Groups say water plan fall short

State regulators’ proposals do not go far enough in addressing impaired waters in the state, representatives of environmental groups told the agency during a public hearing Friday.

Representatives of groups focusing on the Buffalo River and its related rivers, and the Illinois River and its tributaries, argued for requiring some of the waters to have total maximum daily load studies that would place restrictions on the facilities that discharge into those waterways.

The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, which created the impaired-waters list, will accept public comments until mid-September before finalizing the list and

sending it to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for final approval.

A representative with Oklahoma-based Save the Illinois River Inc. argued that some Illinois River tributaries listed in previous years should be listed in 2018 and asked the department to provide data showing that the tributaries did not need to be listed.

About 14 miles of the Buffalo River and about 15 miles of its Big Creek tributary are listed as impaired on the basis of water samples that showed high E. coli levels, according to Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Those waterways are listed as impaired, but they are under Category 4b, which means they don’t need total maximum daily load studies because of other work being done on them. In their case, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality determined that a watershed management plan for the river that was completed this year is a sufficient substitute.

A Category 5 listing carries the requirement of a total maximum daily load study.

During a 15-minute question-and-answer period, Caleb Osborne, the department’s associate director in charge of the Office of Water Quality, told about 40 people that total maximum daily load studies take years to do. The watershed management plan and the river commission are active and can do work alongside other advocates now, he said.

“So we’re going to know if our work gets us there or not,” he said, referring to C&H Hog Farms, a 6,503-hog facility along Big Creek about 6 miles from where the creek meets the Buffalo River.

The department will do another list in two years, Osborne said.

Many disagreed with the department’s choice.

While some said they liked the watershed management plan, they noted that the plan is not regulatory and can’t address permitted facilities that people may believe are contributing to water degradation.

Therefore, it’s not sufficient for ensuring the river’s improvement and eventual removal from the impaired-waters list, said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.

“Are we supposed to ignore the 800-pound hog in the valley?” he said.

Watkins noted that the Buffalo River is an extraordinary

resource water and deserves more protection.

Jessie Green, executive director of the White River Waterkeeper, mentioned that the department does not have an implementation plan for anti-degradation, or rules designed to prevent any degradation of extraordinary resource waters and other waters under the Clean Water Act. Under the act, rivers like the Buffalo are supposed to be protected from any degradation, and potential degradation is supposed to be considered when permitting a facility.

Other commenters referred to a study on how water flows into and out of Big Creek, which they believe supports their theory that C&H Hog Farms is contributing pollution to the creek and then the Buffalo River.

A dye-tracing study conducted in 2014 by retired University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, professor John Van Brahana showed the path of water under the karst terrain near the Buffalo, they said. Water flowing in the Buffalo’s watershed doesn’t follow the expected rules of water flow, meaning water can move upstream through cracks in the ground.

Research conducted by the Big Creek Research and Extension Team shows that C&H Farms is not the source of E. coli, said John Bailey, director of environmental regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, after Friday’s hearing.

E. coli levels are higher upstream from the farm, and

soil filters any manure spread on the farm’s land, Bailey said. Recent research has not shown high E. coli levels at drinking water wells on the farm’s property, he said.

The state department stated that the reason for the high E. coli levels, noted in the list as “pathogens,” was unknown.

Ed Brocksmith, a founder of Save the Illinois River, told the department that the state should get numeric standards for nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen that are of concern on the Buffalo and the Illinois rivers. The area where the Illinois River flows into Oklahoma has phosphorus levels that are higher than Oklahoma’s numeric criteria.

In July, Save the Illinois River sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency objecting to its approval of the department’s 2016 303(d) list, arguing that no change in total phosphorus had been shown to justify the removal of Osage Creek and Spring Creek in the Illinois River’s watershed from the Category 5 list.

The EPA said in its approval of the 2016 list last year that those creeks could be Category 4b because of existing efforts to improve the Illinois River.

Those creeks were not listed as Category 4b in the 2018 draft.

The state department stated that the reason for the high E. coli levels, noted in the list as “pathogens,” was unknown.