Members of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance are supporting two moratoriums on concentrated animal feeding operations to be voted on today by the Arkansas Administrative Rules subcommittee of the Arkansas Legislative Council.
Concentrated animal feeding operations are large agriculture facilities which keep animals confined in small spaces.
Gordon Watkins, president of the alliance, said Regulations 5 and 6 include a moratorium on swine Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the watershed, but Regulation 5 does not include adequate public notification requirements. He pointed out the regulation only requires a request for a permit be posted on the Department of Agriculture website.
"If someone wants to put a 10,000-animal hog-confinement facility next door to you, you'd probably like to know about that," Watkins contended. "Secondly, in order to oppose a permit -- legally -- it's a 30-day comment period, and unless you submit comments on it, you do not have standing to legally challenge a permit."
He acknowledged Regulation 6 has stronger notification requirements which include notifying nearby landowners, publishing the permit request in the local newspaper and contacting school superintendents within a 10-mile radius of the proposed facility.
The last concentrated animal feeding operation allowed near the Buffalo National River, C and H Swine, was shut down in 2019. Watkins added he is a farmer but feels the area needs to be protected.
"It's the first National River ever created in the country. It's also a state icon," Watkins stressed. "If you look at any of the literature, put out by the department of tourism to promote the state, you'll see images from the Buffalo National River. It's an economic engine to some of the poorest counties in the state."
It was discovered in 2018 the C and H swine operation contaminated the water quality in Big Creek and the Buffalo River. Today's meeting is scheduled for 2 p.m.
get more stories like this via email
Conservation of public lands remains a top priority for westerners, according to a new poll.
The "Conservation in the West" poll from Colorado College has looked at sentiments toward public lands for 15 years. Eight Mountain West states were part of the research this year, including Idaho.
Among Gem State respondents, 90% told researchers they want to keep national monuments established in the last decade in place.
Lori Weigel, partner at the polling firm New Bridge Strategy, said Republicans, Democrats and Independents agree on the issue.
"This is another case where we see, really across the partisan spectrum, that respondents are telling us, 'No, we want to keep those national monument designations in place,'" Weigel reported.
Idaho voters voiced concerns about habitat loss for fish and wildlife in the poll, and also said they oppose reducing protections for rare plants and animals on the endangered species list. And nearly three-quarters of respondents said they support only allowing energy companies to drill where there is a high likelihood of oil and gas.
Idahoans are less worried about climate change than other parts of the West, with 43% saying it is an "extremely" or "very" important issue.
Dave Metz, partner and president of FM3 Research, noted Idahoans feel more confident in local officials' response to the crisis than in states like Arizona or New Mexico.
"The highest degrees of confidence we see are in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho," Metz noted. "There is the geographic difference there. More northern states within the region are expressing more confidence than some of the southern states."
Metz added there's support for Native American tribes to have a bigger role in managing public lands.
"That sentiment cuts across racial and ethnic lines," Metz stressed. "It's basically nine out of 10 voters, regardless of their racial and ethnic background, who want to see more participation from tribes in making these kinds of decisions."
get more stories like this via email
Over the last 120 years, U.S. presidents have used the Antiquities Act almost 300 times to recognize national monuments, protecting portions of federal lands that are of particular historic or scientific importance. Now federal efforts are underway to limit that power and "review" monuments. The Big Hole National Battlefield and Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument are two of several areas in Montana designated by a president's authority. Unlike other federal public lands, national monuments are typically not open for oil and gas drilling or mining activities.
Mike Penfold, program leader of the historical preservation group Our Montana, calls the Antiquities Act "a wonderful asset."
"We've got a really good ability for Republican and Democratic presidents to respond to local and sometimes regional people who see special qualities in these areas of federal land," he said.
U.S. House Resolution 521, referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources last month, seeks to reserve the authority to establish or extend national monuments for Congress. Meanwhile, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum began his tenure detailing a plan for "American energy dominance" that includes an order to, quote, "review and, as appropriate, revise all withdrawn public lands, consistent with existing law."
Penfold, Our Montana and other groups have been working to get a national monument designation for part of the Pryor Mountains, an area with fragmented management split among three federal agencies. Part of the range is within the boundaries of the Crow Reservation. A national monument designation could help unify management.
"It's an amazing area that has a lot of cultural resources and different kinds of ecological systems. So we were hoping to get that designated as a national monument," he continued. "That is not in the cards right now."
Penfold added that national monuments help drive Montana's tourism industry, which in 2023 brought in about 13 million people who spent nearly $5.5 billion.
get more stories like this via email
Wyoming is one of several Western states where some lawmakers arguing states should have more control of the federally managed public lands within their borders, many of which contain oil, gas and mineral reserves.
Wyoming House Bill 118 would prohibit Wyomingites and the state from entering into any exchange or sale leading to a net gain for federal agencies of either land or mineral rights.
Gabrielle Yates, public land program manager for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, said the bill runs counter to state policies, which mandate lands be managed for "optimum, sustainable revenue production" and recognize land values are assessed by more than just acreage.
"House Bill 118 would hinder future access opportunities by limiting common sense land deals, while hurting the rights of landowners to sell their land to whoever they choose," Yates contended.
The push for legislation comes after the U.S. Supreme Court last month declined to hear a Utah lawsuit arguing control of public land by the Bureau of Land Management within its borders is unconstitutional. Wyoming, Alaska and Idaho issued an amicus brief in support of Utah's case. House Bill 118 passed the House and could be in a Senate committee as early as this week.
Senate Joint Resolution 2, which failed a third reading in the Senate by just two votes, would have demanded Congress transfer all public land and subsurface resources in Wyoming to the state. Yates pointed out it failed after an "overwhelming" number of Wyomingites spoke out against it.
"Several senators spoke to the fact that this issue was what their constituents were most passionate about this session," Yates reported. "People in Wyoming really value their public lands."
She noted sales of Wyoming trust lands benefit schools and students, like the $100 million sale of the 640-acre Kelly Parcel added to Grand Teton National Park in December.
get more stories like this via email