Issues: Water

ARKANSAS

• More than half of the state's hog farms have been cited by the state for environmental violations. The majority involve major pollution problems like animal waste leaks, spills and overfull manure lagoons, according to a survey by public interest groups.
  
  
• To make up for too few water pollution inspectors, the state has entered into a controversial agreement with major pork producers to have them police their own contractor farms.
  
  
• The state does not impose manure management requirements on poultry factories that generate dry manure.

Throughout the 1980s, Arkansas, the nation's twelfth largest pork producer, experienced a major expansion in the role played by corporate farmers contracting with small farmers to raise hogs. Under the contract system, corporations pay hog farmers to raise company hogs, leaving the farmers solely liable for any environmental violations. Today the state has approximately 400 contracted operations with 1,500 to 6,000 swine each. About half these farmers contract with Tyson Foods, Inc., a food processing giant that transports grown pigs to its slaughterhouses. Arkansas has about 40 hog operations directly owned by corporations, in which case the corporation holds the permit and is responsible for any environmental infraction. The state has about 4,500 poultry operations.¹ With no independent slaughterhouses remaining in Arkansas, factory farm opponents say, small farmers have no other market for their hogs besides the corporate giants.

As industrial pork operations have moved into Arkansas, small family farmers have been the losers. The total number of traditional family-size hog farms in Arkansas has been steadily declining while factory farms have proliferated. Between 1982 and 1992, the total number of farms raising hogs declined by 50 percent. Most of that reduction came from a 60 percent drop in the number of small farms raising fewer than 25 hogs. Although fewer farmers raise hogs today, the total number of hogs produced in Arkansas has skyrocketed because the number of factory farms -- those holding at least 1,000 hogs in tightly confined feeding situations -- had risen by 253 percent in that period.²

When Arkansas passed regulations governing hog farms in 1991, the rules were considered among the strongest in the nation. Since then, however, agricultural states like Oklahoma, Missouri and South Carolina have passed tougher environmental regulations in important areas like odor control and water quality. Now that Arkansas' regulations are comparatively weaker, citizen groups fear the state will become a magnet for factory farms seeking to escape stiffer environmental standards elsewhere.

Pollution Problems

Hog operations in Arkansas often build manure lagoons and other facilities on karst limestone, a geological formation pockmarked like Swiss cheese with hollow pockets. Karst is situated just above groundwater, and is highly porous and subject to collapse -- all characteristics making it particularly vulnerable to groundwater pollution from animal manure. Much of the western half of Arkansas is karst limestone.

One of the worst pollution problems in the state has been the long-term degradation of its rivers. Environmental activists contend that northwest Arkansas rivers are already polluted. State officials concede it is only a matter of time before they could pose serious health problems to the area's residents. According to a recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Ozark farmland streams, which feed into northwest Arkansas rivers contain more nutrients from animal waste than most other streams in the nation. The study concluded that nutrient levels there do not yet approach danger levels. But USGS hydrologist Jim Petersen, pointing to poultry and cattle production as the major source of nutrients in northwest Arkansas, has warned that unless farms and waste water treatment plants are closely watched, nutrient levels will rise with the booming population in that part of the state. In northwest Arkansas the pace of development poses environmental risks to the Illinois and White Rivers. In the Ozarks, private wells are also vulnerable to contamination from neighboring poultry, cattle or hog farms, Petersen said. One-third of people living in the Ozarks take their drinking water untreated from wells.³

"I think most people generally agree that the nutrients in northwest Arkansas, if they're not problems right now, they're on the verge of that because there's been so much development," Bill Keith, who heads planning at the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology's (DPC&E) water division, recently said.⁴

Of particular concern is the White River, which feeds into Beaver Lake, the source of drinking water for much of northwest Arkansas, including the towns of Fayetteville, Springdale and Rogers.

Yet environmental activists say the department takes shockingly few enforcement actions even in the face of overwhelming evidence of environmental pollution by livestock farmers. In 1991, DPC&E issued a permit allowing a Cargill contract hog operation in Mena to double in size despite a long history of violations. Between March 1988 and January 1996, the department issued the facility nine citations for 20 violations of state law ranging from allowing manure lagoons to overflow to illegally discharging lagoon wastewater. The facility has never been fined or otherwise penalized.⁵

In another glaring case in 1992, the department dropped a fine for a Tysons Food, Inc. contract farmer despite clear evidence that he was dumping waste from his 6,000-head hog operation directly into a stream in Mineral Springs. The action came to the attention of DPC&E, the state's enforcement agency, when a neighbor reported it. The department's inspection found that an irrigation line had been laid from the farmer's manure lagoon across a pasture to the creek. The evidence of pollution was overwhelming: in areas where the hog waste had leaked out on the pasture, the grass had died; DPC&E also measured extremely high, unsafe levels of fecal coliform in the creek. The state fined the farmer $10,000 for pumping waste and $2,000 for dumping carcasses illegally into an open pit. The farmer disputed the violation, arguing that the leak came from another line used for recycling wastewater and had not reached the creek. The department dropped the fine.⁶

The state's blatant failure to curb environmental pollution from factory hog farms has spurred demand for stronger environmental regulation among small farmers and rural neighbors of livestock operations. The Arkansas Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, a coalition of community groups with over 500 members, organized citizens to testify at public hearings in December 1997 and January 1998 for tougher regulation of odors, water pollution and air pollution from factory hog farms. "I've worked on farms before and think that farming is essential to our economy, but we have to put stricter controls on how hog factory farms are run," says Shirley Hardin, a Coalition member who lives next to a hog feeding operation in Pope County. "I've had to leave my home because my kids were getting sick from the gases coming out of that facility. There's no one protecting me or my family's property rights."

Regulatory Climate

Both state officials and citizens' groups have documented numerous failures in DPC&E's inspection and enforcement of environmental violations at Arkansas hog farms.⁷ An audit conducted for factory farm opponents in 1997 by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, a public interest support center in Little Rock, found that half of the state's large hog farms had been cited for violations of state environmental regulations.⁸ DPC&E has since publicly admitted that more than half of the state's hog facilities were in violation of its regulations.⁹

More than two-thirds of violations by farms since 1992 involve major problems like animal waste leaks, spills and overfull waste lagoons, concluded the Public Policy Panel's August 1998 survey.¹⁰ Representatives of the Arkansas Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, the citizens' group that released the study jointly with the Public Policy Panel, said this lack of regulatory supervision could lead to disasters such as destroyed fisheries and polluted water supplies.

The Public Policy Panel, in its 1997 and 1998 audit, found that DPC&E inspects swine facilities only once every three years, even though state law requires yearly inspections. Many operations have been repeatedly cited for the same violation -- some every time they were inspected. Yet enforcement actions are rare and there are very few fines.¹¹

In the spring of 1998, DPC&E Water Division Chief Chuck Bennett agreed with public interest groups that the state's inspection team is under-equipped.¹² This team covers water pollution control permits for facilities of all kinds across the state, including commercial car washes and septic tanks. Assistant Water Division Chief Bruck Kirpatrick acknowledged that with only 15 inspectors to cover the whole state, they can only inspect a hog farm once every three years.¹³

In the spring of 1998, the state adopted a controversial corporate self-policing plan to solve its understaffing problem. The Pollution Control & Ecology Commission, a body of 12 Governor's appointees that oversees the department's regulatory decisions, adopted a plan put forward by the chairman of its regulations committee, Randy Young. Under the plan, representatives from major pork companies like Tyson and Cargill inspect farms they have under contract on a monthly basis. Young said the plan was needed to "beef up our enforcement."¹⁴ The corporations' self-policing plans have been in effect since April 1998.

At a March meeting where the plan was adopted, Young argued that industry "self-monitoring" would offset the need for more state inspectors.¹⁵ But the plan came under immediate criticism. The editorial board of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette slammed the self-policing plan as the ultimate conflict of interest.¹⁶ "[T]o shift the responsibility for health, safety and the environment to a few corporate citizens rather than beef up the state's own independent inspection teams would be... irresponsible," the newspaper declared. Even DPC&E commission's administrative law judge said he had doubts about the self-policing policy,saying "it was not something he'd rely on."¹⁷

The failure of self-policing to correct hog farm pollution drew public attention shortly after it took effect. In June, a state environmental official revealed that as many as half of the state's hog farms were storing animal waste inadequately in their manure lagoons. In a memo to DPC&E's director, DPC&E Water Division Chief Chuck Bennett said farmers were not determining whether holding ponds contain too much hog waste and suggested the state needs regulations to force farmers to drain their manure ponds before spring rains. He also criticized the corporate self-policing policy, noting that the department is "severely short of resources to provide proper oversight of farm operations. The self-inspection programs just commencing by industry also will not be of any help."¹⁸

Surprisingly, corporate field managers are actually reporting violations to DPC&E -- at least for now, a recent paper by the Public Policy Panel reports.¹⁹ But Coalition for Responsible Swine Production activists are suspicious that corporations are reporting contract farmers' violations mainly in hopes of forestalling the establishment of a more powerful state inspection force. DPC&E Director Randall Mathis has said he will seek additional funding from the legislature next year for four more inspectors if self-policing proves ineffective.²⁰ In the meantime, contract farmers are getting hit with state fines for which they bear the entire financial burden -- one that should be shared by the corporations, say Coalition members.

"From a social justice perspective, this is outrageous; the contract growers are already under incredible financial pressure from the corporations. Now they are getting hit by fines by DPC&E," says Pat Ford, a London, Arkansas, member of the Coalition for Responsible Swine Production. "The industry has a gun at its head to do a good job. Right now they're nailing their own growers." The group is highly skeptical about how long they'll be willing to do that.

In 1991, the state of Arkansas adopted Regulation 5, the state's primary guideline for regulating hog factory farms. At the time, Arkansas had one of the nation's stiffest regulations of hog farms on the books, contributing to a leveling-out in the state's hog farm growth by the mid-1990s. The regulation mandates that any operator with a liquid waste management system must have a permit, a waste management plan, record-keeping and design standards for lagoons before construction can begin. The state also issues NPDES permits under the Clean Water Act to facilities with more than 1,000 animal units and state water pollution control permits to those with less than 1,000 animal units. Almost all factory hog operations in Arkansas are required to obtain a permit under Regulation 5.²¹ Permit applicants are required to publish a notice in the newspaper.

Today, these guidelines are weaker than regulations in some neighboring states when it comes to areas of major public concern like odor control, water pollution and buffer zones between hog operations and nearby homes. For example, the buffer distances are smaller than those required in Missouri or Oklahoma. Among the regulation's major weaknesses, Arkansas does not require that factory farms install monitoring wells near their waste lagoons to monitor groundwater quality for any sewage leaks.²² Under the regulations, there is no requirement that heavy metal contamination from animal waste be monitored in fields where waste is spread.²³ Heavy metals such as copper and zinc are added to hog feed in low concentrations to stimulate growth. The metals become more concentrated in waste ponds and fields posing a major environmental threat. Additionally, in the case of contract farms, the corporations that own the animals are not jointly responsible with the farmer for complying with the permit,²⁴ leaving the cost of manure-handling solely on the back of the contract farmers.

Compliance with the state's best management practices -- which provides guidance on handling liquid manure and applying it to land -- is mandatory for hog farms. Compliance for chicken farms, which produce dry litter, is voluntary. Best management practices include having a waste management plan (WMP). The soil and water division of DPC&E recommends that animal waste be applied to land based on the maximum absorption rates possible during ideal growing conditions. Unfortunately, applying manure at these rates quickly overwhelms the soil during less than ideal conditions.

In response to citizen concern over the weaknesses in the state's environmental protection rules, DPC&E held hearings in December 1997 and January 1998 on whether to initiate the process of amending Regulation 5. DPC&E is currently considering opening the formal process for changing Regulation 5, which would include additional public hearings.²⁵

Appeals of permits for new factory hog farms must be based on technical deficiencies in theconstruction of the operation such as an inadequate buffer zone. Unfortunately, such deficiencies are often difficult for citizens to prove.

One community, Slaty Crossing, contested a permit on the grounds that the contract hog operator for Cargill planned to build an operation that violated the required buffer zone between the farm and his neighbors. DPC&E refused the permit. The operator, however, changed his proposal from an adult pig facility to a piglet facility, which has less stringent setback requirements than an adult facility. With the changes, DPC&E approved the permit. Neighbors who organized themselves as the Slaty Crossing Community Group continued to fight the hog farm in a six-year, $30,000 battle in which they presented evidence that the pig operation could threaten the environmental integrity of a nearby aquifer and wildlife refuge. The residents lost the final round of their battle in a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court this spring, which found that the permit issued by DPC&E met the agency's requirements.²⁶

Citizens appealed another permit when an operator proposed to build a 2,400-pig facility on a wetland outside of Houston, Arkansas, in June 1996. In the end, the operator got his permit by moving the proposed facility a mere 50 feet from the wetland.²⁷

State agencies are almost powerless to enforce air quality standards for confined hog operations because they are classified as agricultural farms and are therefore exempt from many Clean Air Act regulations, as well as occupational health and safety standards. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology officials admit that confined hog operations have serious effects on air quality, but they say Arkansas law leaves them powerless to do anything about it.²⁸ Odors from agricultural operations are specifically exempted from state regulation under the state's 1949 Water and Air Pollution Act.

Local Control

One way to regulate factory hog farms is through zoning. Counties in Arkansas have the authority to pass zoning ordinances, but the majority of counties have not exercised their authority, according to the state Attorney General's office.²⁹ Two cities in Arkansas -- Lockesburg and Houston -- have passed resolutions banning hog farms within city limits. Houston enacted its ordinance after a factory farm was proposed three miles outside its city limits in 1996. Houston tried to block the farm by annexing the area outside its city limits and passing a zoning ordinance, but the ordinance was overturned at the circuit court level.³⁰

Primary interviewee for this chapter:

Bill Kopsky
Arkansas Public Policy Panel
103 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1115
Little Rock, AR 72201-5727
Phone: 501-376-7913
Fax: 501-374-3935
e-mail: appp@igc.org

Notes

1. Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Office.

2. Arkansas Agricultural Statistics Office.

3. Associated Press, "Survey Says Some Ozark Streams Contain Nitrates," Russellville Courier (May 3, 1998).

4. Michael Whiteley, "Waste Water is Next Area Challenge," Benton County Daily Record/Northwest Arkansas News (October 3, 1998).

5. Arkansas Public Policy Panel, "Hog Factories vs. Family Farms, Little Rock, Arkansas" (October 1998); DPC&E compliance files, March 1988 to January 1996.

6. Review of the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology Compliance and Inspection Folders, by Arkansas Public Policy Panel (1992).

7. Seth Blomeley, "Hog Farms Cited on Major Issues, Study Suggests," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (August 28, 1998), p. B1.

8. Arkansas Public Policy Panel with the Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, "Anti-Factory Hog Farm Coalition Formed: Problems at DPC&E Documented," Press Release (June 26, 1997).

9. Seth Blomely, "Hog Waste Packs Ponds, Memo Says," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (June 10, 1998), p. A1; Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, "Report on DPC&E Regulation 5" (July 11, 1997).

10. The Arkansas Public Policy Panel with the Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, "Hog Farming in Arkansas, Audit," Russellville, Arkansas (August 27, 1998).

11. The Arkansas Public Policy Panel with the Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, "Hog Farming in Arkansas, Audit," Russellville, Arkansas (August 27, 1998).

12. Seth Blomeley, "Hog Waste Packs Ponds, Memo Says," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (June 10, 1998).

13. Seth Blomeley, Proposal Would Let Hog Industry Police Itself," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (March 23, 1998).

14. Seth Blomeley, Proposal Would Let Hog Industry Police Itself," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (March 23, 1998).

15. Seth Blomeley, Proposal Would Let Hog Industry Police Itself," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (March 23, 1998).

16. "Don't Be Piggy: A Plan for the Unnatural State," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Editorial Page (March 27, 1998).

17. Seth Blomeley, Proposal Would Let Hog Industry Police Itself," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (March 23, 1998).

18. Seth Blomeley, "Hog Waste Packs Ponds, Memo Says," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (June 10, 1998).

19. Arkansas Public Policy Panel, "Hog Factories vs. Family Farms," Little Rock, Arkansas (October 1998).

20. Seth Blomeley, "Hog Waste Packs Ponds, Memo Says," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (June 10, 1998).

21. Under Regulation 5, an exception to the permit requirement is made for hog farms using dry litter rather than liquid manure. State of Arkansas Polluton Control and Ecology Commission, Regulation # Five, Liquid Animal Waste Systems, effective August 30, 1992.

22. State of Arkansas, Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Regulation # Five, Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems, effective August, 30, 1992. By contrast, Oklahoma's 1998 law governing large swine feeding operations (SB1175) requires that monitoring wells be installed next to manure lagoons.

23. State of Arkansas, Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Regulation #Five, Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems, effective August 30, 1992.

24. State of Arkansas, Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Regulation #Five, Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems, effective August 30, 1992.

25. Jim Brooks, "Panel Delays Hog-Farm Vote, Says Potliner Dumping OK," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (March 28, 1998).

26. Supreme Court of Arkansas, Opinion 97-900, delivered May 28, 1998.

27. Source: Carl Hillis, Coalition for Responsible Swine Production, Houston, Arkansas. Mr. Hillis filed suit against the facility, but lost.

28. "PC&E Commission panel Gets Earful About Odors," Russellville Courier (July 12, 1997), p. A1.

29. Personal communication between Sarah Glazer and attorney Charlie Moulten, Office of Arkansas Attorney General (October 1998).

30. Arkansas Public Policy Panel, "Hog Factories vs. Family Farms," Little Rock, Arkansas (October 1998).