Written by Samantha Holschbach
Last year I was privileged to ride an airboat across Grassy Lake, a private portion of the 18,000-acre wildlife sanctuary known as Little River Bottoms in southwest Arkansas. An emerald wonderland covered in duckweed and cypress stands, the lake boasts at least 11,000 herons, egrets, ibises and bitterns.
That number is no exaggeration—I marveled, mouth agape, at scores of white Cattle Egrets in trees, forming the illusion of snow-covered boughs. Everywhere I turned, a heron stared back, its attention fixed upon spearing a frog or avoiding the hungry gaze of one of the lake’s numerous alligators. It’s no wonder, then, that this place is deemed part of an Important Bird Area and was under consideration as a Natural National Landmark for its quality wildlife habitat. Unfortunately, Grassy Lake is also under consideration for being irrevocably tarnished—if an adjacent coal-fired power plant is approved for operation, spewing toxins into the lake and air over the region, even jeopardizing the air of Searcy.
To date, construction of Southwestern Electric Power Company’s (SWEPCO) John W. Turk Jr. Plant in Hempstead Co., Ark. continues despite an Arkansas Court of Appeals ruling earlier this year to withdraw the granted Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need, a vital document for construction. Regarding its decision, the court said the Public Service Commission did not abide by a law requiring utilities to show public need and harmony with the environment. Nevertheless, at SWEPCO’s bidding, the Arkansas Supreme Court is currently examining the appellate court’s decision.
But is the Supreme Court’s examination really necessary, considering the appeals court unanimously opposed the Turk plant’s construction in light of its questionable need and environmental ramifications? If anything, having the Supreme Court examine the ruling permits SWEPCO more construction time and, in turn, more justification for its existence. More importantly, is the plant’s $1.6+ existence even beneficial for Arkansans? Consider that most Arkansans would not reap the electricity generated by the plant, as the vast majority of SWEPCO’s customers reside in Texas, Louisiana and other surrounding states. It’s curious that the residents of these states and others have recently banned from their borders more than 99 proposed coal-fired power plants, deemed detrimental to local residents’ health and economies. Still, Arkansans will get something should the Turk plant reach fruition: pollution and rate hikes. The plant would spew at least 5 million tons of toxins like carbon dioxide and sulfur into the atmosphere, which is why the American Lung Association vehemently opposes its construction. In particular, an estimated 366 pounds of mercury and other toxins would sully rivers, lakes and streams, thereby damaging Arkansas’ prized fishing revenue. ‘Clean coal’ is thus a sorry misnomer. Even now, according to Thinc Marketing Group, more than 110,000 Arkansas families are facing the likes of an 18-20 percent increase on monthly utility bills due to this plant’s construction phase. Clearly, the Turk plant cripples Arkansas when other states are converting to cleaner forms of energy like natural gas or wind.
On the other side of the spectrum, the plant’s proponents claim the Turk plant will boost the local economy by adding jobs. SWEPCO itself states on its Web site that the plant would provide 110 permanent jobs and a $9 million payroll. In reality, though, how many of those jobs will be filled by locals? Many of the positions will likely require a restrictive list of skills that rural Hempstead County residents just can’t fill. While a number of trained out-of-state technicians may move to Arkansas, thus boosting the state economy somewhat, it’s possible they may simply opt for long commutes to preserve their current livelihood in lieu of the plant’s removed location. Even if the Turk plant boosted surrounding Arkansas communities, a better alternative to create jobs exists in green energy. The Center for American Progress estimated that nearly 20,000 such jobs could be created in Arkansas based on June 2008 unemployment figures. Thus, investments in solar, biofuels, building retrofitting and more could not only create jobs en masse but also create an industry with minimal environmental impact.
Additionally, SWEPCO declared that the plant is necessary to meet increased energy needs in coming years. But is the construction of an entirely new plant the only way to increase electricity production? If Arkansas’ three other coal-fired power plants honed their efficiency or SWEPCO’s own natural gas-fired plants were expanded (a cleaner alternative to coal), then perhaps the Turk plant’s costly construction could be skirted. Believing the latter, former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice David Newburn formed the dissenting opinion in the ruling (2-1) to grant the Turk plant a building permit. Of that decision, Newburn said, “The momentum of ‘business as usual’ will make the necessary changes difficult for both the public and the power industry, but we must turn the inevitable corner and begin now to refuse to countenance the further degradation of our atmosphere without taking every reasonable step to nurture and promote cleaner, more efficient alternatives. To allow an increase in atmospheric pollution in this instance is shortsighted.”
As the Natural State, Arkansas should be embracing eco-friendly industries, paving a path towards a sustainable future that other states can emulate. Instead, Arkansas looms on the periphery, stifled by the status quo, deaf to the alarm call of climate change.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Arkansas still has time to cleanse its soil of poisonous coal—but it must hurry, lest natural treasures like Grassy Lake become merely a part of our past natural heritage.
