|
 EL
DORADO – Citizens in southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana are
creating some hot water for a new wastewater pipeline proposal in El
Dorado. The project is also receiving heavy scrutiny by many natural
resource agencies, including the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the
US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality.
The pipeline is an effort to cut the cost of wastewater treatment by the
City of El Dorado by joining with three companies in the area – Great
Lakes Chemical Co., Lion Oil Co., and El Dorado Chemical. The project
calls for wastewater from these four partners to be treated and dumped
into the Ouachita River upstream of Felsenthal Wildlife Refuge near the
Arkansas/Louisiana border.
“There has been some confusion about where the (Arkansas Game and Fish)
Commission stands on the project,” said Mike Armstrong, chief of
fisheries at the AGFC. “While we are not completely opposed to a project
of this type, we are critically examining the issue and have serious
concerns.
“Any time wastewater is added to a system, all possible impacts must be
studied. Even if the wastewater is treated to state and federal
standards, it may still have a significant impact on fish and wildlife.”
The primary concern is that the pipeline will discharge ammonia,
nitrates and phosphorus into the river. Additions of these nutrients
could aggravate an already nuisance problem of aquatic vegetation and
algae blooms, resulting in low oxygen levels and possible fish kills.
Jason Olive, assistant fisheries biologist for the AGFC in Camden, said,
“The Ouachita River is already a fertile waterway, and additional
nutrients could cause the aquatic algae and vegetation to choke the
entire system.
“The impact to Felsenthal is a primary concern because it is the first
major wetland system below the proposed pipeline and will absorb most of
the additional nutrients. But the entire system could be affected.”
The preliminary study of the pipeline’s impact was rejected because the
AGFC felt there were inaccuracies in the data and the possible impacts
to the refuge were not adequately addressed.
Armstrong said, “Until we see modeling that unequivocally shows no
degradation to the system, we will continue to ask for alternatives,
including an analysis comparing the cost of the pipeline to nutrient
removal costs.” |
