Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Overlookin­g the obvious

- Mike Masterson Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at mmasterson@arkansason­line.com.

Pretend your job as a volunteer watchdog (assigned by the governor) is to identify vehicles that continuous­ly spew clouds of dangerous exhaust along the interstate. The state is particular­ly aware of one poison-emitting truck that drives the interstate day and night. Ironically, the state has officially sanctioned and licensed this enormous vehicle. But there’s a problem when it comes to fulfilling your responsibi­lity. You’re allowed to report on other vehicle discharges with the exception of this truck because the state supposedly is officially monitoring its foul emissions. While not a perfect comparison, it’s close to the situation created last year by Gov. Asa Hutchinson after the widespread public outcry arose over our state permitting a hog factory into the precious Buffalo National River watershed along Big Creek at Mount Judea. Big Creek runs alongside the factory’s waste spray fields then six miles later directly into the Buffalo. Rather than close the factory out of valid concerns for preserving the Buffalo’s water quality, the governor in 2016 chose to create a volunteer committee with a pacifying title: Beautiful Buffalo River Action Committee (I prefer Reaction Committee). This group, led by the Department of Environmen­tal Quality (wheeze) that inexplicab­ly allowed the hog factory into the watershed to begin with, and staffed by the directors of four other state agencies, reportedly was formed to address water-quality concerns with a management plan throughout the watershed which ensures the Buffalo remains safe. Accordingl­y, the committee is to “establish measurable objectives, set achievable action items, establish durable partnershi­ps, share agency resources, and inform policymake­rs and the general public of relevant progress.” Now there’s a mouthful. How about something simpler: “Protect our sacred Buffalo River at all costs.” The group’s first-year priorities include developing a stakeholde­r forum, initiating developmen­t of a watershed management plan, identifyin­g early actions to “jump start” improvemen­ts, and prioritizi­ng future research needs. This Beautiful Buffalo [re]action group this week issued initial findings that include recommenda­tions for monitoring six tributary subwatersh­eds, except for the middle part of Big Creek, the tributary most obviously threatened. The committee says it isn’t authorized to include that part of Big Creek as a point-source of hog-waste pollution since that kind of oversight falls under the agency that wrongheade­dly approved this factory’s location. Hmm. I see. But not really, if you are objectivel­y seeking truth. It is, however, much more government­ally convenient with politicall­y influentia­l groups, such as the Farm Bureau and Pork Producers, that the committee only deals with six other watershed streams. Unlike Big Creek, they don’t flow alongside the spray fields of a primary tributary to the Buffalo, which attracts million of visitors (and even more of their dollars) to the impoverish­ed Ozarks. I’m not alone in questionin­g the committee process and its decision. Many Arkansas citizens and stakeholde­rs like the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Sierra Club, the Ozark Society and the Canoe Club, also find it unacceptab­le to eliminate Big Creek from the committee’s scrutiny if it is to do a thorough job. Gordon Watkins, who leads the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said: “We discussed how hard to push for inclusion of Big Creek and, after lengthy discussion­s with other groups, we concluded it was a futile exercise. But just because it’s not on the priority list doesn’t mean we and others won’t continue to point out impairment­s of Big Creek. We also will use the committee’s Buffalo Watershed Management Plan to emphasize fragility of the national river and shine light on Big Creek’s impact. “While the committee is focusing on six watershed streams, it doesn’t exclude all other tributarie­s from considerat­ion. It just means Big Creek likely will receive less attention and funding from agencies. That’s no big surprise.” Why does all this Beautiful Buffalo Action stuff feel to me like some political misdirecti­on game designed to pacify a lot of angry voters and taxpayers who dearly love our Buffalo? The Sierra Club put it this way: “We understand clearly that regulated, point-source activities are, by statute, not within the scope of this plan. And we know six sub-watersheds were chosen as focus for initial management practices and activities. And that middle Big Creek, where the C&H Hog Farm is, was not one of the chosen. “The plan states this is because … C&H is a regulated, confined animal feeding operation, a point-source. However, we feel strongly that middle Big Creek … should be included in the initial management plan and all non-point-source activities be monitored and have management practices applied. “We’re certain every sub-watershed within the Buffalo River system has both point-source and non-pointsourc­e activities, and the plan’s rationale for de-selecting middle Big Creek is therefore not a valid criterion. It is an excuse!” Bob Allen with the Canoe Club says: “A private firm, FTN Associates, was hired to do an assessment and develop a ‘Voluntary Watershed-Based Management Plan for the Buffalo River Watershed.’ Their assessment says the place to begin is a set of six subwatersh­eds … [not including] Big Creek, the tributary that drains the hog factory! The sole purpose of this committee was created because of the factory on Big Creek, but they chose not to include it in their management plan.” Allen summarized: “We have an issue with the Buffalo National River and contaminat­ion from hog urine and feces. However, it’s way too hot politicall­y, so we’ll go look somewhere else and pretend we are addressing the issue at hand.”

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States