Much has been written about the Buffalo National River in regard to its environmental value as an extraordinary water resource. But, what if we look at it from a purely economic standpoint. After all, most decisions regarding the growth of Arkansas industry are driven by economics.

The Buffalo itself is an important economic component of Arkansas tourism. In regard to the C&H Hog Farm, the question becomes whether a key tourism driver like the Buffalo can successfully coexist with an agricultural facility that has a significant waste disposal footprint. From an economic standpoint, it would be ideal if both industries could thrive in close proximity.

The Arkansas Pork Producers Association and the Arkansas Farm Bureau insist they can. They describe the owners of C&H as a responsible farm family that deeply cares about the environment. The farm supporters assure us the risk is low, if not non-existent. Yet, it is clear there is still risk, if for no other reason than the facilities' size and its proximity to a national river.

Risks from C&H come from four sources: Surface run-off, groundwater contamination, lagoon overflow from severe weather, and finally, lagoon collapse.

Let's look at the worst-case scenario. Lagoon collapse due to the weight on underlying karstgeology (think sinkholes) is a low-probability but high-risk event that has occurred numerous times in karst environments elsewhere. In our example, the collapse of the karst opens up the floor of the lagoon to an underground cavity. This results in the rapid drainage of lagoon waste into the karst, a volume that could exceed one million gallons. Nearby springs connected via the karst turn the color of chocolate. Quickly, Big Creek becomes contaminated and, in turn, so does the Buffalo. The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality steps in to mitigate the collapse, to little effect. The National Park Service closes the Buffalo to the public. The closure and its reasons are publicized. Tourism in the Buffalo gateway communities stalls. Cargill successfully defers liability, stating that C&H is an independent contractor. C&H resources are quickly drained by legal claims and they declare bankruptcy. Tourism operators call for disaster relief. It becomes apparent mitigation and costs to restore the river (if that is possible) will come at the expense of the Arkansas taxpayer. In the absolute worst case, questions arise as to whether the damaged Buffalo can continue to be designated a "national river."

This particular risk may seem remote, but similar events have happened in the past and, as you can see, the consequences are enormous. Tom Aley, an professional Arkansas geologist, has suggested C&H should carry environmental risk insurance to address potential liability. Such policies are available and can be purchased for exactly these sorts of risks. Mr. Aley suggests a policy with an upper limit payout of $50 million.

"That's high," you say? Considering the Buffalo brought in $57 million in economic benefits to the state just last year, this is in all likelihood too low. But, it is a starting point. And if the risks are as low as the Farm Bureau says, the premiums should be reasonable and viewed as a cost of doing business in this economically important watershed. The policy should be written to provide coverage for the four risks mentioned earlier. With the purchase of such a policy, C&H should add chemical markers to their holding lagoons for source tracing purposes.

Why this has not already been done to reassure the public remains an unanswered question. It would certainly aid the current scientific efforts in evaluating the farm's impact. From the insurer's point of view, such chemical markers would serve to isolate C&H liability and ensure that claims do not result from other sources.

Currently, the Arkansas taxpayer is the de facto insurer and will be on the hook for any problems that result from this facility. If the farm's owners and supporters truly intend to be accountable, then they must ensure the waste is chemically traceable and purchase sufficient environmental risk coverage. If they are unwilling to take these simple mitigation steps, we have to ask ourselves as taxpayers if they are really as responsible as they would have us believe.

Commentary on 10/10/2015