Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

Canoe_Codger wrote: Thanks! Wow, it does look like they may have given the EA to an intern to fill out, if the NPS critique is spot on. I would think this would be enough to cause an injunction for full review at a higher level. And this was a Cargill backed project?

Yeah, I bet someone's getting plenty of sarcastic comments from the Tyson and Cargil attorneys. At this point, the powers behind this would be wise to start looking for a gracious way out. It could be made to drag out, legal things and all, but the perfect storm of public sentiment combined with federal opposition should give the state backers enough concern to suddenly find a better site.

Well, I do realize the principals own the land, but I have to wonder what the attraction to THIS location was (not really addressed in the EA that I have read so far). I understand that there will likely be some "NIMBY" resistance wherever they choose, but there are far less sensitive topography and environments in the State. Hey, don't get me wrong... I like ham and bacon as much as the next guy and I grew up on a farm, so I am not bashing on farmers or farms by any means.

Halfton, The combined populations of Jasper, Marshall, Marble falls, and whatever RV parks you list as permit holders for treated waste discharge are less than 1/3rd of the hog count for the hog farm. Also, these towns are spread over the course of the river, and we are talking about TREATED waste water. Also, how do you explain the RV park with twice the capacity as the city of Jasper? Obviously that facility does not use as much as they are permitted. IF GOV. ORVAL FAUBUS WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CORP OF ENGINEERS WITH A SINGLE LETTER OF OPPOSITION,------- GOV. MIKE BEEBE CAN STOP THE ADEQ!!!!! CALL THE GOVERNORS OFFICE TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I may offer a suggestion, a politely written snail mail letter outlining your concerns might be more effective than a phone call to a receptionist/switchboard operator.

DeBo wrote:Thanks John. I know that you and I agree more than we disagree. Thanks for keeping us grounded.

True that.

In this case though, we do have a pretty wide divide between us on the best approach. I'll stick with this is a done deal, and the best way forward is to work with the locals prior to the 70's bunch that moved there and not to make a stink over a potential source of new pollution that might not even harm the river.

Reason being, the pre 70s locals own most of the land and don't have to do anything to protect the the river if they don't want to. Making them mad and threatening them, even if unintentionally is the worst move to make. It's been made. So, kinda hard to reach them for a decade or more now.

I hear you about the mis-haps of the past, but comparing the past to the present is not bullet proof either. Some people driving toyotas had sticky accelerators in the past, but that does not mean that all toyota's have sticky accellerators.

The formation of the Buffalo River watershed Alliance was maybe good, but so far looks to be more of the same. A bunch of people on the same side, without bringing the other side on board. I'm a little dissapointed with what first sounded great. I guess we'll see and time will tell.

Spreading false information and calling it fact is not the way to go. The BRWA needs to be inclusive of all stakeholder groups, not just the activists that are a little misguided though well intentioned. From here, that's what it looks like.

CleanBuffH2O 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

http://www.ozarkswaterwatch.org/board.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, IT IS time to get objective info and not be deceived by who's who and what's what, the real face is now being shown, and as they say, "the truth will out."

OWW Board = Cargill, Tyson, WalMart...

You know, OWW actually has some pretty strong environmental advocates/activists on its board also. They were wanting more action on this as I heard. However, since their watershed organization is composed of stakeholders that are very diverse and represent lots of different values (as all watershed organizations should be in order to achieve full buy-in and to be able to address all watershed issues most effectively), you get a more tempered, tactile, and thoughtful response than most of the other efforts going on right now.

OWW has also done a lot for the White River over the past two decades....so might not make them the enemy? On a side note, Wal Mart goes way above and beyond to limit their potential water pollution sources from like say.....stormwater runoff. They surpass environmental regulations of most communities they go to these days. So really, Wal-Mart and the Walton Foundation that resulted from Walmart are really environmental stewards in a lot of ways.

The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance will accomplish more faster by adopting a board that is inclusive of all parties involved here. Maybe BRWA should invite Cargill, the local Mt. Judea farmer or someone from Farm Bureau to be involved.

The Illinois River Watershed Partnership has a similar model and WQ is getting better in that watershed all of the time for the most part.

Food for thought.....

Actually, the large sow hasn't sung yet on this project. It is quite possible that with a push from Federal agencies for legal compliance with existing laws, the permit may be rescended by the permitting agency. Or compliance may prove too costly for the development to begin. I would think that the owners of the operation and their financiers would want to address such issues before the project continues, rather than face the possibility of an injunction after the construction is done, or even after operations have commenced.

As to just who has a "hog in the hunt", it is certainly not limited to local residents regardless of how long they have lived there. Not even limited to Arkansas citizens, BNR belongs to the people of the entire U.S.

Clean Buff H20 Wrote: "There is obviously a wealth of misinformation out there and people with their own agendas to push, but, we only have one, and that is that we love the Buffalo and want it clean and pristine. Period."

Sorry bud, but you have lost that one. It is not pristine anymore and has not been for decades. Maintaining and improving is definitely within reach though.

Clean Buff H20 Wrote:" And 5,630 people, (as of the time of this post agree), and I think that there are people who can better explain than me, so I'll leave it to them:"

just because a lot of people agree on something does not mean they understand the issue well or that they can better explain. It does mean that they care enough about the river to sign a petition though. Hey, if you can get them all properly informed and educated that would be some real magic. Keeping the message accurate and not sensational will even win over many more people and help the cause even more.

Canoe_Codger wrote:What deficiencies did the NPS find in the permit?

A National Park Service review of the documents for the farm revealed 45 significant violations.

There were 45 points of contention, but not all of those points were accurate. Many of them were in the category of ....mad and pouting about it.

No doubt there were some inaccuracies. Not to change the subject, but FSA has already taken a hit and had many of their offices closed. Too much work load on anyone will lead to some mistakes being made. A lot of the mistakes in this document are not fatal mistakes, and can be easily corrected. Some are more concerning than others for certain.

cpresoz wrote:

Canoe_Codger wrote: Thanks! Wow, it does look like they may have given the EA to an intern to fill out, if the NPS critique is spot on. I would think this would be enough to cause an injunction for full review at a higher level. And this was a Cargill backed project?

Yeah, I bet someone's getting plenty of sarcastic comments from the Tyson and Cargil attorneys. At this point, the powers behind this would be wise to start looking for a gracious way out. It could be made to drag out, legal things and all, but the perfect storm of public sentiment combined with federal opposition should give the state backers enough concern to suddenly find a better site.

Remember, pushing the CAFO to another watershed is just displacing the problem not taking care of it. All Waterways are important and worthy of protection. Remember, CAFO can be a smaller farm too, so don't squash the small guy by accident while battling the big guys.

And remember, Food is at the core of the issue here. We either need better food management systems or less people in order to make a world where we don't need the CAFO.

hollohead wrote:Halfton, The combined populations of Jasper, Marshall, Marble falls, and whatever RV parks you list as permit holders for treated waste discharge are less than 1/3rd of the hog count for the hog farm. Also, these towns are spread over the course of the river, and we are talking about TREATED waste water. Also, how do you explain the RV park with twice the capacity as the city of Jasper? Obviously that facility does not use as much as they are permitted. IF GOV. ORVAL FAUBUS WAS ABLE TO STOP THE CORP OF ENGINEERS WITH A SINGLE LETTER OF OPPOSITION,------- GOV. MIKE BEEBE CAN STOP THE ADEQ!!!!! CALL THE GOVERNORS OFFICE TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess my real point here was that there are direct wastewaters discharges into the river every day. Also, many tourists flush those toilets so its not just a towns population that counts. It's how many times the toilets flush. Either way, the permit does not lie.

Additionally, again, the hog manure will be treated as well.

summerbee wrote:Meanwhile, back at the ranch....

KUAF / NPR 91.3 FM is scheduled to report about the CAFO on the Big Creek Tributary of the Buffalo National River Tuesday March 12th at 12 (NOON) CST on their daily news hour 'Ozarks at Large' and the broadcast will be repeated at 7:00PM. For those of you outside of their listening area, (Northwest Arkansas), the broadcast can be streamed at http://www.KUAF.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and if you can't tune in live or miss the stream, the report will be archived as a podcast available for free download in the iTunes store under 'Ozarks at Large.' So everybody please Tune In, Stream In, and / or Download it for FREE! So be a part of the conversation, tell your story, and make your voice heard! Thanks! — at Upper Buffalo National River.
HOME | KUAF 91.3FM
http://www.kuaf.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know the woman who is the primary interviewer. She does good work. Nope, she is not an "expert" on hydrology or ecology or econonics or agriculture or sociology or infectious diseases.. but she will be a source for information other than this thread.

I agree with all of what is stated above. JF presented a very unbiased story. This kind of informational approach is the way to go.

However, the buffalo already is the poopalo in a way since most tourists leave their poop in the gravel bars as is.

Half Ton wrote: I agree with all of what is stated above. JF presented a very unbiased story. This kind of informational approach is the way to go.

However, the buffalo already is the poopalo in a way since most tourists leave their poop in the gravel bars as is.

Most do? Where does this come from? A good number of the visitors don't even venture onto the river. Some won't leave areas with modern restroom facilities. Many know to go some distance from the river to do their business and some of us are known to carry our own muck bucket or rocket box. Perhaps I misunderstand and it was just hyperbole?

Canoe_Codger wrote:

Half Ton wrote: I agree with all of what is stated above. JF presented a very unbiased story. This kind of informational approach is the way to go.

However, the buffalo already is the poopalo in a way since most tourists leave their poop in the gravel bars as is.

Most do? Where does this come from? A good number of the visitors don't even venture onto the river. Some won't leave areas with modern restroom facilities. Many know to go some distance from the river to do their business and some of us are known to carry our own muck bucket or rocket box. Perhaps I misunderstand and it was just hyperbole?

ha ha. my bad. I sensationalized that. Most of the tourists that float down the river and go # 2 leave em in the gravel bars. That's enough to make it poopy anway. We're just leaving number one out of it for now.

AND you codger, along with some others do remove them in their groovers and are truly leave no trace folks. Thanks to those people!

It would be interesting to see water quality reports on the river. Studies that I have been able to access so far are historic, dealing with the 1972-86 period. I noted how dramaticly the levels of fecal coliform bacteria, phosphorus and other indicators dropped as the dairys in the watershed closed, from a beginning in the upper 20's to about 17 at the end of that particular report. And how upstream and downstream value were affected by cattle grazing in the Boxley vally. However I've not seen any recent reports which reflect human caused fecal coliform bacteria counts.

I agree that facts matter, but past studies have shown how sensitive this watershed ecosystem is. Where can we see recent facts on water quality issues pertaining to park visitors? 1.1 million is a lot, though not evenly spread throughout the year as would a population of 3,000 breeder sows there year round. That adds another 1,095,000 "user/visitor days" to the human visitor day load on the watershed.