It is your turn to be the expert!
Alright, get ready. Generally I write the blog post, you read the blog post, and I have no idea what you think. This time I challenge you to read the post and then expend some effort.
Yes, I want your feedback. Now read on, and don’t wimp out on me.
Recently the Environmental Working Group (EWG) published a report entitled, Fooling Ourselves: Voluntary Programs Fail to Clean Up Dirty Water. If you haven’t read the report, you should. It focuses on Iowa, but I am sure it can be applied to almost any state. Essentially, it is a 10 page paper (with lots of colored pictures and easy to read graphs) describing the failure of voluntary conservation.
There is a lot of information in this report, some of it factual and some of it opinion. Regardless, it is thought provoking. One of the more intriguing things I found is EWG’s convincing argument for basic standards of care. To meet the basic standards of care, EWG argues that every farmer should be required to adopt a set of 4 mandatory conservation practices:
- grassed waterways
- filter strips along all water bodies
- controlled access of livestock to all water bodies
- no application of manure to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground
I am not sure I believe in the premise of mandatory practices, but it is interesting to consider what practices should be included (if there would be such a thing as basic standards of care in conservation, like there are in healthcare).
Now it is your turn to show your conservation expertise. Do you agree with EWG’s basic standards of care practices? If not, what would make your list? I am interested in what you think. I am not requesting that you write a thesis, just give me your list of practices you think every farmer should use in your area.
I will wait to share my thoughts until a future blog post.
Please do this right now while you are thinking about it. Go to the bottom of the page and leave your comments.
Maximizing Conservation Investments
Tom, as you might presume, I agree with Craig, and I like his list of four practices. I would add, however, what should be commonplace as a result of conservation compliance–a “tillage system” that reduces soil erosion to as close to T as possible. Compliance remains the law of the land so why not factor it into Craig’s approach? This basic-standards-of-care approach, of course, does not resolve such important issues as nutrient reduction, but it points us in the right direction and allows the conservation institutional infrastructure to focus on next steps to addressing more site-specific issues of interest to landowners and the taxpaying public.
Tom, seriously, this is a ridiculous exercise based on an activist straw-man. Four mandatory conservation practices that would solve our conservation problems? Why not three or five? Heck, why not twelve, as long as we are playing dictator? Why do we not equally focus on the great success story of voluntary conservation programs (end of Dust Bowl anyone, increased adoption of cover crops)? State’s are already developing their nutrient reduction strategies and have put a lot of thought into how the goals can be achieved. Most water quality issues are local and need to be dealt with on a local basis and with local input. A one size fits all, top down, regulatory approach often misses the mark and over regulates while stymieing growth and opportunity, not to mention treads on individual property rights.
I’m sorry, but I can not take conservation advice from a group that drives public policy and consumer sentiment by using bad or junk science (see Dirty Dozen Plus), anti GMO rhetoric, and cell phone radiation causing reduced sperm counts to name a few.
I am a farmer and I do have dozens of different conservation practices utilized across my operation. If you don’t mind, I’ll eschew the advice from EWG.
Practice-based prescriptions don’t work in health care either.
I agree with this idea in general, but with adding in some local considerations. For example, restrictions of manure application on karst topography. In general, these practices – grassed waterways, filter strips, and restricting manure application where there’s a high risk of surface runoff or ground water contamination – would be a great start to improving water quality.
Tom,
Great idea to gather readers response to EWG report. I personally believe that most farmers/landowners respond to cost benefit relationships. The “right thing to do” is a lot easier to sell when known cost-returns are adequately identified with proven science. An example might be “cover crops”. What changes can be expected in C:N ratio, Nitrogen recovery and when released, pH changes, OM changes, amount of change in water infiltration and holding capacity, and following crop growth and yields impacts, including double cropping. What’s the impact on Crop Insurance ? Farming systems (crops/livestock) yield the most productive benefits on sustainability, economics, farm values and labor return. I usually refer to 32 doable conservation practices as the menu of opportunities to start the conversation. I’m reminded of the time when IDNR required all farmers with confined hog operations to provide a MMP. Even with the Iowa Code providing the rule, it took 10 years to get everyone in compliance. Last few holdouts were fined, prior to compliance.
From a big picture vision, we could spend the bulk of taxpayers monies on stream bank erosion, beginning at the head waters of impacted streams/rivers and find amazing water quality improvements.
Thanks for the opportunity.
I truly don’t believe you can use a system that dictates that all farmland be subject to the same types of practices. Across the state of Iowa we have different ground and different farming practices so to say each farm should have the same 4 principles added is truly a bad idea and frankly could work against the farmers in many ways. I don’t think folks are looking at the big picture here.
In giving numerous presentations addressing soil erosion I have heard multiple times from farmers in the audience, “I am tired of competing on an unlevel playing field. ” I have even had farmers go as far as saying, “It is time for rules” (this is the other ‘R’ word, but means about the same). I ask, “Do you really want regulation.” The answer is normally, ‘NO, but I cannot compete on the short term with ________ ________ who farms into the road ditch, has no waterways, and refuses to use buffers along any fields or streams.’ Do I think basic rules of engagement for managing natural resources (our soil) is a fix? I am not sure, but am quite certain the farmer engaged with practices that conserve soil and water resources are often at a short term economic disadvantage, a distinct disincentive for using conservation practices. Another farmer quote that applies, “On my own land, conservation is an investment. On rented land, conservation is a cost.” The majority of Iowa harvested acres are rented.
I agree with the 4 points in EWGs latest report. Additional requirements should involve a strong statement that no taxpayer subsidies including, but not limited to LDPs, EQIP funds and crop insurance will be available to “farmers”who do not follow conservation practices on their land.
Moreover, if the above subsidies, and others incentives are provided, there must be long-term assurances to taxpayers that these practices will not be removed for short term gains manipulated by grain markets.
Strong correlation between toxic bacteria in Iowa’s surface waters and the proliferation of CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) should also require these operators to follow the same waste water discharge procedures used by large municipal waste water treatment facilities. “Integrators”, those individuals who shield their businesses by shifting ownership on paper, allows one or more operators to stack 10s of thousands of hogs in one small watershed. If a hog’s daily excrement equivalent is 2.5 to 7 humans, then these larger operations produce the excrement equivalent of medium-sized cities. Municipal wastewater is regulated. On the level of molecular analysis, about the only difference between human and ovine feces is the molecule caffeine – and the various drugs routinely given to hogs, including subclinical doses of antibiotics to promote small but measurable weight gain. Based in hog drugs alone, their excrement should be treated differently, and with technologies required of municipal waste water plants.
Agriculture accounts for about 25% of Iowa’s income. Yet industrial agriculture is permitted to externalize costs by injecting waste into Iowa’s air, water and soil. These free-market practices harm human health, reduce the survival of wildlife, ruin the safety of drinking water in small cities that cannot afford additional water treatment technologies. CAFOs also present a barrier to cleaner industries that could potentially locate in Iowa in search of amenities like: clean air, clean water, wildlife diversity, open space and a growing infrastructure of sustainable energy including wind and solar.
In the future, USDA ought to consider only providing subsidies to farming operations that have restored and maintain at least 10% of the land base in NATIVE plant species. Pollinator habitat is essential to the human food system.
The 4 mandates should be done anyway,but we all know neighbors who don’t and unfortunately they are a majority of the producers. I don’t think it will be done right until it hits the pocket book or at least producers see the value to them. Unfortunately one size doesn’t fit all when proposing programs like this. Its a sit down, individually based program. Question is who are the individuals beside the producer that make up the program,
Tom, I don’t believe mandatory prescriptions work well in agriculture, too many differences in fields, soil types and slopes. I do believe, however, that when farmers and landowners accept cost-share funds from tax payers to create a soil saving structure that it creates an obligation to keep and maintain that practice. If USDA-NRCS helps pay for a grassed waterway or field border, then it should not be ripped out when the price of corn temporarily fluctuates higher.
Nutrient Reduction Strategy is Sound
The Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a sound and scientific manner to address our state’s water quality issues. Recently a conservation report was conducted that generated a newspaper headline that read “Millions Spent, but no lasting gains.” While we can argue the validity of this report, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture behind this article and be realistic in saying money will never remedy the real problem.
My take away from this report is that no matter how much money is budgeted towards water quality projects; we must target those dollars strategically to have the most impact as possible. This session, I have written and introduced a bill in the Iowa House (House File 2211) with a number of efforts that I believe will put us on the right path to clean water.
As some have suggested we don’t need to move away from a statewide conservation program, because keeping our waterways clean requires active participation by all in our state. However, we need to increase the number of watersheds that are being treated.
House File 2211 complements the Nutrient Reduction Strategy with a key group of actions. First, the bill directs the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to review available data and prioritize Iowa’s waterbodies for nutrient-rich “hotspots”. Once we are able to pinpoint where the high level of nitrates and phosphorus exist, then we need to evaluate our watersheds based on economic and quality of life impacts to Iowans.
Second, the bill proposes that we double the current amount of watershed project coordinators and start targeting them to the priority watersheds identified by IDALS and the DNR. Many of these coordinators have been working in the conservation field since the early 1990s, and hold a deep understanding of the problems that Iowa faces. On average, each of our current coordinators, working closely with landowners and farmers, stop 22,665 tons of sediment, 35,834 pounds of nitrogen, and 25,318 pounds of phosphorus from reaching bodies of water each year according to IDALS.
Third, the bill will invigorate a new part of our economy by giving private business the same training as our government conservation workers. This will provide for seamless planning and design of conservation practices. Together with our state and federal agencies these new public and private employees will total around 300 people within two years.
If each of these new coordinators, working with farmers and landowners, is able to reduce pollutants by the averages reported by IDALS, that would be over 6.8 million tons of sediment, 10.7 million pounds of nitrogen, and 7.6 million pounds of phosphorus removed each year in separate and targeted watersheds, pending adequate funding. To put it in a way that most people can understand just the sediment that would be prevented from reaching a waterbody would fill 523,038 dump trucks that would stretch over 2,000 miles if placed end to end. These coordinators already do fantastic work but will continue this legacy into the future.
Over the last five years, House Republicans have made protecting our waterways and waterbodies a clear priority, by increasing funding for specific programs meant to keep our water clean. I am here to tell you that after 18 years working with water quality issues in my non-legislative job as a Soil and Water Conservation District worker, money is something that I have struggled with every day. We will never have enough money to fully clean up our water, but we can use these common sense ideas to protect our water and expand our economy.
Finally, I am excited about having a plan that is highly targeted and will make meaningful impacts on water quality in the future. I am hopeful that these measures will produce the results that we want and will do great things for us in the future. I am sure others will say this isn’t enough, and for those people I say, where do we start? Let’s band together behind this common sense approach. Let’s work hard to make this plan work.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.
Some thoughts:
First, the article is thoughtful and when people can begin to put time lapse pictures into reports, it shows how farming practices are becoming easier and easier to monitor. Second, the “honor system” or “voluntary system” works when people are honorable or volunteer. If they don’t then their actions speak for themselves and the tools are in place for enforcement.
Mandatory BMP’s at the state level or some other “imaginary boundary line” can be counterproductive, It is better to be based on the business type/process management within a specific management zone.
The Chesapeake Watershed, specifically the Delmarva Peninsula, has been working through all of this for 30 years because of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Everyone else is still catching up, I guess. Here are some thoughts on the four BMP’s stated:
**grassed waterways–was paid for through EQIP money and must be approved by NRCS
**filter strips along all water bodies–Same as above
controlled access of livestock to all water bodies–Same as above and other USDA-NRCS programs
**no application of manure to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground–maybe things are different there but CAFO’s in New York are not allowed to do this already. All it takes is a phone call by someone to the DEC and it goes on the record to be investigated. If the manure hits a body of water then things can get interesting.
The payment of these monies is based on the installation & implementation of the BMP’s. If they are taken out or not followed then repercussions can result, including paying back for the project.
Sounds to me like we have all the laws we need on the books…..just need to follow what is already written. If we don’t then trouble awaits us.
I would add:
Erosion controlled below “T” on all fields, not just those classified as Highly Erodible Land (HEL).
Nutrient additions and timing according to recommendations of the state Land Grant University, and enforced through the licensing of commercial applicators and retailers.
Focus cost share on runoff retention, detention, and treatment to both improve water quality at the source and reduce streambank erosion.
It can be a bit tricky getting accurate measurements of area using NAIP imagery, and flow lines in particular aren’t terribly accurate using GIS programs. But assuming EWG did a reasonable job with their analysis, it’s hard to argue that their conclusions are wrong and voluntary conservation is working. I think some sort of mandatory “basic standards” is a reasonable expectation in exchange for continued/expanded federal and state support programs. What those basic standards should be would be best decided on a more local level as other commenters have suggested. I had a dairy farm in NE Iowa for 15 years and I can attest that fixing gullies and putting in buffers along waterways is relatively cheap and easy. Controlling livestock access to streams is more difficult and expensive, and ending manure application on frozen/snow covered/saturated ground would be very expensive and possibly unworkable in some cases. These are all worthy goals but it will take time and lots of money to implement.
What we really need is a farm bill that prioritizes and fully funds conservation rather than incentivizing production of any given crop.
Isn’t continuous no-till, with cover crops where appropriate, a better solution, or at least in partnership with the others? If you use continuous no-till and cover crops, and favorable rotations, we could eliminate the need for 75-90% of the terraces, grass waterways and wide buffers along streams. I know you agree on keeping soil in place, not a hundred feet downslope where it is caught in a “constructed conservation practice.”
Rick Cruse makes a great point about the economics. I believe that research (maybe costing $100,000,000) could find out how no-till can give equal or better crop yields, eliminating the perceived need for plowing. (Dwayne Beck has already done it in his region of South Dakota, and so have individual no-till farmers.)
One idea that would be revenue-neutral (and would be shot down immediately) would charge “conventional” farmers per acre based on how “bad” their practices are, and reward the no-till farmers based on how many “good” practices they are using, with resulting improvements in soil and water quality. If 90% of the farmers are “conventional”, then the 10% no-till farmers receive a big payout per acre. As more farmers switch to the “good” side, then the money received per acre would naturally go down because there are fewer acres contributing. If 100% of the farmers switch to the “good” practices, then no money changes hands and everyone is competing on an equal playing field. As I said, this would never be accepted, and we don’t have the technology, knowledge or manpower to fairly assess a charge for “bad” farming practices.
If interested, at our Conservation Tillage Conference (ctc.osu.edu) March 2-3, we’ll have a top level panel on Policy, Principles and Practices for the future of Soil Health. Jim Moseley, Bill Richards, Barry Fisher and Mark Rose are the panelists. They aim to find solutions!
While I am not a fan of mandates and one size fits all solutions, you did couch this with asking us to come up with a list that is applicable to our local situations. Here’s my list:
1 – All cropland must have a (conservation) plan that identifies the impacts of crop production on soil erosion and water quality. Land owner is responsible for this plan.
2 – Technical assistance is provided by anyone as long as the plan is consistent with the resource needs of the watershed. The watershed objectives must include mechanisms to deliver the desired outcomes.
3 – Don’t leave the planning and practice as being optional. Fund the practices necessary to deliver results. Everyone is required to identify the impacts of their operation as it relates to water quality.
Meeting ‘T’ and banning various practices like winter manure applications are easy to dictate but very difficult to implement. In my area, the only prohibited winter manure applications are on CAFO farms because there are too many small farms to regulate effectively. In southern Wisconsin we have increasing erosion rates in many counties. It is highly correlated to the loss of livestock and perennial forages that were a pillar of the soil erosion control systems. The problems are complex and very messy in most watersheds.
We don’t require municipal/industrial point sources to have zero discharge because we can’t afford to deliver that criteria. We define the load and implement practices to get there. Same model can work in agriculture but we will need to either spend money through enforcement or incentives to get the desired results. There is no free lunch in this area. Society must share in the cost of implementation.