012. In addition to the CAFO General Permit, the facility was required to obtain coverage under the Stormwater Construction General Permit (ARR150000) with tracking no. ARR153893. The Stormwater Construction General Permit minimizes sediment runoff from the construction of the facility and its holding structures.

The CAFO General Permit requires the facility to design the holding ponds to prevent an overflow in a major rain event. An evaluation of the adequacy of the designed manure storage structure using the most recent version of the Soil Plant Air Water (SPAW) Hydrology Tool which was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The evaluation must include all inputs to SPAW including but not limited to daily precipitation, temperature, and evaporation data for the previous 100 years, user-specified soil profiles representative of the CAFO's land application areas, planned crop rotations consistent with the CAFO's Nutrient Management Plan, and the final modeled result of no overflows from the designed open manure storage structure. For those CAFOs where 100 years of local weather data for the CAFO's location is not available, CAFOs may use a simulation with a confidence interval analysis conducted over a period of 100 years.

Additional requirements include lining the pond with an 18 inch compacted clay liner to prevent contamination to the Karst Terrain or groundwater. Land application of the wastewater will be performed on the permitted fields and in accordance with the buffer distances stated in Condition No. 4.2.1.5 of the CAFO General Permit to prevent contamination of surface waters. These setbacks include distances from surface waters, water intakes, sinkholes, well heads, Extraordinary Resource Waters (ERWs), property lines, and neighboring occupied buildings.

No comments were received regarding endangered species. However, the issuance of this permit in accordance with Section 6.8 of the CAFO General Permit does not exempt the permittee from complying with requirements from other state, federal, county, or local agencies.

Concerning odors from this facility, the Department does not have the authority to regulate odors. The Department does encourage the use of a Good Neighbor Policy which is also promoted by the NRCS to try and keep the odors to a minimum.

All permits issued by the Water Division are issued in accordance with all Federal and State Regulations. Please be assured that the Department will continue to review all comments and concerns submitted regarding this issue.

I hope this information is helpful to you and I have adequately addressed any questions you have regarding this case. If you have any other questions or if I can provide further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Stephen Hogan of my staff at (501) 682-0648 or by email at bailey@adeq.state.ar.us or hogan@adeq.state.ar.us.

Sincerely,


John Bailey, P.E.

Permits Branch Manager, Water Division

(501) 682-0629

Did anyone else recieve a reply from ADEQ ? Here is the response I recieved . Translated it says "you had your chance and you blew it !"Dear Mr Nixon:



Thank you for your recent inquiry concerning the possible impact of a new hog farming operation (C&H Farm) in the vicinity of Mt. Judea, AR. We are providing the following information in an attempt to answer questions we have received from several sources regarding this matter.



The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated Federal Requirements for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on February 12, 2003 with additional portions revised in 2008. Based on the Federal Requirements, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality developed the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) General Permit ARG590000 which was public noticed on February 10, 2011 and April 18, 2011 in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette throughout the state. Multiple public hearings were held to make the public and the regulated community aware of the requirements of this permit and allow them the opportunity to voice their concerns and make any comments. During the comment period, the Department received numerous comments from the public, regulated community, and other state and federal agencies which were addressed in the Response to Comments and included with the final permit package. The final CAFO General Permit was issued on October 6, 2011 and made effective on November 1, 2011.



A copy of the permit, fact sheet, and public notice were sent via email to the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Arkansas Heritage, the EPA Region 6, and the Arkansas Department of Health for review. None of those organizations objected to the issuance of this permit.



Under the CAFO General Permit, any operator wishing to obtain coverage must demonstrate their ability to meet the requirements of the permit by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI); a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 122 and 412 and that has been developed in accordance with the Natural Resource Conservation Service Practice Standard Code 590 including the 2010 Arkansas Phosphorus Index; a Disclosure Statement; a permit fee; an ADEQ Form 1; and plans and specifications stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Arkansas.



C&H Hog Farms submitted a Notice of Intent on June 13, 2012. The Notice of Intent was reviewed and determined to be complete on June 25, 2012. In accordance with Condition 5.1 of the CAFO General Permit, the Notice of Intent was public noticed on the ADEQ website for 30 days starting on June 25, 2012 and Notice of Coverage for this facility was issued on August 3, 2012. In addition to the CAFO General Permit, the facility was required to obtain coverage under the Stormwater Construction General Permit (ARR150000) with tracking no. ARR153893. The Stormwater Construction General Permit minimizes sediment runoff from the construction of the facility and its holding structures.



The CAFO General Permit requires the facility to design the holding ponds to prevent an overflow in a major rain event. An evaluation of the adequacy of the designed manure storage structure using the most recent version of the Soil Plant Air Water (SPAW) Hydrology Tool which was developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The evaluation must include all inputs to SPAW including but not limited to daily precipitation, temperature, and evaporation data for the previous 100 years, user-specified soil profiles representative of the CAFO's land application areas, planned crop rotations consistent with the CAFO's Nutrient Management Plan, and the final modeled result of no overflows from the designed open manure storage structure. For those CAFOs where 100 years of local weather data for the CAFO's location is not available, CAFOs may use a simulation with a confidence interval analysis conducted over a period of 100 years.



Additional requirements include lining the pond with an 18 inch compacted clay liner to prevent contamination to the Karst Terrain or groundwater. Land application of the wastewater will be performed on the permitted fields and in accordance with the buffer distances stated in Condition No. 4.2.1.5 of the CAFO General Permit to prevent contamination of surface waters. These setbacks include distances from surface waters, water intakes, sinkholes, well heads, Extraordinary Resource Waters (ERWs), property lines, and neighboring occupied buildings.



No comments were received regarding endangered species. However, the issuance of this permit in accordance with Section 6.8 of the CAFO General Permit does not exempt the permittee from complying with requirements from other state, federal, county, or local agencies.



Concerning odors from this facility, the Department does not have the authority to regulate odors. The Department does encourage the use of a Good Neighbor Policy which is also promoted by the NRCS to try and keep the odors to a minimum.



All permits issued by the Water Division are issued in accordance with all Federal and State Regulations. Please be assured that the Department will continue to review all comments and concerns submitted regarding this issue.



I hope this information is helpful to you and I have adequately addressed any questions you have regarding this case. If you have any other questions or if I can provide further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Stephen Hogan of my staff at (501) 682-0648 or by email at bailey@adeq.state.ar.us or hogan@adeq.state.ar.us.



Sincerely,





John Bailey, P.E.

Permits Branch Manager, Water Division

(501) 682-0629







From: Marks, Teresa
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:39 PM

HA ! I guess someone else DID recieve a reply . I didn't see page 2 of the thread

We all received the same one. Pretty funny.

Here is a petition being circulated by the Newton County Wildlife Federation to call for a moratorium on these kinds of operations near the Buffalo River. Please sign!

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-sta ... 8238857311" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good Morning -- Just want to make sure everyone is aware of the Newton County Quorum Court meeting being held on Monday, March 4 at 7:00 pm, at the court house in Jasper. The Mt Judea CAFO will be discussed at this meeting and there will be at least one representative from the park. It is expected that the discussion will include the idea of imposing a moratorium on any more CAFOs within Newton County, or at least within the watershed.

This is a really important matter and we want to make sure that everyone is aware of this meeting and have an opportunity to voice their opinion.

The park is receiving an increasing number of inquiries about the CAFO. The following is the standard language that we're using in response to the inquiries:

======================================================

Thank you for your interest in the Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) being constructed within the watershed of Buffalo National River. The National Park Service shares your concern and is working closely with a team of environmental and legal specialists to identify the level of risk to Buffalo River and the best way to mitigate such risks.

In addition to the environmental and public health risks that may be associated with corporate farming operations, the National Park Service is also concerned about the apparent lack of public input into ADEQ's decision to issue this permit. Civic engagement is an important part of government decision making and underscores the most basic principles of democratic governance. If you wish to have input into this matter, you are encouraged to submit your comments to the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission and to Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe.

There are many unanswered questions regarding this issue. Additional information will be made available to the public as it becomes available.

Thank you for your support.

Contact information for Ark. Pollution Control and Ecology Commission: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/commission/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Contact information for Governor Beebe: http://governor.arkansas.gov/contact/index.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks,
Jesse
Buffalo River Canoes

I want to thank everyone for the discussion and for all the information you have shared. I plan on attending the quorum court meeting Monday night. Hope to see some of you there.

Is the Ozark Society involved? Seems like they should be all over this and leading the charge. I live by the river, and trust me, most locals think the Buffalo is worthless, and most have never even been to the river. I'll try and make the meeting in Jasper, but I can speak from personal experience about the insanity of public meetings in Newton co., and it aint pretty.

I've e-mailed everyone I could at ADEQ. It's an unbelievable tragedy that they would allow this to happen. Let's keep fighting.

I attended the meeting in Jasper. The house was packed and opinions devided right down the middle. We are working on this from several angles now and we need folks to keep up the pressure. I am copying a letter below from a water scientist about the farm and others that might move in if we don' t stop this. now. If you have not signed the petition please do so. Letters to Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology will be helpful also.

Hello Everyone -

This is a forward from my research partner Amanda Keen-Zebert. I couldn't say it any better, so I'm just sending her words on. If you are willing please share with your friends and family. I'm very worried about the implications if this facility becomes a reality. I may study human impacts on river systems, but I really do not want to study this impact! -steph

Dear all, In case you haven't already heard, there is a large hog farm confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) in construction on Big Creek, which is a tributary of the Buffalo National River, a place that is near and dear to many of our hearts. The park service was not made aware of the permit application until just recently, though the permit was approved last year. Please be aware that this situation will create a precedent for more CAFOs in the watershed unless there is a demand that any permit from Arkansas Department Environmental Quality (ADEQ) within the Buffalo National River watershed be reviewed by the Buffalo National River. This has implications regarding the protection of all federal lands including our National Parks particularly where there is state jurisdiction within the watershed of federally protected water bodies.

The facility is now under construction and will be operated through a contract with Cargill. I have compiled information about the site in the following website--just the facts, some maps, and links to information: keepthebuffaloinanaturalstate

There is a petition circulating to oppose the CAFO. Please have everyone in your family sign it: http://www.change.org/petitions/keep-am ... d-pristine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I also compiled a list of Cargill brands and products posted on the website on the documents page in case you want to avoid them through conscientious consumerism in opposition to this CAFO.

Please feel free to forward this email and circulate widely. If you have any opinions, pro or con, please post them to the website on the comments page to encourage an open dialog about this issue.

There is a facebook page: Keep the Buffalo National River Clean and Pristine that you can 'like' to keep up with the updates.

A story about this will air on Ozarks at Large on Tuesday, March 12 at noon and at 7 pm.

Best wishes, Amanda “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” ~ Margaret Mead

--A. Keen-Zebert, Ph.D. Dept. of Geosciences & Watershed Studies Institute Murray State University 334 Blackburn Science Bldg. Murray, KY 42071 keenzebert@gmail.com

--Stephanie L. Shepherd, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Environmental, Geographical, and Geological Sciences

Glad to see the real motivation behind this all now is beginning to show its face. Somebody does not want Cafos in arkansas.

The buffalo is the vehicle to try and drum up public support against Cafos. From wherein am that's what this all looks like.

Aside from being sensational, this going to make a lot of enemies for the club. I actually see this as Ags chance to prove how harmless to and beneficial for water quality in Arkansas.

Here is a link to a newsletter from Ozarks water watch - a local watershed organization. It is the most accurate and unbiased info on this topic to date that I have seen. Though it does have links to some of the sensational info sources that got this whole thing fired up in not the best way to help keep the buffalo safe for future generations.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... 8myk5aI%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you don't want to eat food from afo's or cafo's you best just skip the grocery stores all together since that is wher most of the chicken,pork, and beef that is on your table comes from. Might want to skip eating out most of the time also.

Respectfully in the minority to the many uninformed or skewed perception on this issue,

John

Thanks Deb, Eric et all.
I have called and written and have bribed, blackmailed and arm-twisted my friends and accquaintences into action.
Please keep updates coming.
As one of my favorite underdogs once said, "Keep your eyes on the prize.".

Half Ton wrote:Glad to see the real motivation behind this all now is beginning to show its face. Somebody does not want Cafos in arkansas.

The buffalo is the vehicle to try and drum up public support against Cafos. From wherein am that's what this all looks like.

Aside from being sensational, this going to make a lot of enemies for the club. I actually see this as Ags chance to prove how harmless to and beneficial for water quality in Arkansas.

Here is a link to a newsletter from Ozarks water watch - a local watershed organization. It is the most accurate and unbiased info on this topic to date that I have seen. Though it does have links to some of the sensational info sources that got this whole thing fired up in not the best way to help keep the buffalo safe for future generations.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... 8myk5aI%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you don't want to eat food from afo's or cafo's you best just skip the grocery stores all together since that is wher most of the chicken,pork, and beef that is on your table comes from. Might want to skip eating out most of the time also.

Respectfully in the minority to the many uninformed or skewed perception on this issue,

John

The poor dead horse is now beaten to a pulp, so I will say this and nothing more because this has just become silly. Your continued insistence that we don't know where our food comes from and we're not willing to accept the reality that we've put ourselves in a position that requires the existence of big farms is ludicrous, and I think you know it. This effort is not about kicking or keeping big agri out of the state, and I think you know that too. It's about exercising common sense and not circumventing the will of the people. There are plenty of other places Cargill could choose for a hog farm, which, once again, I'm sure you know. If you don't have a problem with this project and its ramifications (which are sensational whether you want to admit or not) and others it will inevitably engender that's your business, but at least have the decency to argue your case on its own merits instead of deflecting.

Deuce wrote:

Half Ton wrote:Glad to see the real motivation behind this all now is beginning to show its face. Somebody does not want Cafos in arkansas.

The buffalo is the vehicle to try and drum up public support against Cafos. From wherein am that's what this all looks like.

Aside from being sensational, this going to make a lot of enemies for the club. I actually see this as Ags chance to prove how harmless to and beneficial for water quality in Arkansas.

Here is a link to a newsletter from Ozarks water watch - a local watershed organization. It is the most accurate and unbiased info on this topic to date that I have seen. Though it does have links to some of the sensational info sources that got this whole thing fired up in not the best way to help keep the buffalo safe for future generations.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... 8myk5aI%3D" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you don't want to eat food from afo's or cafo's you best just skip the grocery stores all together since that is wher most of the chicken,pork, and beef that is on your table comes from. Might want to skip eating out most of the time also.

Respectfully in the minority to the many uninformed or skewed perception on this issue,

John

The poor dead horse is now beaten to a pulp, so I will say this and nothing more because this has just become silly. Your continued insistence that we don't know where our food comes from and we're not willing to accept the reality that we've put ourselves in a position that requires the existence of big farms is ludicrous, and I think you know it. This effort is not about kicking or keeping big agri out of the state, and I think you know that too. It's about exercising common sense and not circumventing the will of the people. There are plenty of other places Cargill could choose for a hog farm, which, once again, I'm sure you know. If you don't have a problem with this project and its ramifications (which are sensational whether you want to admit or not) and others it will inevitably engender that's your business, but at least have the decency to argue your case on its own merits instead of deflecting.

Duece, you have just proven my point. You don't know what you are talking about and yet are opinionated at the some time. It's called food insecurity and its a real issue. Some people do not have enough food or access to it. Fact.

Maybe, just maybe, the food supply can be managed differently in the transport storage and use so that food waste is limited or non-existent. Maybe. So good try, but you are gonna have to come up with the data on that one for me duece.

Moreover, deflection is not what is happening on my part. I am simply presenting the very real other side of the issue. FYI Cafos according to the letter of the law can be very small as in the size of a small farm so you might want to read up on that too. Furthermore, Cafos are already in the watershed and most of the small farm beef gets sold to feedlots where most our beef in the USA comes from (fact). Many small farms and farmers are integrated with big ag at some point.

So now that I have backed up those points, why don't I back up some more for you.

Here we go: these are the real discharges into the river and impairments in the watershed.

The integrated Water Quality Assessment Report (305b Report) that ADEQ puts together every couple of years can be found here: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branc ... -04-01.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Note: It is from 2008, even though a 2010 and 2012 have been developed. Reason being that EPA takes a while to approve this stuff. SO, 2008 is the only currently accepted info to date and that’s why it’s referenced most of the time.
Of special note on page 297 you can read about the Buffalo River Watershed and it’s listed impairments. Impairment of a waterway is when one or more of its beneficial designated uses is not being met. Example, water with too much bacteria in it is not designated for primary contact (full body immersion)....or too much Berrylium is in the water which means that eating fish is not safe for human consumption ( fishery impairment).

The parts of the Buffalo River that are listed as impaired are highlighted in RED on the map on page 298/ A-146
Also of note are the causes and sources of impairment to these river reaches

As well as existing discharge permits of wastewater directly into the river all of the time.

AR0034011 MARSHALL, CITY OF TRIB,FOREST CK,BEAR CK,BUFFALO RIV 11010005 026 1
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; between. .292 and .5 million gallons per day (MGD) discharge of treated human waste water into Buffalo river each day = 29,200 or 50,000 Gallons per Day into the river. (listed as the source of impairment for Bear Creek Tribuary of Buffalo)

AR0034088 MARBLE FALLS SID TRIB,MILL CK,BUFFALO RV,WHITE RV 11010005 012 2
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034088.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .01 MGD = 1,000 gallons of wastewater discharge per day

AR0034584 JASPER, CITY OF LTL BUFFALO RV,BUFFALO RV 11010005 015 3
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034584.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .1 mgd discharge = 10,000 gallons per day human wastewater discharge directly into Buffalo River


AR0034941 USDINPS-BUFFALO NATL RV-BUFFAL BUFFALO RV 11010005 004 4
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034941.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .022 MGD of permitted RV discharge into river = 22,000 gallons per day discharge of human RV generated lagoon treated waste into river.

AR0034959 USDINPS-BUFFALO NATL RV-BUFFAL PANTHER CK,BUFFALO RV 11010005 004 5 http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034959.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .02 Million Gallons a Day permitted discharge = 20,000 gallons per day into the river of treated waste from RV’s visiting the park.
Two of those permits are from the NPS for wastewater and one is from the City of Marshall. These waste discharges happen every single day, and one of them is directly linked to an existing impairment within the Buffalo River Watershed.

NO BIG DEAL THOUGH, BECAUSE THESE ARE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HOGS AND THEY ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES WITH NO ATTENTION TO THEM SO THEY DON’T MATTER. THEY DON’T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY AT ALL EVEN THOUGH THEY DISCHARGE APPROXIMATLEY 100,000 GALLONS A DAY INTO THE WATER. ONLY PIG FARMS THAT MIGHT UPON A BLUE MOON OVERFLOW A COUPLE HUNDRED GALLONS ARE ENDANGERING THE RIVER!!!!!

Seriously, The sources of pollution that impact the river are great and numerous and mostly related to people. The future sources of pollution and hydromodification that will continue to impact the river will be from people. The people in the watershed are in control of the watershed. We need to work with those people....Not against them.
Deflection or re-framing or the other side of the coin? Either way you spin it, I call it truth.
And circling back for one more big chomp at CAFO’s Kill Buffalo River.........
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/ ... report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This is the 2012 integrated WQ assessment report that is developed by ADEQ in response to the Clean Water Act as dictated. AND.......oh my, the same impaired stretches of river, for my goodness, the same cuases.
Wow, the river has been impaired at least for the past 4 years but nobody thought the river was impaired, or threatened, or wanted to do anything positive about it.....
Hmm, who’d a thunk it? Only big farms are bad for WQ, might as well not get into the WQ improvement protection mode for a river til the agriculture that we rely on to feed the world is moving in.
Because well, parking lots and concrete lined ditches aren’t bad for water quality, BUT everyone knows that AG is the party to blame.

On a side note I swallowed a bunch of beef cattle and poultry country water on Lee Creek yesterday got a bunch up my nose AND don’t have a sinus infection today........
BUT I did get a nose-full on my last trip down the pristine Richland creek and it’s clear waters, but got the worst sinus infection I have ever had.......
There is more to water quality than meets the eye.
There is more to managing water quality and encouraging an entire population to make beneficial management changes than coming in and aggravating them to the point where they will never listen or want to embrace ways to help improve water quality.
Deflection? I say truth. Luke, Debbie, Everyone else that is on the same ship. I respectfully disagree and wish that you all would not make it so hard to win the future as you are currently doing with this attack on the agricultural community and their way of life. Every day you keep this up you are digging the whole a little deeper for ACC or anyone else with conservation intentions to achieve those intentions by working with most of the people that own most of the land in most of the watershed land area.

As long as pollution finger pointing is taking place there will be no progress. Everyone has a role to play in being the solution to pollution.

Just think about it.....

Coming from somebody, who just does not have a clue, does not personally undertake several measures to help protect water quality, does not volunteer every anywhere to help out with water quality, does not love the Buffalo River at all, has not researched the topic in the field, had practical experience working with landowners to solve these issues, and doesn’t know a thing about water quality, water quality principles, watersheds, and like-wise and so on.

I am not unreasonable and love the buffalo as much as anyone, just don't for so many people to be casually involved with water quality protection when it is convenient and not factual. I can handle one or the other at a time, but both is just not tolerable at the same time....for me who wouldn't really know much about it....

John I think that you make some good points and I want you to know that some of us are working on solutions for this that will be helpful to the families with the permit. I fully sympathize with the position that they are in and hope to work with them and some of their neighbors whom I know personally. I am VERY concerned about what this situation will mean for our relationship to people in the area. At the meeting on last Monday night in Jasper, the room was almost equally divided between those supporting the farm and those against it. A lot of people who live in the Buffalo River watershed now are people who came there to escape pollution elsewhere. They testified to that at the meeting. There was anger on both sides.

I also know that there are other serious problems in the watershed. We have worked with Jasper on their repeated violations at their water treatment facility which was finally fixed this summer. The Mill Creek situation is slowly being remedied as well. There are still problems. In 2001 there was an unreported spill of hog waste from a factory farm at Pelsor on the Richland watershed. The owner was shut down and fined 500 dollars a day until it was fixed. There have been noticeable changes in the water quality of Richland Creek in the last ten years. We don’t need more problems now when we are just beginning to get a handle on the ones we have.

I am actually encouraged that people care about this issue. You are right in noting that we are a big part of the problem in how we choose our food but the public is generally uninformed and we are highly susceptible to the psychology of food and advertising. I have a strong belief that corporate farms have been a very bad thing for our nation, our health and for farmers as well.

I grew up on the Illinois River in Oklahoma. I had neighbors who were cattle, hog and chicken farmers. I was in 4H and when I went to college I majored in biology and did some fish work as an intern. I got a minor in physical geography with an emphasis in hydrology. I have worked on conservation issues and policy for the last 15 years. I don’t know everything but I know quite a bit. Also, Im old and I have seen a lot of things close up and personal.
I had just moved to Little Rock, back in the eighties when a major violation made the news about the breach of a holding pond for chicken waste near the Illinois River in Arkansas. Millions of gallons dumped into the river and was carried downstream all the way to Lake Tenkiller in Oklahoma. The Illinois back then was a clear river. I visited my parents on weekends at the time and it was an awful thing to see what happened to the river. It turned a dark brown, the color of manure and it stunk. It stayed that way for nearly three years. It took ten years for it to finally recover. The farm owner was fined $10,000 but the river was ruined. I know that urban runoff is responsible for most of the problems in the river now but at that time it was chicken waste, cattle and bank clearing.

I wish there were easy answers for all this, but there are not. I will do whatever I can to see that we do what is fair for everyone but you well know that is not always possible once things take off as they have in this case.