ALL HANDS ON DECK!

Critical meetings on the moratorium coming this week

• The Buffalo National River is a tremendous economic engine in a part of the state with few opportunities. Tourism is booming in the watershed and provides significant employment and tax revenues in two of the poorest counties in the state.

• The proposed moratorium is very narrow in scope and will affect an extremely limited sector of agriculture – only medium and large swine CAFOs within the Buffalo River watershed. Currently there are only about 200 liquid animal waste permits statewide. All current agricultural operations within the watershed and across the state will be completely unaffected. There will be no impact from this moratorium on existing farming operations in the watershed. Swine CAFOs are singled out because of the high risk they pose, especially in such an ecologically significant and fragile watershed. Dye trace studies cited by BCRET showed how rapidly and extensively contaminants from liquid waste can travel underground in the watershed, easily affecting  the Buffalo National River. 

• A protective moratorium is not a new or unique concept in Arkansas. There has long been a similar but broader moratorium on wastewater discharge within the Lake Maumelle Basin (A.P.C.&E.C. Rule 6.601).

• The Buffalo National River comprises only 11% of the watershed and is most impacted by activities on the tributaries which feed it. Regular testing by the National Park Service since 1985 has shown that the largest and most consistent source of  nutrients and bacteria comes from tributaries. There is no documented correlation between visitors using the river and these contaminants.  The supposed threat from paddlers defecating in the river is a red herring with no documented proof.

• The BCRET Final Report raises several red flags which justify a moratorium.  There was a “statistically significant increase in soil phosphorus”  on the fields receiving swine slurry, which prompted the warning, “ To limit further accumulation of nutrients in excess of levels optimal  for forage production future applications, along with grazing, must be carefully managed”  BCRET studied a single farm for only a five year period. Swine CAFOs such as C&H are designed for a much longer operational life. C&H had an initial 12-year contract and would have continued to spread waste for years to come. The BCRET report of data collected over only 5 years also stated, “ One farm generally changes water quality at the field level but the cumulative effects of many farms can influence water quality at the larger watershed, such as Big Creek and the Buffalo National River.” These warnings more than justify such a narrowly defined moratorium in this single watershed.

• These changes to Rules 5 and 6 are needed to memorialize the need for a permanent moratorium. While another hog farm permit in the Buffalo River watershed may be unlikely on the watch of the current administration and legislature, institutional memory is short and administrations change. 10 or 20 years from now, memories of the emotional and financial costs of C&H will have faded. Rules 5.901 and 6.602 provide a regulatory record which will ensure that those costly mistakes are not repeated.