RALEIGH — Everybody knows that hog farms are destroying the environment and denuding the water quality of North Carolina’s river basins. That’s why environmental activists and government regulations have been so aggressive in trying to limit or even shut down the industry, at least until it can come up with an alternative to lagoons and field-spraying as a way to handle hog waste.
Or, at least, this is the conventional wisdom. What makes me suspect its accuracy is that, for years, I’ve tried to find long-term studies or comparable data from state agencies with which to test the presumed effects of hog farming on water quality. There have certainly been spectacular cases of lagoons rupturing, particularly during downpours or hurricanes, but there appears to be surprisingly few studies that illustrate a systematic pattern of declining water quality related to hog farming.
As is the case with North Carolina’s air quality, the public perception is different than the reality. According to a new study from a University of Kentucky researcher, monitors on four of the state’s major river basins — the Tar-Pamlico, Cape Fear, Neuse, and White Oak. Over the past 32 years, the researcher found, virtually all the monitoring stations showed declining or stable levels of pollutants in the water. Only five percent found a deterioration.
Given the often-heated political rhetoric that arises around these issues, I find the study’s results fascinating. Environmental activists and government regulators were quick to debunk them. First, they argued, the study was paid for by an industry group called Frontline Farmers. OK, that’s relevant only if the University of Kentucky researcher is a hack. Offer evidence he fudges his data or move along.
The second argument is that the monitors on these four major river systems do not capture data from smaller creeks and streams that may show the effects of hog-waste runoff. This appears to be an attempt to change the subject — isn’t it obviously significant that the major rivers into which many smaller tributaries flow are mostly showing no impact, or even improving quality, during a period of rapid growth in hog farming and development? And if it’s true that the state’s monitoring system is inadequate to detect real trends in water quality, why haven’t we been doing something about that? Since state government has expended tens of millions of tax dollars a year buying up land in watersheds and regulating commercial and residential development near rivers, shouldn’t we have spent whatever millions were necessary to acquire accurate data on the problem?
I’m not a scientist, so naturally I don’t have an “expert” opinion on what the pollution trends are and what is causing them. But given our recent experience with North Carolina’s smog “crisis,” which has turned out to be largely manufactured, it’s not hard to believe that something similar might be going on with the clean-water issue.
It is irresponsible and reckless to assume that hog waste, which is clearly an annoyance for many North Carolinians on account of its smell, is responsible for a major harm to our environmental health and safety. We are talking about businesses that employ thousands and generate significant economic value in parts of North Carolina that are otherwise not exactly leading the state in economic vitality. Poverty is also bad for one’s health.
Before dismissing good news about water quality because it clashes with one’s preconceived notions, public officials should seek real data to either confirm or rebut it.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.