HARRISON — When attorney Sam Ledbetter approached the microphone inside the Durand Conference Center earlier this week, he wanted to first make one thing clear.
“We’re not here tonight about C&H,” said Ledbetter, referring to C&H Hog Farms, the concentrated animal feeding operation in Mount Judea that began operating in mid-2013. “That’s not what this is about. It’s about any future plan to put a medium or large swine [animal feeding operation] in the Buffalo National River watershed.”
But if proposed changes to the state regulations governing disposal of liquid animal waste weren’t expressly about C&H Hog Farms, an observer wouldn’t know it listening to comments at a public hearing Tuesday night. Nearly every comment touched on the farm permitted to house about 6,500 sows and piglets.
The farm, which is next to Big Creek about 6 miles upstream of its confluence with the Buffalo National River, is the first and only recipient of a Regulation 6 general permit in Arkansas.
Ledbetter represents the Ozark Society and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel in their efforts to amend Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Regulations 5 and 6. He spelled out the basic tenets of the proposed changes to a about 80 people Tuesday during a public hearing held by the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The commission is the rule-making body for environmental regulations in Arkansas.
The two groups’ petition would ban the director of the Environmental Quality Department from issuing Regulation 5 individual permits or Regulation 6 general permits to medium- or large-scale swine operations within the Buffalo National River watershed. The watershed covers about three-quarters of both Searcy and Newton counties, as well as about one-quarter of Marion County.
The changes would apply only to the Buffalo National River watershed and would not affect small-scale swine operations or operations of any size involving other animals. It also would not affect existing operations, including C&H Hog Farms.
Ed Manor of Jasper, who said he opposed the proposed rule changes, said the two factions arguing over the regulations represent competing visions for Newton County.
“To me, this is about two sets of dreams,” Manor said. “You’ve got people who’ve lived here all their lives, who want to be left alone. They want to raise their families, their crops, their animals.”
Manor said the other group consisted of people who “have big dreams about Newton County being this big tourist place. And they won’t be happy until they run the rest of us farmers out.
“If these proposals go through, they’ll come after the chickens, they’ll come after the cattle and the horses. They’re not going to be happy until Newton County is nothing but a tourist destination,” Manor said.
Negative precedent
Many who commented have said during public debates about C&H Hog Farms over the past year that efforts to change regulations to address the farm represent a “slippery slope” with unintended consequences.
“This rule-making sets a very negative precedent and is not based on science,” said Susan Anglin, a Bentonville dairy farmer, on Tuesday. “This year it’s the hog farm. Next year, will it be poultry? Dairy or beef?”
Jerry Masters, a spokesman for the Arkansas Pork Producers Association, warned that increasing regulation might one day make farming untenable as a profession, affecting the country’s food supply.
Masters said that “if these changes all go through,” his grandchildren will “be eating imported food. They won’t get it from the United States of America.”
But a slippery slope slides both ways. Robert Cross, president of the Ozark Society and one of the petitioners for the proposed regulation changes, said that a “large” operation was not necessarily limited to something the size of C&H Hog Farms. Large corporations operate farms across the county that house tens of thousands of animals.
“Just imagine the hog farms near the Buffalo which could be permitted under present regulations,” Cross said. “Say there were six 50,000-hog [operations]. Can you imagine the risk of something like that?”
Cross, professor emeritus of chemical engineering at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, has warned that the chief danger posed by C&H Hog Farms is that its waste could easily spread if its lagoons were damaged because the underlying geology of most of Newton County is porous limestone.
Evan Teague, director of regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau’s swine division, said such a scenario ignores the fact that there has never been a recorded lagoon failure in Arkansas. Environmental Quality Department spokesman Katherine Benenati said Wednesday that no one in the inspection or enforcement branches of the department’s water division could recall a lagoon failure.
Tourism and pollution
Another argument that has been voiced repeatedly in public debate over potential pollution from C&H Hog Farms is that the millions of tourists who visit the Buffalo National River are more likely to pollute the river than any neighboring farm.
“I’ve been sitting here, listening to everybody so concerned about pollution of the Buffalo, but I wonder, where is everybody’s concern when we bring in millions of people floating the river?” Manor said Tuesday. “You go down there during floating season, and it’s like a cesspool. And you all know it.”
According to National Park Service regulation 36 CFR 2.14(a)(9), it is illegal to defecate within 100 feet of a body of water or within sight of a campsite or trail. Karen Bradford, chief park ranger at the Buffalo National River, said she was not aware of any citations having been issued under the regulation.
She said she had, however, issued citations for “improper disposal of sanitation” and “disorderly conduct,” both violations associated with public urination. Urine, however, doesn’t carry fecal coliform, E.coli, or other pathogens commonly associated with animal waste.
Comments made during Tuesday’s public hearing will be entered into the public record for the proposed rule change. The window for public comment expires at 4:30 p.m. July 1. After that, the petitioners will be required to respond to all comments made within the scope of the proposed changes before reporting back to the commission.