Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

http://mikemastersonsmessenger.com/agog ... eloquence/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

summerbee wrote:http://mikemastersonsmessenger.com/agog ... eloquence/

Science? I am more of an engineering guy myself. And I note the plans for the slop ponds include a "spillway". A spillway? A way for excessive contents to spill over the dam?

At any rate, here is some science for you regarding the CAFO's permit NMP (Nutrient Management Plan) as prepared for them by Cargill:

http://buffaloriveralliance.org/Resourc ... hments.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maybe we should ask them to get into the biofuel industry also! I'd rather it go into my gas tank, then the Buffalo!

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009 ... lectricity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

we66erno1 wrote:Maybe we should ask them to get into the biofuel industry also! I'd rather it go into my gas tank, then the Buffalo!

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2009 ... lectricity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah?

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/88499 ... ected=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Talk about Bi-Polar. Old Mike Masterson praises the stewards ethic of stewardship for the Buffalo one day, and calls the steward a liar the next. Typical.

Also typical, the mis-use of science and misconstruing of science for his Whiney pouty.

I think ge can now fit in the same category with many lawyers when it comes to mis-using scientific info to fit his case. Of course, he misuses a lot of information, so this is to be expected.

I love how this anti cafe movement constantly gets whipped from one lie to the next, and as soon as each lie by this movement is proven false - another one is created.

Kinda reminds me of messing about with 5 year olds, only 5 year olds are actually more honest.

@ CC: it took less than 12 hours.

Sadly folks don't share our love of science -- they seem to prefer litigation, regulation, and constraints on liberties and personal freedoms.

There are so many ways to minimize -- even negate -- the environmental impacts of CAFOs regardless of their location. For example -- this discussion has mostly been centered on manure -- and certainly reuse as a fuel is possible. Or perhaps a better option might be adding a second CAFO to the first one. Perhaps vermiculturing and using worm livestock to process hog livestock waste, for example, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0_KfNRygs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Every problem has a solution -- and science and technology offers many. Instead of putting all our money in lawyers, public meetings and protests we'd be better off looking at situations other than "not in my backyard" approaches. The manure is not going away no matter where the CAFO is located -- if not in the Buffalo river watershed then in another -- so why not focus on the heart of the problem and eliminate rather than mitigate.

Yea your right Cadron boy, might as well use the Buffalo to test all this science, I mean it's no more special than any other drainage ditch in the state, right? Not in my backyard? IT'S THE FRICKING BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER!!!!!

Hollow Head -- I'm not talking about "testing", rather I'm talking about applying proven scientific principles and technology to the problem at hand. Simply moving the CAFO doesn't eliminate the problem -- science has tested numerous hypotheses and has acquired a lot of support to show that water recycles -- what is in the Buffalo River today is eventually returned to the atmosphere and falls again on the land as precipitation. As the water recycles it is "remediated and purified" by natural processes and via science we can harness and ustilize these natural processes for our benefit. In this case I proposed using vermiculture to process the manure produced by the CAFO. But this is just one of many ways. To disregard science and technology as providing an effective solution to the management of CAFOs is ludicrous in my opinion as together they offer many ways to manage the environmental impact of CAFOs -- even reducing discharge to nothing but clean air, soil and water. Certainly the owners of this operation have embraced science in developing this project with hopes of attaining optimal management practices, shouldn't we do the same for the sake of the Buffalo?

We can't simply reposnd "not here" everytime an agricultural, industrial or commercial enterprise has the potential to create harm whether in our backyard or within a national park. Rather we should look for solutions and science and technology is a good place to start even when natural processes are to be harnessed. Your refusal to accept any solutions based on science and technology is part of the problem -- you have to open your eyes to all possibilities -- it's more than just your personal biases and opinions at play here.

Reminds me of a couple of quotes:

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.”
― Isaac Asimov

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
― Isaac Asimov

And by the way as to --

"Science? I am more of an engineering guy myself. And I note the plans for the slop ponds include a "spillway". A spillway? A way for excessive contents to spill over the dam?"

Duh. You'd think an engineer would know about these things. Best management practices and EPA regulations demand that any sediment basin have an emergency spillway. The owners would not have even been able to secure a permit had a spillway not been incorporated into the design of the sediment basin. In fact, the spillway has to be specifically designed with regard to its location, capacity and construction -- it wasn't something that the owners simply decided to incorporate within the embankment it is a legal requirement.

Moreover since you seem to have many concerns regarding this operation I would think you'd want an emergency spillway present on any and every sediment/settling pond within the Buffalo Riover watershed -- whether serving a CAFO or a stock pond. Overtopping the embankment structure is to be prevented if at all possible as it can create significantly more enviomnental harm -- including release of sediments and solids -- than water spilling out through an emergency spillway. Moreover the owners have actually installed a secondary emergency outlet independent of the embankment spillway to control discharge holding levels -- thus even negating the need for the emergency spillway.

I'll say it again -- science and technology has a lot of solutions to offer -- sediment ponds, emergency spillways and outlets, biological assessments, NPDES standards, etc. -- all play an important role to assure CAFOs do not place the environment at risk and should not be discounted as if they serve no purpose.

Duh? Too many Homer Simpson reruns? Yes John, I am well aware of pond structure. And I know the terms "spillway" and "overflow". I also know that Cargill is famous (infamous?) for their attention to water quality. They have quite a track record in fact.

In 2002 Cargill Pork agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle charges that it illegally dumped hog manure at its facility near Martinsburg, Missouri.

Also in 2002, Cargill Salt’s plant in Newark, California spilled more than 30,000 gallons of toxic brine into a canal.

In 2004 a Cargill fertilizer plant in Hillsborough, Florida dumped about 60 million gallons of toxic waste water into a creek that feeds into Tampa Bay. The company later paid a state fine of $270,000 for the incident.

In 2005 Cargill signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice and the EPA settling charges that the company’s plants throughout the country had violated the Clean Air Act. Cargill agreed to pay a fine of $1.6 million and to spend $130 million on pollution reduction.

In 2006 there was a larger spill—some 218,000 gallons—of toxic brine at Cargill’s salt operation in California. It was later fined $228,000 for the incident.

According to court documents, the Fort Morgan plant processes 5,000 head of cattle and generates about 1.5 million gallons of wastewater each working day.

The meat packing plant has its own waste water treatment plant, which removes feces, dirt, meat scrap and other pollutants from its discharge into the South Platte River.

According to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver, Cargill held a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit from the state of Colorado to discharge treated waste water into the South Platte.

Cargill's permit limited its discharge of total suspended solids to a maximum of 2,874 pounds per day. The permit's limit for discharge of fecal coliform was 400 colonies per 100 milliliters. On Aug. 27, 2003, sampling of the discharge measured fecal coliforms at 522 colonies per 100 milliliters, a violation of the permit.

On July 16, 2004, sampleing of the discharge measured total suspended solids at 4,332 pounds for the day — another violation.

Under the agreement, any further violations of law will subject Cargill to possible sanctions, including the loss of access to federal contracts. In addition to the $200,000 fine, U.S. Magistrate Boyd Boland also sentenced Cargill to pay a $250 special assessment to a crime victims fund.

Whoa -- you seemed to have changed subjects on me CC-- first it was all about spillways and now it is all about Cargill. I am no expert on Cargill although I did recently write a paper for class on its corporate organization and how a lot of family stockholders had to be given the heave ho; but regardless, you might note that no where did I ever imply that Cargill has a clean environmental record -- it does not! However I did state that spillways are an integral part of any sediment basis even as you seem to be aghast that the settling pond at C&H had a spillway -- going so far to imply that it was included solely to serve as a way for contaminants to be released into Big Creek.

But now you turn the subject to Cargill -- which we both agree has a less than stellar reputation when it comes to the environment. You even provided us with an expose' of past environmental violations. But what we both know to be true and what you didn't say is that all of these violations could have -- and should have -- been prevented regardless of their location. And thus I have been supporting a position that we should embrace zero toleration and secure such goal through scientific and technological approaches to remediation, purification, and prevention as a means to preserve our environment for future generations. Sadly such positions haven't been well accepted; rather most of what I get from the opposition to C&H's endeavors are protests and moaning and groaning and cries of "not in my backyard or this national park".

Or...in boat jargon: Different strokes for different folks.

Talk all you want about anything on this matter. When it's all said and done, there will be only one entity who profits in the long run on this deal. Cargill. Think of all the abandoned chicken "houses" scattered across our landscapes in the Ozarks and Ouachitas.

This battle about a CAFO in the immediate watershed of the Buffalo is more about corporate rights than anything.

Yo, CC: I understand why salt and brine are regulated in industry, (except for waste water treatment discharges,in part, in AR now as of our recent legislative session. For the record, I think regulation of the point source discharges is appropriate and needs to happen.

However, regulation of road salts and brines (which is a non-point source of pollution) is very loosely regulated in the US. So loosely regulated that 10's of millions of tons have been applied to roads in the the US for decades. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr ... 17-030.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. That does not include what is applied by people on their driveways either.

Of course, the large majority of this salt travels directly to waterways untreated with snow melt and rainfall. Bad deal, very bad.

I wonder how many pounds of salt are applied to roads in newton, Searcy, and Marion counties each year? Oh, tell ya what - never mind, this pollution is not a from a cafo within the BNRW (of which there are several), so it does not need attention or management and should be disregarded completely. So should the several hundred million gallons of waste water discharges in the BNRW as they aren't a source of pollution that should be addressed even though their are well over 100 violations from them, including the NPS. Not a cafo, so nevermind. Right? (Still yet get po'd ad Cargill for their waste water discharges in other places)

I find it odd that so many "so what, now what?" Voters can't follow slick willy's view on dealing with an unpleasant fact of life. I mean, I could understand it from republicans though, because they don't care for too much regulation and all)

Rather than look for proactive solutions that can make a difference tomorrow, just whine over what very likely will not be changed in years, if at all.

Rather than work with a culture (whom you need on your side to protect the watershed) try to ruin someone's life completely and saddle them with a multi-million dollar debt(which will ruin hopes of being able to work with the culture you need on your side to protect the river for as long as possible).

I do think there are many technologies that can be employed to address all potential negative impacts of a large cafo, even the aspects that are currently unregulated, and feel certain that will have to happen at some point in the future. Climate change, global warming, limited resources, higher demand, and many other factors that our human race will have to deal with make this a certainty. Sooner is better than later for sure. I want my children, and their children to inherit the best shot at a quality life, and so on.

A good technology for now, might be development of a solid separation process and drying process along with methane capture. I believe this is the way they do it in Europe. They separate fayetteville waste water solids now, dry them, and sell them for fertilizer now. They call it fertilwiser, and got nominated for an adeq envy award this year, in fact.

Once the poo is dry, it can be easily and economically transported far away, and even used as fuel to produce energy. I see this being part of the future. It only takes a few more million dollars of investment.

What a fascinating topic for intelligent scientific discussion!

Funny you should mention road salt. Cargill is a major player in that market too.
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2012/03 ... s_mor.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though salt, coal smoke and car exhaust have little to do with the hog farm and the glaring issues it presents.

Best current science for disposal of pig waste is to incorporate in into soil. But the plan for this operation is to spray it over the surface of existing pasture in karst riddled with fractures, caverns and sinkholes. On fields that already have near capacity of PK according to the testing done. And dried or not, the phosphorus content will remain the same.

I'm not sure how you equate opposition to a CAFO adjacent to a National River with being Republican or Democrat. Or why you would want to. A good portion of the "culture" opposed are in fact local residents. What about their sensitive feelings? Does it matter if they are Democrats or Republicans? And I was not aware that former President Clinton had anything to do with the CAFO. Silent partner?