hollohead wrote:Half Ton, I am sorry, but I completely disagree about the long time locals. I know, respect, and love many of these unique people. But don't fool yourself, if you tell them 38 million dollars is poured into the local economy each year from the BNR, their answer is, "no it does not". They do not believe anything good has come from the BNR, and hold a grudge still against it's creation..
We agree on this 100% - Until those folks understand how many tax dollars go towards county services/infrastructure and how they benefit from those funds......little to no progress will be made with them.
hollohead wrote: I have a good friend who is a direct descendant of the original settlers, was born on this mountain, and has lived his whole life here. He originally hated the park, but now loves it because his land adjoins the Compton trailhead and he can ride his mule anywhere in the park he wants. He told me the other day, " the locals hate the river, despise the creation of the park, and will be angry until the day they die that their land was taken from them, you will never convince them otherwise". To a lot of them, the hog farm is sweet revenge. This is why I never talk about this issue with these folks, and if it is brought up, I don't say anything. If our only hope for a clean Buffalo is through the locals, we are out of luck. The main reason the river has stayed relatively clean, is a lack of development money available to the locals. If big AG steps in to provide that capital, the river is done for. For this reason alone, we must rely on state and national agencies to keep the river as clean as possible. Half Ton is so right about other issues with water quality being just as important, I just got home from 3 days in the Ponca wilderness and I notice the difference
This is where we agree and disagree.....
You think Federal/State intervention is the only solution and believe this can still happen, and is the best approach.
I think that working to win over these folks we're talking about and sneakily getting them on board for mutual benefit is the way to go, and can still happen.
I think that continuing on the path of making enemy's in the watershed by trying to stop the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation is what's happening, and instead of backing down to public pressure they are only becoming more deeply entrenched in their determination to continue. As you say "revenge".
Perhaps a mixture of both approaches might be possible and best? We can't make enemies of people or agencies that we are going to have to deal with/work with at some level to protect the watershed.
to continued discussion about a fascinating and worthwile topic.
The more we can eliminate our differences with our perceived enemy/foe/nemesis and find common ground that we can all agree to at some level is the best way forward. The way that many other watershed challenges that lie ahead can be met.
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance webpage does a good write up about this and Summerbee shared that info in this thread. That is the right approach in those words.
The BRWA webpage does a mis-service to its own cause by soley focusing on the CAFO, and sensationalizing/mis-representing some facts.
Example:
From BRWA webpage -
http://buffaloriveralliance.org/Default ... Id=1547312" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Facts About the Mount Judea Hog Farm CAFO
by ######
ADEQ has granted a permit for a 6503 swine farm (CAFO) near Big Creek, West of Mt. Judea, (Hwy. intersections 74/123) in Newton County, Arkansas. There will be 17 separate hog waste application fields, 11 of these are adjacent to Big Creek, a tributary to the Buffalo National River. Total acreage = 630.7 acres. The treatment facility will consist of shallow pits with a capacity of 759,542 gallons, a settling basin with capacity of 831,193 gallons and a holding pond with capacity of 1,904,730 gallons.
This amounts to 2,090,181 gallons of manure, litter, and wastewater per year, equivalent to what the city of Harrison produces."
The above statement which can be found on the Buffalo River Watershed is not true and not factual. Based on facts such as: The City of Harrison discharges 2,600,000 gallons of wastewater per day ( Check it out for yourself:
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 120525.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) which is equivalent to 9,490,000,000 gallons of wastewater discharged into crooked creek each year. (2.6 mgd * 365 days)
If you prefer the long form
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/ftproot/Pub ... 034321.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; pay special attention to the 670+ acres that the City of Harrison land applies sewage sludge too each year.....
This land is also in Karst topography, and studies have shown that groundwater from the crooked creek watershed works its way into the Buffalo River.
So that is one of the facts on the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is claiming that is misleading/sensationalized/why I still can't jump on board with the effort being led by this group.... constructive criticism meant to help the group be heard by many a local farmer to help achieve more buy-in.
Also the website fails to make note of the other challenges out there.
By the way (not to sensationalize), the average human produces between .7 and .14 oz of solid poo per day. So lets shoot for 10 oz a day * 13,000 (population of harrison)*365*(days in year) and that equals 47,450,000 oz poo produced per year. 47,450,000 oz/year divided by 16 oz in a lb = 2,965,625 lbs of solid waste produced per year. That does not include urine from people.
I see where the BRWA is trying to make a point that the Hog Farm will have a lot of waste, but 2.3 million gallons of hog waste&waste water is not the same as 9,490,000,000 gallons of human wastewater directly discharged into crooked creek in 1 year + 2,965, 625 lbs applied to 670 acres in crooked creek watershed in 1 year.
Therefore - the sensational type of info does not lend itself to credibility upon further inspection. This is where a little more moderated, all inclusive stakeholder wise, and all inclusive pollution wise approach should be undertaken by BRWA in order to achieve the level of protection/beneficial watershed mangement that is sought in order to protect the buffalo and keep it the cleanest and pristinest it can be throughout the rest of time.
Let me know how that sounds
