WEIGH IN ON WATER: How should we deal with farming and pollution?
Posted at 2:40 PM on September 23, 2011
by Dave Peters
(14 Comments)
Farming practices are front and center these days in any discussion about water pollution in Minnesota. Sediment in runoff, nitrate pollution, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone all point at least partly to agriculture.
That's why we asked seven Minnesotans what to do about it. We're asking you the same.
The people we enlisted all have been involved in water quality issues in their communities and are familiar with the difficulties associated with reducing runoff, keeping pollutants out of rivers and lakes and getting people with divergent opinions to come together.
You'll find their answers below. What's yours? Should farmers be forced to do more? Are they scapegoats? Who else needs to step up?
This is the first of three discussions about water that we're launching. Stay tuned. You can find much more about water pollution in Minnesota by going to our Ground Level package, "Cleaning Minnesota's Water".
QUESTION
What's the best way to address the question of farming practices and water quality in Minnesota?
Share your own answer to this question below...
Bruce Tiffany, farmer near Redwood Falls
"Farmers want to do the right thing. . . We live and die by our own decisions. "
First off, I believe by and large farmers want to do the right thing. Farmers are by nature problem solvers and results-oriented people. We live and die by our own decisions. Regulations and heavy handed enforcement are usually met with much resistance. But, sometimes the signals being sent are mixed as to what is the right thing is.
That being said, when ideas or programs make sense, farmers are very quick to adopt technology and practices. When they don't make sense, watching the early adopters and learning is the norm. History has proven that changing management practices just to cater to the flavor of the day mostly leads to failure. I believe sound, unbiased research such as the Discovery Farms program is a great resource. I think real farmers solving real water quality situations is good. Articles in major farm publications are shaping ideas about the scope of the issue and what individuals are doing about it. I think seeing success on more and more operations will only lead to more effort.
I think if we can all avoid the energy and resource sapping game of laying blame and posturing over who is right and who is wrong we will make greater gains in water quality. If each and every citizen honestly looks at their use of water and what the quality is when it leaves their property, and tries to do something about it, good things will happen. I have made changes in our operation that have improved water quality in the past. Some of these practices have been inexpensive and easy to make, and others have been more complex and need outside help. I for one know I can, and intend to do more to improve the water when it leaves my farm. My challenge to all of you reading this is, Will you put forth your best effort as well?
Kris Sigford, Minneapolis, water quality director, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
I believe we need to select a major watershed that is degraded by agricultural runoff, determine the specific sources and practices that are contributing to the problem, calculate how much the pollution load needs to be reduced, and ask the agricultural interests to come up with a restoration plan complete with specific practices to be implemented, a schedule, water quality milestones, and funding mechanisms. This industry wishes to remain unregulated. Proof that the voluntary approach can work to clean up our water is sorely needed.
Such an effort is key to the success of the 25-year state Constitutional amendment dedicating a portion of the sales tax to clean water, along with a broader discussion of which aspects of agricultural pollution cleanup efforts should be publicly subsidized versus borne by the industry as a performance standard.
Warren Formo, Eagan. Executive director of the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center.
My first step would be to find out what the question is. Does the question reflect a concern about a specific farming practice? What do we know about that practice? Do farmers also have concerns about that practice and if so, what are they doing about it? My main point is that those of us working on behalf of farmers need to better understand the reasons behind the concerns before we can effectively address them. Most often, once we understand the concern, we can point to solutions that are already largely in place.
Lauren Klement, Le Sueur County Environmental Resources Specialist
I live on a farm that we actively farm. I believe that the direction to improving water quality in agriculture would be through revisions to the Farm Bill and revisiting drainage law.
Since I began working with local water management, I have seen positive changes in agriculture that includes reduction in moldboard plowing, taking land out of production and restoring it to a natural state, buffering the drainage ditches, closing open tile intakes, feedlot improvements, nutrient management improvements and wetland restorations to name a few. There is still a long way to go regarding drainage and its impact to water quality.
Patrick Moore, Montevideo. Executive director of Clean Up the River Environment
I have learned that people are motivated for different reasons - some by their spirituality or religion, some by economics, others by their families and relatives - but we need a common story (like this ground level dialogue) that ties all these motivations and actions together.
We need safe places (like the Java River Coffeehouse) for people to step to the edge of their circle and to interact with others who are stepping to the edge of their circles. We need to engage in non-judgmental dialogue that seeks common ground and that enables us to identify where we can move forward together. We need to create new systems together. We need to celebrate and have fun. We need to foster inspiring encounters and lasting relationships with strange bedfellows.
Right policy (i.e. a new 2012 Farm bill) that makes it easier for people to act with a long-term sustainability focus is ultimately what is needed. We need policies combined with local actions that connect us directly with our food and energy sources.
All this takes time, commitment and community organizing around models that we can touch, see and feel. Small towns like Morris, Milan, Montevideo and Granite Falls are places where we can prototype, experiment and demonstrate the kind of society we want to live in. It is starting to manifest here now and we need the support of many partners to move it forward. In some cases, businesses can take the lead and CURE is interested in advancing initiatives on this front.
Clean water is a reflection of a society that works in balance with the rest of life. In the end, I believe that it is a cultural, popular education approach combined with entrepreneurial initiatives that are needed. Model community building in rural areas and inner city neighborhoods and dynamic partnerships with food producing businesses will show us the way.
Chris Pence, Brainerd. Land services supervisor for Crow Wing County.
My grandparents owned a farm in the Albert Lea area, so this topic is near and dear to my heart. They also owned a cabin on Leech Lake, which eventually became their year round home after retiring from farming in the late 1970s. It is often assumed that the farming community does not care about water quality, which is simply not true.
Farmers, as well as most Minnesotans, want to do the right thing and protect water quality. The first step is to visit farms and discuss their practices and how they relate to water quality because what happens on the land has an impact on the water. Proper education of water quality best management practices can go a long way toward protecting water quality. The second step is to connect a farmer with the local SWCD [Soil and Water Conservation District] or NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] office to explain potential programs and cost share available to implement water quality BMPs [best management practices]. My grandfather was a farmer who also enjoyed living on the lake. Farming and water quality can co-exist if we all work together to come to a reasonable solution.
Rich Axler, Duluth. Senior research associate in the Natural Resources Research Institute at the University of Minnesota-Duluth
I'm not a farmer but it's always seemed to me that these folks are deeply connected to the landscape and very resourceful. A lot of programs have been developed by the Minnesota Extension Service and other extension and outreach programs at land grant universities throughout the country. To my knowledge, many practices have been developed, and shown to be successful, that can reduce soil loss, reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, and conserve water.
Unfortunately, we've seen a gradual and significant decline in funding to support these efforts at a time when the research is providing good evaluations of what works best and is most cost-effective. As with eutrophication problems in lakes from wastewater discharges, it's going to take decades to restore aquatic systems that have been neglected for nearly a century. Improvements will be incremental and over the long-term, and so restoration programs need long-term commitments of effort and funding.
Comments (14)
Education, education, education! As a farmer, we receive no info from the SWCD or the extension office on BMP's for our land which lies next to a lake. Because I belong to a coalition of lake associations, I know who to contact about a problem or through education what to do.
Education is certainly key. Farmers, in my experience (I grew up on a farm that was homesteaded by my great-great-grandfather, and which my brothers still farms, albeit as a supplement to his major source of income) are intelligent, incredibly self-sufficient and motivated. In today's farming world, they are often caught between and a rock and a hard place: knowing what is best for the land doesn't always help when reality says they have to be competitive in order to make a living. In other words, organic farming is best, but if chemical farming pays the bills and organic farming isn't a viable enough choice, what's a farmer to do? Once a farm starts along the chemical path, it can become nearly impossible to reclaim those fields for non-chemical growing. That said, I do believe that chemical farming (which includes animal pharmaceuticals that leach into the water table) is a primary contributer to water pollution. America is the land of free-enterprise, no doubt, but does that mean that we have to continue to allow manufacturers like Monsanto, Cargill, and others to peddle a product that has put us on a faster- and faster-running treadmill to keep ahead of short-sighted technology? I believe that they must bear a significant part of the pollution burden that exits. As should every company that manufactures a product that contributes to some sort of end-product pollution -- plastic bottles, computer parts, automobile coolants, etc. and etc. If we had required, from the get-go, that manufacturing companies have a plan in place for dealing with their eventual refuse, BEFORE manufacturing could begin, we'd all be a lot better off. Maybe education should apply more to the front-end of the process than to the middle or end.
Kathy -- The fact that you don't see best practices information from your soil and water district or extension office makes me wonder whether in fact most farmers know the best ways to deal with runoff. I've assumed economics is at work more than information or lack of education. Do you think otherwise?
Over on the Facebook thread about this, Jonathan London makes the point that this breaks down along political party lines -- Republicans say pollution is a cost of business society should bear; Democrats favor regulations that cost farmers and ultimately get passed on to consumers.
Is it that simple to analyze?
Over on the Facebook thread about this, Jonathan London makes the point that this breaks down along political party lines -- Republicans say pollution is a cost of business society should bear; Democrats favor regulations that cost farmers and ultimately get passed on to consumers.
Is it that simple to analyze?
With each disturbance of the soil damage is inflicted. Decreasing that damage as much as possible should be every farmers goal, since their livelihood and future food supply depends on such.
The promotion of reckless land practices by land extension services and ag-corporations through mis-guided government subsidies must end.
Comments above mentioned the virtuousness of farmers in dealing with land/water problems. I contend this is an artificial behavior, manipulated by massive subsidies. Responsible practices should not arise from either bribery or blackmail.
I farm in southern Minn.
Agricultural pollution is a serious problem that imperils our rivers and the Gulf of Mexico. Everything we do on the land affects the quality of our waters.
The Freshwater Society and the National Park Service are attempting to provide some leadership through a farmer-to-farmer mentoring program.
The program, which recently won a $15,000 grant from the Minnesota Community Foundation, will look to farmers who have had success in cutting pollution and soil loss on their own farms to be models for farmers wanting to try some proven techniques for reducing erosion and runoff.
Make sure to include the runoff from lawns in the suburbs. These chemicals aren't all coming from the farms. The plush, perfect lawns we have in town don't get that way naturally. It takes a lot of chemicals to maintain them perfectly all summer long.
Regular contact and information about better ways of doing things.
At the U of M, in the Institute on the Environment's River Life program, we believe that these issues can best be addressed by preparing the leaders of tomorrow with knowledge today about science, policy, and engagement.
That's a pretty dense way of saying that we believe that the solution is cross-disciplinary - science informs policy, policy informs planning, and engagement gets to the very heart and core of why this is important, why we should care.
The healthy river and water of the future will be under the stewardship of today's students as farmers, policy makers, scientist, artists, and planners, and will need to be both inclusive and sustainable.
Invest in education, invest in communication, start a conversation and act to protect the land and the water and the people today and 300 years from now.
I am disappointed that the only farmer included in the story is evidently quite a conventional one. Grass farming, which is very much a minority approach to agriculture, is also quite possibly the key to solving many of these water quality problems. The difficulty is, it never gets noticed. If the writer had interviewed a grazier the chances are good that profitability of the system would have come up, which is at this time the best kept secret in agriculture. We always hear about farmers not wanting to do this or that or the other thing because it is not cost effective. But what if it is??? Journalists need to cast the net wider. The best of the old always beats the first of the new, but there is real hope for the future for these grass systems. Find us! Talk to us!
I have been involved in the discussion of the agricultural pollution issue for a long time, and I keep hearing the same excuses and denial. I was born in 1939 on a farm in Iowa, I am an Agricultural college graduate, and I am a farmer. I have been involved in Agriculture and Agribusiness my entire life. I must say that Farming is a “business” and how it is conducted revolves around economic business decisions. There are very few , if any, viable family farms which can substantially contribute to the food supply of this nation, without a subsidy, outside income, or the consumer paying a premium for the produce.
Republicans may agree with what I have just said, but their answer is “deregulation” , which simply shifts the costs of Agricultural pollution to degraded water and air quality, increased health care costs, loss of species, loss of recreational opportunities, and other social and environmental concerns which do not have a specific value.
Democrats are naïve . I have heard them argue ,“if we only had a fair price” , farmers would do what is right. The fact is, most farmers definition of “land Stewardship”, is ,“do what you must to keep the land productive for growing agricultural crops”. Of course, this is for personal gain, that is how capitalism works.
If it were not for a few “visionaries”, like “Aldo Leopold “ , who called attention to land use issues, and “Teddy Roosevelt” , who set some lands aside from development, and others who saw the need to place restrictions on the use of land and natural resources, our capitalistic society would have already failed.
There are no “silver bullets” which will resolve the agriculture pollution problem, but if we are to remain a nation which values environmental integrity, agriculture can not be exempt from regulations which must be enforced.
Much of southern and western Minnesota lies in the heart of the most devastated large-scale ecosystem in the World -- the Tall Grass Prairie Ecosystem. Within that ecosystem the most devastated area is the Prairie Pothole Region. 99.6 percent has been destroyed, mostly as a result of agricultural impacts. We can never go back to the clean waters of pre-European era, but we can do better than we have by trying to imitate the Nature-of-Old.
We as a society have the choice of whether we want cleaner water coming off the farm fields into our rivers and lakes or continue to have the cheapest relative food cost in the World. If we choose cleaner water, then we as a society have to pay for it.
Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, CURE worked with farmers to come up with a system of payments which would be lucrative enough to entice most farmers to adopt practices which would most imitate the historic tall grass/prairie pothole ecosystem, while still maintaining their production agricultural systems.
With the help of Congrssman Minge, the Conservation Security Program (CSP) which later became the Conservation Stewardship Program was implemented into law within the 2002 Farm Bill. CSP was the chosen vehicle to funnel societal "food" money in the form of taxes to all farmers who practiced and/or implemented BMPs on thier farms. Unfortunately, CSP was not a Department of Agriculture favored child and it still struggles to survive and become a major water quality improvement program
Until society finds a mechanism, such as the CSP, and fully funds it, we will NEVER see clean water in our lifetimes or even those of the yet unborn.
There are some interesting cut-off dates on this article but I don’t know if I see all of them middle to heart. There's some validity however I'll take hold opinion till I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want more! Added to FeedBurner as well
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock