FAYETTEVILLE -- The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission has watered down a recommendation in its proposed water plan on the basis of public comments.
Agriculture industry associations in particular had opposed a sentence that could have resulted in a requirement for nutrient management plans throughout Arkansas.
The state agency has tentatively changed that sentence, which stated that the commission "will encourage" the Legislature to "require" nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure "throughout" the state -- as opposed to current requirements just in Northwest Arkansas.
Now the sentence states: "The commission may encourage the General Assembly to consider the need for nutrient management plans for the application of poultry litter and animal manure in other regions of the state."
Crystal Phelps, general counsel for the state agency, told commissioners at a meeting Wednesday in Fayetteville that the new wording is "a possible alteration." Commission members didn't vote on the matter Wednesday.
"We've seen a lot of comments on this section, as you might imagine," she said of Section 2402.8 of the plan, which is titled "Improving water quality through non-point source management." The sentence being tweaked is Paragraph D of that section.
Arkansas' $4 million water plan was funded by the Legislature in 2012.
The public comment period for the plan ended Sept. 3. The commission received 11 written comments in addition to oral comments transcribed from nine public meetings held this summer in Fayetteville, Russellville, Jonesboro, Little Rock, El Dorado, Stuttgart, Texarkana, Monticello and Harrison. The comments are posted on the commission's website at anrc.arkansas.gov.
Nutrient management plans already are required across much of Northwest Arkansas, where poultry farming has long been a major industry and runoff from poultry farms affects water quality in the Illinois River in Oklahoma.
Nutrient management plans outline how to apply nutrients -- including animal waste and commercial fertilizer -- to the ground to achieve the best balance and to mitigate potential runoff into water sources, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Minor changes are being made to the draft water plan on the basis of some of the public comments, Phelps said. She hopes to have the plan finished by Nov. 15 so it can be placed on the agenda for the rules and regulations committee of the Arkansas Legislative Council in December, she said.
While the plan is considered a rule-making process that would be adopted into the commission's official rules, Phelps said it's not a regulatory document.
"At this point, we consider the document to be very general," she told commission members. "We don't consider it a regulatory document."
In written comments, Rick Bransford, president of the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, opposed nutrient management plans throughout the state, saying there was "no substantive scientific evidence" of need and it wasn't discussed at any public meetings where policy was being developed.
The Arkansas Rice Federation also opposed the statewide plans, saying the commission should avoid a "one size fits all" approach.
"Such plans should not be a blanket solution to a problem not yet identified," according to public comments that accompanied a letter from Dow Brantley, chairman of the Arkansas Rice Federation.
The Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts also opposed the statewide plans because "resource concerns vary from region to region," wrote Randy Young, the executive director.
According to the Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation, the original wording for the paragraph in question was: "Study whether nutrient management plans should be required outside current surplus areas." That language was developed after two years of meetings, according to the public comment written by Evan Teague, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the federation.
"This deviation occurred less than a month before the commission's December 2014 meeting and was a surprise to many who had devoted a significant time and effort to the stakeholder process," Teague wrote.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, however, "strongly" supported Section 2402.8 -- particularly the part that could have required nutrient management plans throughout the state, according to a letter from Jason Olive, assistant chief of fisheries management.
Central Arkansas Water -- the water system serving Pulaski, Saline and Grant counties -- also supported it, according to a letter from Robert Hart, its technical services officer.
"The plan's encouragement to the General Assembly to require nutrient management plans is wholly supported," Hart wrote. "Because stream and lake impairment due to sediment is a significant concern, additional encouragement should be made in the proposed rule to the Arkansas Forestry Commission, to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality and to other agencies to better educate and manage against erosion and sediment runoff in their respective mandatory or voluntary programs."
The transcripts of the nine public meetings held around the state read much more like conversations than legal documents, which the written comments resembled. Based on the sign-up sheets, 16 people attended the Aug. 11 meeting in Fayetteville, 12 people attended the Aug. 18 meeting in Stuttgart, and 15 attended the Aug. 27 meeting in Harrison.
Nutrient management is only one aspect of the state's water plan. Another major issue is groundwater depletion.
The agency's annual report projected increasing groundwater shortages through 2050. Groundwater in Arkansas supplies 63 percent of all water consumption in the state and is used heavily in the Delta.
Arkansas uses more than 8.3 billion gallons of groundwater per day from aquifers, the second-highest total in the United States, behind California. About 8 billion gallons come from the Mississippi River Valley alluvial aquifer, a 537 percent increase from the amount used in 1965.
Metro on 09/17/2015