Why Bother

I imagine the farmers certainly are smart enough to realize that clean water benefits everyone.

I also imagine that they realize cleaner water doesn’t go very far in feeding, providing for, and protecting their families and livelihood.

They want clean water, I assure you. They also want to make a living working their land, and in reality, we need them to work their land. They need to be open to alternatives, and we do as well. And we all need to be willing to sacrifice in order to find a workable, long-term solution.

Again, a shade of grey is what it needed.


Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

Kramer,

You seem like an intelligent guy who cares about issues like this, but you don’t seem to know much about Arkansas Ozark farmers.

I agree that our environmental policies need to be:

  1. based on sustained use strategies
  2. built on win-win compromised solutions

On these things we agree. But this is the Ozarks, my friend. And things are different around here compared to most places in America. I know you’re trying to make a point about public policy problem solving, but this issue really comes down to one thing: the attitude that says, “Hey, Bubba, if the Feds and our neighboring states can’t sue us for putrid water, let’s just keep on polluting the Hell out of it!” And I’m not just talking about the farmers. We’re talking about AR legislators who are bullying the head of the Soil and Water Commission into going along with something he KNOWS is bad policy. I can’t explain North AR political realities to you in a few posts on the Internet. You have to live here for awhile before you can even start to believe it. Suffice it to say that when folks don’t have the first foggy clue what is actually good for themselves, it is hard to negotiate mutually beneficial settlements to disputes. Furthermore, there really is no dispute on this CC issue. There is no organized opposition to this surprise move. Like many things in the Ozarks, it just IS. And I was just reporting on it.

LadyFisher and JC are right. The real issue facing the White River Basin’s future health isn’t about disputing factions and the resolution of these disputes. It’s about a pervasive apathy and overcoming the inertia of political disenfranchisement. Especially on the AR side of the border, we’re still in the phase where 90% of stakeholders think there is no problem and 8% think there is but don’t really care. But the 2% of us who are aware and concerned are beginning the education process. It’s a LONG way from here to the place where competing political factions have to achieve mutually beneficial concensus.


Fishing the Ozarks

Silver,

Good luck. Hopefully that 2% will be able to show the other 98% what is best for them.


Kramer

Oh, I’m out there baby! And I’m loving every minute of it!

My apologies but, I must say that a 90% ratio in stakeholders that feel there is no problem; a 2% ratio of those that are aware of a problem and insist on change; an 8% ratio of those who are aware but don?t care. I don?t see the defined use of the word ?apathy? nothing supports it. What I see, and I see this far to often, is a defensive posture from a 2% group of people that conclude others to be less informed when in reality it may be they truly are.

I hate the use of the word apathy, when it comes to environmental concerns, as it is most often used as a handicapped method of dismissing those who do not agree. Most often this is associated with the fact that the message was not presented correctly and/or in its entirety. If a person does not see my point or understand the supporting data that I present, if they just don?t see my take on it; I would say that I am the one that suffers from apathy. I must be the one with a self absorbed belief that everyone should see it as I do and not have to fully understand cause-and-effect.

I have seen the word apathy used far to often as a means of dismissing those that may care even more than that 2%. Everywhere this word is used; a battle will come about. All of the factual data is now secondary and the war of words will only increase. Picasso believed that everything in the world was linked mathematically; lets put the scenario into equation context of reality: (-90% + -8% +2%= 0 change and poor delivery). Perhaps it is the result of a poor business plan with a horrible strategy.

Far to many groups feel that the best approach is to go to print and start the accusatory process of character assassination by demographics. Well, at least they know how the battle will be fought as the tone has been set. Perhaps some find comfort in knowing how they will continue to fight their war over the next 10 years, probably longer.

I firmly believe in and use communication tools as a system of measuring my abilities of conveying my message so that others know what I am talking about: If a person makes my point before I do, then I would say that I shared information properly and never made anyone feel as though I was talking down to them. No one likes to be told what he or she can or cannot do nor do they like to be talked down to, it is very insulting and requires defensive posturing. Heck, if someone came up to me and said that we are here to tell you what you need to do and we are going to fix all of you environmental problems. I too would slam the door in their face. If I used that same approach when I first started these projects; there would be nothing more than big wars taking place through out the community.

As I once stated: What is more important; wining a war or building a real coalition? Should I focus more on convincing others that people suffer from apathy or focus on the fact that my demeanor got in the way and I blew it big time! They never listened to the supporting data/resolution and/or current environmental condition reprts because my ego was more important. I have learned that those so called ?apathy? persons do talk and they do care. They get most of there information from good ole Bubba types and Bubba may be wrong in most cases. It doesn?t mean that Bubba is bad, it merely means that Bubba is trying to figure it all out but no one knocked on his door and respectfully explained all of the supporting data; so that he can understand it. Some of those, who originally trashed what they thought I was proposing, are now some of the most supportive and actively involved. Why? I knocked on their door and asked what their thoughts were, I then shared the real-life supporting studies and data, very important; I first respected them and told them as much, I then shut up and listened, a lot of what the Bubba types said is true but they never thought of fixing it the way that the new resolution supported.

Other people considered Bubba types to suffer from apathy, how convenient it is to do so. Now, about the apathetic Bubba types? Most made all of my points before I did as I presented the supporting data in a nonthreating and respectful way, now most are in full support?

Bubba represents no actual named person but does represent the once majority of the population, your 98%. Bubba?s name is supplemented as one of several hundred people and the amount of doors that I actually knocked on.

I can?t help but feel that apathy is a word that is used far to often by those that suffer from an awareness in the art of human conditioning and understanding. Nope, none of this is an insult at/or towards anyone and I offer apologies if it is perceived that way. I only offer this as something to measure and perhaps ponder.

Once again, what is most important, getting your point across or wining a battle that never had to be fought?


Best Regards

[This message has been edited by BenC (edited 26 January 2005).]

Silver,

Careful when you talk about farmers not being “smart enough” to realize clean water is good for everyone. Today’s farmer on average is much more educated and informed than ever before. But, as with any business, short-term profits, bang for the buck, and the next election still beat out long-term restoration and “the next generation.” Sad, but true, we all are at the mercy of the dollar when it comes to these issues.

The farmer wants clean water and clean air just as much as anyone. Show me a farmer who doesn’t enjoy the outdoors, hunting, and fishing… just try to find one. And they know the issues. But so did the big factories. But they kept belching out the pollutants because regulations allowed them to. And when regulations began to tighten, short-term profits for these factories shrank and the stakeholders began to cry. That’s one reason a lot of manufacturing has gone out of the country. Don’t blame NAFTA for all of it.

My dad was a farmer and well educated, an avid outdoorsman, and concerned with the environment. But he was also concerned with putting food on the table, paying the electric bill, and keeping us warm in the winter. So, his focus turned towards the short-term profits from the farm.

One of the best lessons I learned in college was from a casual conversation with another student. Long story short, he was told by a man trying to recruit him to play football for a major university that “the name of the game is money…”

Sadly, that’s still very true.

But for now, I’ll leave alone the issue of what the tourist business does to contribute to the demise of the enviroment. It’s easier to blame one farmer dumping high levels of nitrogen than to study how much CO and other pollutants are generated bringing the tourist dollar “south.” (Maybe I won’t quite leave that issue alone.)

Now, don’t take me wrong. I am as concerned as the next guy about the water situation. And I am all for cleaning up our water and tightening standards. But I know you have to work with the agricultural sector in order to get it done right.

What’s the answer? I don’t know. But I DO know you can’t expect the guy who’s putting chicken litter on his field to triple his hay crop to just quit overnight. There have to be enviromentally AND economically sound alternatives.

And that’s where we should be focusing our attention… on working WITH the farmer… not against him.

But then…all of this is just MY opinion…


Tight lines ya’ll!!
Love is grand… Divorce is 100 grand…

I just returned from a meeting of the Watershed Project for the area that I live. The majority of people in attendance were farmers. We were presented information on Nutrient Management, drainage systems designed to control runoff and the related deposition of sediment, phosporous, and nitrogen in streams. From what I observed, the farmers were able to comprehend what was presented. Farmers, like anyone running a business, have to be shown that there is cost benefit to an investment. The purpose of today’s meeting was to let those of us in attendance that there is a benefit, both to the environment, and to the farmer’s bottom line. Education is a key, but like any change, different folks adopt at different speeds.

[This message has been edited by Wrangler (edited 26 January 2005).]

I guess you guys missed the big picture of what’s going on here: NRCS and the AR Soil and Water Commission have already worked WITH the farmers and devised a workable sustained-use plan to limit phosph. runoff into the water. This plan is to be implemented across N AR by 1/1/06. The ONLY issue here is that a few local politicians and farmers are now trying to cut an exemption…thus an unfair advantage…for themselves at the expense of the watershed. They are NOT crying about the cost. They are NOT crying about their rights. They are ONLY saying they should be exempt because they’re only polluting AR’s water, not other states’.

So all of this hypothesizing and grandstanding about how to achieve win-win solutions to environmental problems and so forth is not all that relevant to the case at hand. And it really would have been more beneficial for everyone to write TU, American Rivers, FFF, etc. …and if you’re from AR or own property in AR, then the Soil and Water Comm, your legislators, etc. …and voiced your concern over this issue instead of trying to “enlighten” those of us who are already trying to make a difference. It’s easy to kill the messenger. It’s harder to make a real difference.

For the record, I am not anti-farmer! I have lived on, managed, and been around farms and ranches all my life. And I’ve spent a good portion of all my life in the Ozarks…AR and MO. Water quality is an issue which requires the cooperation of MANY different entities…especially in an environment like ours that is being degraded primarily by non-point source pollutants (read: run-off). The population boom is a BIG factor. 2-stroke motors on the lakes and rivers is a BIG factor. Effluent run-off from wastewater treatment plants has been a big factor. And poor fertilizer application practices have been a BIG problem. Big work over the past 5 years or so has resulted in serious reductions in WWTP’s phosph and nitro discharges. This was the contribution of the towns, cities, and sewer districts. The new fertilization regulations for farmers in the watershed is THEIR contribution. These were the easiest two factors to work on, and pay the biggest dividends in the shortest amount of time. We also currently have septic demonstration projects running regarding residential and small biz septic run-off. Changing these regs will be next. We’re also working toward a concensus on the 2-cycle motor issue, but it is economically infeasible to make an abrupt change there. All of these things are being done in their own time. But we’ve got this ONE little (2 dozen farms) group of farmers being coddled by this small group (3-4) of legislators who are trying to carve out this little exemption and big ag advantage for themselves for NO GOOD REASON.

Sometimes, you just have to call the foul. And sometimes…yes…you have to FORCE cooperation in order to get any forward movement. But most of all, you have to get folks’ attention and make them aware that their is a problem which needs fixing.

Perhaps apathy was the wrong word. Perhaps I should have used “ignorance.” But that word tends to evoke stronger emotions on Internet forums.

And I fully realize that the short-term $$$ gain is what is driving these farmers and legislators to act the way they are. But I am giving them the benefit of the doubt when I say they don’t know any better. In reality, they probably damn well do know and just don’t give a $%&*!


Fishing the Ozarks

<They are NOT crying about the cost. They are NOT crying about their rights. They are ONLY saying they should be exempt because they’re only polluting AR’s water, not other states’.
So all of this hypothesizing and grandstanding about how to achieve win-win solutions to environmental problems and so forth is not all that relevant to the case at hand.>

I’ve never known any politician to support a persons right to purposely pollute, or condom the practice of violating the Clean Waters Act. I also admit that I don’t know the real issues/concerns that they have as I haven?t spoken with this small group of farmers, nor do I know why their respective politicians believe that their concerns are legitimate. I only know, that according to what you have offered, this small group of people are bending over backwards because they have a real desire to pollute water ways. Perhaps they have genuine concerns but we don’t know them from what you have shared. Funding, funding and then help others get more funding: Coalitions of remedy and resource allocation by assistance; I think you just labeled that as grandstanding? Granted it isn’t an easy process and it isn?t that cut and dry but I think that the accusatory use of the word, grandstanding, was misdirected.

Good luck with your war…


Best Regards

[This message has been edited by BenC (edited 26 January 2005).]

Ben and Silver… thank you both for your responses, they were very informative and have answered my question. I will indeed be looking into which legislaters to contact and voicing my disconcern with this issue. Sadly it sounds that this issue is a “done deal” and the decision to go forward with it can’t be reversed. I’ll have to go back and reread the original article, because I thought that there was still some lag time before this was set in stone. Either way, I can’t just sit back and watch any waterway get destroyed because some politician said he’d get this legislation passed, just to get himself elected!

Like my signature says… “Whatever befalls the Earth, befalls the People of the Earth”! Yes JC, we are all downstream!

Jim


“We did not weave the web of life, we are but a strand in it. Whatever befalls the Earth, befalls the People of the Earth”~ Chief Seattle

Here, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy would have that thing in court.

From the February 2003 issue of AMBER WAVES, a research publication of the USDA…

“USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS), can help CAFOs(Consolidated Animal Feeding Operations) meet the manure application standards proposed by EPA. EQIP provides technical and financial assistance in developing nutrient management plans, cost-share payments for waste management structures, and incentive payments to assist crop and livestock producers with environmental and conservation improvements on the farm. The program even provides financial help to transport manure to off-farm locations.”

Obviously, there already is gov’t funding in place to offset any economic burden placed upon these farmers.


Fishing the Ozarks

Lot’s a communicating…some talking.

Bottom line,

Farmers have chicken waste, and need fertilizer for hay.

If they don’t spread it, they got to treat it.

Ozark logic…I got it, I’ll use it. It’s free. Any changes cost money, and represent government meddling.

Please explain to me how “win-win” works in this.


bubba_orvis

The question was, why bother!

It took me awhile to think this one through, and here is my thoughts, on why each one of us “should bother”!

Power of the government, comes from the people who elect, those who will serve representing them.

It is still a government
Of the People…
By the People…
For the People…

Our Pledge of Allegence does say…

"I pledge allengence to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One Nation, under God, Individisable with Liberty and Justice for all.

It does not say…
I pledge allengence to the flag of the Corporated State of America, and to the Mandated Political Power and Special Interest Groups for which it stands, one nation deep in Debt, with Liberty and Justice for Some, but not for Others.

That is why we should bother, and really care what is being done in Our Name!

Parnelli

Woody Guthrie said it best…"This Land is Your Land, this Land in My Land…this Land was made for You and Me!

[This message has been edited by Steven H. McGarthwaite (edited 27 January 2005).]

Somtimes we get so caught up in our seek of information and knowledge that we take it for granted that others are in possession of the same information that we have. Qestion is this: Should we take for granted that all of the farmers are aware of the government sposored programs that provide funding or do we take for granted that everyone already knows this program?

Win-win can best be measured through compromise of less ill-effect on the environment than one of a present cronic state.

I am not preaching education, what I am trying to say is; pass on the information that helps those who have financial impact concerns. You mat get different results, at least it is worth a try…

SilverMallard: that information that you obtained is great and it is even better that you did the research to discover it. If that information was passed onto the farmers and lets say that half of them used it; your coalition would be that much larger. Most farmers hate paper work and I know that an offering of services to help them apply for thes programs gets more of them on board.

The information that you researched can be a great tool in acomplishing part of your goals. Best of luck with your project!

BenC,

I’ve been aware of the EQIP program for about 5 years now. I’ve used it on other farm-related projects in which I was responsible for conservation planning. The vast majority of farmers know all about these programs run by NRCS. Their county extension agents, NRCS personnel, several different publications they receive in the mail, and a host of other sources are constantly educating and reminding farmers of their existence and parameters.

Since NRCS is the implementing agency for this entire water quality program in Northern Arkansas, it only seems reasonable that they would include implementation of EQIP and other Farm Bill conservation incentives to the fullest extent possible by law and allocations. That’s just the way they work.

Now, the other stuff I found regarding the use of poultry litter for power generation, the chemicals that can reduce phosph runoff, and the move to create a farm-to-farm market for the litter which moves it out of the watershed in question, I just did a little Googling to find some news stories. This is a MAJOR topic of current events in the Ozarks. MO and OK are putting a great deal of pressure on AR to get them to “catch up,” and continuing with their own pressure to improve things on their own sides of the borders.

FYI, I added some posts to the thread in the Conservation Forum that explain this more fully.

The biggest problem NRCS faces with the whole mess is the attitudes of the “typical” Ozark region farmer. And AR doesn’t have a lock on this stereotype either. We deal with them here in MO and they have them in OK, too. But the AR legislature historically caves in to the poultry lobby without a fight. We’re talking about the home turf of Tyson Foods, Inc…the largest frozen food conglomerate in the world. In general, farmers from this region resent ANY gov’t “interference” in their “way of life.” The old Prohibition attitudes still reign supreme, and all gov’t agents are viewed as either Carpet Baggers or Revenuers…or both. Country folk in this part of the country (and I am country folk from this part of the country) tend to still do things like poaching deer and bears, hulling streams and rivers to kill all the fish (Indian subsistence fishing method using Black Walnut hulls which works about as well as dynamite, though not as fast or as noisy), and clandestine dumping of septic tank pumper trucks into area streams to avoid paying the processing fee at the local sewage treatment plant. These types of things are COMMONPLACE.

Now, of course, there are plenty of folks in the Ozarks (especially nowadays with the influx of folks from other regions) who do NOT do such obviously destructive things, but in “polite society” we have ignored these practices and allowed them to continue; saying “Oh well, things are just different around here.” But we have become too populous and we have become a huge beef, dairy, and poultry producing region to allow such attitudes to continue to exist.

It really is a battle of ideals. We really do have WILLFUL repeat violators. And we really do have some politicians (at least in AR) who fight to protect the “old ways.”


Fishing the Ozarks

I just had someone knock on my door. He was giving out info about sewage being released into local waters. He was asking that I write our congressmen and senator. Usually I would have said, Yea sure, and promptly forgot about it. Lf’s article has had me thinking lately though, so I sat right down and wrote nine letters and put them in the mail. Thanks LF! sometimes we need a kick in the butt!
Bill

FYI…there’s a lot of updated info, articles, and contact info on this in the Conservation forum thread.


Fishing the Ozarks