By Brian Thompson, OS President

Proposed Rule 37 – Nutrient Trading

The municipalities of NW Arkansas are under a lot of pressure to reduce nutrient output due to the longstanding controversy with Oklahoma over the effects of excessive nutrients on the Illinois River.  Every successive upgrade to sewer processing results in expenses that are orders of magnitude greater than previous nutrient reduction upgrades.  This is one reason why we’ve challenged the land application of industrial waste, as allowing those applications in the same watershed is only adding to the problem.  To ADEQ’s credit, they have halted granting those permits for the moment.

     Searching for other solutions, ADEQ has proposed a new “rule” to allow something called Nutrient Trading.  In short, this would allow municipalities to increase nutrients in their effluent output provided they secure a “credit” from landowners to reduce non-point source nutrient run-off.   We think this is an idea worth exploring as bringing more focus to non-point sources of nutrients is long overdue.   Long standing practices of land applying poultry litter and industrial waste has resulted in high concentrations of phosphorus in pastures across Arkansas.   As always, the difficulty is in the details.   The communities in the Chesapeake Bay area have been conducting nutrient trading for quite some time.   Reading about the Bay area, one quickly realizes that nutrient trading is complicated.  They’ve had difficulty in getting land owners to participate and success has not been easy to measure.   ADEQ has structured the language in the proposed trading rule very loosely to provide flexibility in hopes of encouraging trades.   But nutrient trading credits will involve big money.   Our concern is that the language is so loose and so vague, that credit valuations as well as success might be misrepresented.    We have provided a list of questions to ADEQ along with a request to visit further.  Questions regard methodologies for credit valuation, reducing conflicts of interest, and supporting credible reporting.   The trade-off appears to be a matter of retaining flexibility without sacrificing accountability.   ADEQ would like to bring the rule before the Ecology Commission sometime this summer.

Arkansas Water Plan Review for 2024

     The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) is moving to revisit the Arkansas Water Plan which hasn’t been updated since 2014.   ANRC has held public meetings across the state to get input.  The plan covers a very broad area of concerns including not only water resources, but demand and future needs.   We have provided some constructive feedback on several areas that we believe would support water quality.   They include the following:

Fully implement numeric standards for all Arkansas waterbodies.   Currently, the standards for evaluating water quality are subjective.  ADEQ has done some work, but progress has been years in the making.   

  • Require nutrient management plans statewide.  Currently, such plans are required for hog farms statewide, and also for poultry operations in the Nutrient Surplus Area of NW Arkansas.   Otherwise, there is no limitation on the land application of nutrients.   This needs to change for the benefit of our waterways.
  • Review and update the Arkansas Phosphorus Index (API).   Where nutrient management plans are required, the API is the formula that determines phosphorus application limits.  Secretary Khoury has stated in a letter to the Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment, that it is time to review the API.   We agree.
  • Review and update Best Management Practices (BMPs).  BMPs when implemented by farmers, slows down run-off and phosphorus into waterways.   However, BMPs do not account for ground water which is a big issue in the northern portion of Arkansas.  We’ve asked for this change to be considered.