An Urban's Rural View

Nutrient Stewardship and Freedom to Operate

Urban C Lehner
By  Urban C Lehner , Editor Emeritus
Connect with Urban:
@urbanize

Because agriculture contributes 70% of the nutrients to the Gulf of Mexico's massive "dead zone," agriculture must be part of the solution. But how? What will it take to reduce nutrient runoff from farms?

Regulation, some argue: Only tough enforcement will get the job done, they say.

Wrong, retorts Sean McMahon. Regulation won't work. To reduce nitrogen and phosphorus 45% -- the goal of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy adopted by the state's legislature -- farmers must be convinced to voluntarily adopt better practices.

As of September 15, McMahon is executive director of the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance, a new joint venture of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, the Iowa Soybean Association and the Iowa Pork Producers Association. 

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

According to its website (http://tiny.cc/…), the alliance is "committed to advancing the success of the Iowa Nutrient Reduction Strategy by increasing farmer awareness of the initiative and their adoption of science-based practices proven to have quantifiable environmental benefits."

The problem with regulation, McMahon says, is there are too many farms for regulators to cope with. Regulation is feasible if the problem is "point source" pollution—discharges into the water from a sewage-treatment plant or factory. There are, McMahon says, only 16,000 point sources in the country.

By comparison, there are 88,000 farms in Iowa alone, "I don't see how a state or federal agency could scale up" to enforce a regulatory regime, McMahon says. Even if it could be enforced, a one-size-fits-all approach would founder on the variability in soil types and climates between farms.

But while regulation won't make the water cleaner, neither will farmers' current voluntary efforts. Kirk Leeds, the chief executive officer of the Iowa Soybean Association, made that clear at the press conference announcing the Iowa Agriculture Water Alliance.

"If we just simply let farmers do what they are already doing," Leeds said, "we're not going to see the improvement needed and adoption of conservation practices that we all want to see" (http://tiny.cc/… ).

Convincing farmers of the economic benefits of better practices will be part of the alliance's push. Another part will be encouraging companies, foundations and other private donors to supplement state funds in support of those practices.

"If you incentivize producers to reduce nutrients," McMahon says, "they'll find the most effective way to do that."

McMahon is the right person to lead the alliance's efforts. I interviewed him in 2012 when he was the Nature Conservancy's director of North American Agriculture and was impressed with his belief that large-scale, modern commercial farming is necessary to feed the world and can be done sustainably (http://tiny.cc/…).

At the Ag Summit DTN and the Progressive Farmer are hosting in Chicago this December, McMahon will discuss Nutrient Stewardship and Freedom to Operate in a 90-minute breakout session. For more information on the Ag Summit and how to register for it, see http://tiny.cc/….

Urban Lehner can be reached at urbanity@hotmail.com

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Previous Post (An "Alaska-Sized Debate" About the Meaning of Local)
Next Post (Our Most Demanding Profession) 
P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Bonnie Dukowitz
9/14/2014 | 8:40 PM CDT
A bunch of good points, Curt. We need more urbanites taking a look as well as the rest of us.
Curt Zingula
9/14/2014 | 7:19 AM CDT
Bonnie, the watershed authority I participate on is about half urban and half ag. To their credit, the urban leaders recognize that they too are very much part of the problem. A hot issue here is that contractors are supposed to cover house lots with 4 inches of topsoil but that has succumbed to the profit of selling the topsoil and leaving the lots with packed clay covered with about 1/2" of sod. Not much water absorption there! Then there is the issue of Fido pooh which too many people have decided the storm sewers ("that hole in the street") is a good place for disposal which has caused the local creek to be declared impaired due to bacteria contamination. Plus, everyone with a basement has drainage tile around it and yet they criticize the farmer for their tile. And finally, the folks in town are waking up to the fact that the chloride product they put on the streets in the winter is also going down the hole in the street directly to a stream. Yes, I'm guilty too of finger pointing, but if you live in a glass house, even a small glass house, you shouldn't throw stones!!
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/13/2014 | 10:54 AM CDT
I agree Ag. needs to its part with the best practices we can muster, while still producing. When one writes of nutrients, separation of organic and inorganic needs to be considered. Findings which are often ignored is that, due to the massive impervious areas in the non-ag areas, 8 times more solids in volume runs off through the storm sewers than in ag areas. We just do not here about it.
Curt Zingula
9/12/2014 | 7:31 AM CDT
A letter writer to a local newspaper argued that soil losses exceeding 500 lb/ acre (2 wheelbarrow loads) would be grounds for stripping the farm away from the owner. While I hope I never see the day that happens, we who farm should not ignore the fact that business as usual must become unusual. As the preceeding writer laments, wetlands may be a solution worth a second look. Once established, the wetland would be, unlike bio-filters, done. Also, the wetland would benefit far more wildlife than the grass cover of the bio-filter. The idea of possibly recycling nutrients is very appealing!
Unknown
9/11/2014 | 11:03 AM CDT
How about allowing simple straight forward mitigation of wetlands into corners of the field where tile and surface drains exit. Then allow farmers to irrigate out of those areas. This would recycle nutrient runoff, save fertilizer, allow farmers a more sustainable, consistant crop yield, everybody wins. Why is this not allowed to happen. We have people and special interest groups constantly putting up roadblocks, EPA, wildlife groups, environmental groups, none of which want to be part of the solution, but instead become finger pointers. They want control, not solutions otherwise we would see widespread use of solutions like the one I have given. It's not nuclear science. These type of solutions I think farmers are opened to, condemnation of land is not a solution. Use taxpayer dollars subsides to fund these type of projects then we can move ahead, but we wildlife groups take over NRCS instead of soil scientists we will never find sensible solutions.
Curt Zingula
9/11/2014 | 7:38 AM CDT
Thanks a million Urban for the numbers on point source and non-point sources! I will most likely use that information from my panel discussion seat this Saturday at a watershed meeting hosted by the League of Women Voters. Also, it takes very little gray matter to parrot the word 'regulation'. Few people ever try to qualify that proposal with any kind of practical strategy. That's because 'one size fits all' would be overkill for some and underkill for others. Plus, too many people put the cart in front of the horse. Consider bio-reactors for reducing nitrates from drainage tile - before that becomes a regulatory requirement, someone needs to realize that across the corn belt millions of trees would have to be cut down to supply wood chips for those filtration beds. I've also read (DTN perhaps) that the Congressional Budget Office has chastised the EPA for the use of permits in the Chesapeake Bay area, calling permits "largely ineffective" and a "waste of tax payer dollars". Leadership from Universities, commodity groups, Farm Bureau and ag journalists will be the key to nutrient reduction.