Panel puts off decision on pig-farm ban
A legislative committee on Friday declined for the second time this fall to make a motion on a proposed permanent ban on new, medium or large hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed.
The Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Ozark Society have proposed the ban, which has received about 2,000 public comments — the most on a regulation in Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality history.
But in September and again Friday, the 28-voting-member joint House and Senate Public Health Committee charged with reviewing the rule passed on making a decision.
State Sen. Jonathan Dismang, R-Beebe, had asked meeting chairman state Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Yellville, to call on him at the conclusion of the meeting for a possible motion. Later, as the number of committee members present waned, Dismang urged the committee to consider the matter during the legislative session in the spring instead.
“We didn’t have a quorum,” Dismang said. Quorum is 50 percent plus one of the voting members.
On Friday, representatives from the Public Health Committee, along with the Agriculture Committee, posed numerous questions to the rule’s supporters and opponents. The meeting lasted three hours, with many members asking similar questions and making similar points on the uncertainty of scientific evidence supporting either position.
“I had a suspicion that we were going to encounter some headwinds,” said Sam Ledbetter, attorney for the groups proposing the rule. “We weren’t getting a lot of support.”
The proposed ban would affect only medium and large swine “confined animal operations” and “concentrated animal feeding operations” — what the Environmental Protection Agency defines as farms where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. The EPA defines a small concentrated animal feeding operation as having fewer than 750 large pigs.
The proposed rule was sparked by controversy over the watershed’s first and only large hog farm, C&H Hog Farms in Mount Judea. It contracts with multinational corporation Cargill and is permitted to house up to 2,500 sows and 4,000 piglets on Big Creek about 6 miles from where it meets the Buffalo National River.
C&H would not be forced to close as a result of the rule, although it would be unable to expand.
Advocates for the rule are concerned about pollution from the farm and the risk of a hog waste lagoon failing in a “catastrophic” rain. No hog waste lagoons have failed in Arkansas, but there have been failures in other states.
The Buffalo National River had more than 1 million visitors in 2013 who spent about $46 million, according to National Park Service data.
Currently, a six-month ban is in place against any new, medium or large hog farms in the watershed. This is the second six-month ban since the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, the Environmental Quality Department’s appellate body, approved the first one in April.
Ledbetter, who was the first to testify Friday, told the committees that 90 percent of the 2,000 public comments were in support of the ban. He argued that the ban would not strip away property rights in the watershed because the ability to discharge pollutants into land and water through establishing a medium or large hog farm is not a fundamental property right.
But several representatives pointed out that no conclusive data existed from an incomplete state-commissioned study to prove whether C&H Hog Farms has been producing levels of pollutants that are too high.
“If we’re not at a point yet where we can make any conclusions, we’re not at a point where we can make any [decisions],” said state Rep. Bob Ballinger, R-Hindsville.
Ledbetter disagreed with that approach.
“What you’re saying is: Put 20 large hog farms in the Buffalo National River, see what happens and then see if it was a bad idea,” Ledbetter said.
Ballinger said he was not insinuating that.
Ledbetter continually emphasized that the ban was designed to mitigate the potential risk of pollution due to multiple medium or large hog farms.
State Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale, said he believed most of his south Arkansas constituents would be opposed to a ban on certain agriculture for reasons that science didn’t support one way or another.
“Would that surprise you?” he asked Ledbetter.
“It would surprise me if a majority of your constituents said they were in favor of more hog farms in Buffalo River watershed,” Ledbetter said.
Agriculture advocates said they knew of no one interested in starting a medium or large hog farm in the watershed, with some noting that people might not be interested given the backlash C&H has faced. Some also said they feared approving a rule that could set a precedent that’s unfriendly to animal farming.
“Those of us in agriculture do feel like there’s a slippery slope,” said Jeff Pitchford, director of public policy and state affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau.
Linck asked James Masters, executive vice president of the Arkansas Pork Producers Association — who had said the rule’s supporters were basing their opinions on fear — if he had any evidence to back up his own fears.
“No more than they have evidence that a catastrophic event would happen,” he said.