MODERN TIMES

Art Hobson

ahobson@uark.edu

NWA Times 2 September 2006

THE POULTRY INDUSTRY VERSUS OKLAHOMA

The long-festering dispute between the poultry industry and the state of Oklahoma involves the health of the waterways of two states, billions of business dollars, and the lives of hundreds of poultry growers. The legal ramifications might determine allowed pollution levels in the nation’s waterways for decades to come.

And yet, outside the poultry industry, most Arkansans know little about this issue and care less. Even our environmental organizations seem oblivious. Except for poultry interests, the only Arkansans paying attention are politicians and they side, unsurprisingly, with the rich and politically powerful industry.

All Arkansans who give a hoot about the environment should be thanking Oklahoma’s Attorney General Drew Edmondson for his heroic campaign to save the Illinois River and five other “scenic rivers.” For background, see my columns about this issue, dated 22 Mar 2003, 6 Mar 2004, 16 Oct 2004, and 3 Sep 2005, at http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/.

Some basics: Phosphorus fosters algae growth in waterways, which inhibits light from penetrating the water, which cuts oxygen production by plants in the water, which suffocates life and turns waterways into putrid dead zones. This is called “eutrophication.” Scientific methods used by the Environmental Protection Agency and others have established that phosphorus concentrations higher than .037 milligrams of phosphorus per liter (mg P/L) of water cause eutrophication. The levels in the scenic rivers are about ten times higher than this, due primarily to runoff from chicken litter that poultry growers spread on their fields as a way of disposing of the litter and simultaneously fertilizing their fields. As a result, these rivers are polluted, Tulsa’s water supply is polluted, and the scenic rivers are not safe for swimming.

The dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, which ruled that “upstream” states (Arkansas) must meet the water quality regulations of “downstream” states (Oklahoma). In 2002, Oklahoma placed the .037 mg P/L limit on its eastern streams, including the Illinois and three other streams as they flow from Arkansas into Oklahoma. Following difficult negotiations with the poultry industry (Tyson, Simmons, and six other companies), Edmondson filed suit against the industry in June 2005 for failing to meet the Oklahoma limit. The industry argues that the .037 mg P/L limit is not achievable. But this limit is achievable, by for example trucking all excess chicken litter out of the region. This would be expensive, but it might be necessary to save the rivers.

The fact is that the .037 mg P/L limit leans over backward to be lenient to industry. Most observers who have studied the science, including me, think the limit should be .020 mg P/L (see my 22 Mar 2003 column).

The industry has tried everything imaginable to escape Oklahoma’s limit: a $1.1 million gift to the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission, dragging 161 Oklahoma poultry growers into the lawsuit (the growers have petitioned to be released), expensive newspaper advertisements, preventing scientists from gathering soil samples, and more. The industry has argued for dropping the numerical limit in favor of “best practices” such as litter management plans, burning litter as an energy source, and other good things that they could have been doing for decades if they had placed much value on the environment. The problem is that nobody, not even industry, expects these practices to reduce phosphorus levels to close to .037 mg P/L.

Gubernatorial candidate Mike Beebe has placed himself on the side of industry. Last May, he tried to have the lawsuit dismissed. Environmentalists should be asking Beebe why he supports industrial polluters.

Industry must meet Oklahoma’s phosphorus standards. Otherwise, you can say goodbye to clean water in this part of the Ozarks. You can’t allow profits, or even the livelihoods of the many good poultry farmers, to destroy the environment, because ultimately all profits and all livelihoods come from the environment that supports us all. If our experiment with civilization is to succeed, we’ve got to find a way to meet our own needs and aspirations without compromising those of future generations.

Changing the subject, I feel an obligation to share my thoughts on the September 12 sales tax election. Our city government has done a good job of organizing and presenting this election. Another general point: As Mayor Coody said last Sunday in this newspaper, this is not a referendum on the sewer plant, since the plant will be built in any case.

Sales taxes are a harshly regressive form of taxation, requiring poor people to pay a higher percentage of their income than rich people. Furthermore, user fees based on the amount of services used (such as the volume of water consumed) are usually the best way to pay for environmentally harmful activities such as water use. The general principle here is that the polluter should pay. So I’m against sales taxes for sewers.

Unfortunately, Arkansas law does not allow us to charge a user fee—a local gasoline tax—for roads. I’m generally not a big supporter of roads, but the road plan is well thought out, with sidewalks and trails included. Without new taxes, the roads will eventually be built anyway but perhaps without the sidewalks. So I’m for the roads tax.

The $2 million for trails is the best bargain in the entire plan. We’ll get more transportation, with less pollution and congestion, per dollar spent on trails than we will per dollar spent on roads. Even if you won’t use the trails, I hope you’ll vote “yes” on this. It’s healthy for the entire city.

Whatever your views, do VOTE.

LINK TO ART HOBSON'S HOMEPAGE