U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
and
EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON ORGANIZATION and POLICY
WORKSHOP ON
AGRICULTURAL NON-POINT SOURCE
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
September 16 and 17, 1974 Washington, D.C.
-------
11442
P
§
C
N
G
S
WORKSHOP
ON ^:-
it
AGRICULTURAL NON-POINTJ SOURCE'^
WATER POLLUTM
CONTROL
SPONSERED BY:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EXTENSION COMMITTEE ON POLICY AND ORGANIZATION
SEPTEMBER 16-17, 1974 * MAYFLOWER HOTEL * WASHINGTON D, C,
-------
FOREWORD
These proceedings are the product of a cooperative effort
made by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Cooperative
Extension Service to explore problems in agricultural nonpoint
source water pollution control.
The symposium was convened on September 16 and 17, in
Washington, D. C., and was attended by EPA Extension Service
personnel from all regions of the country. This publication is
the result of their work. It is hopefully the beginning of a
close working relationship between the Federal and State
environmental regulatory agencies and the State Extension Service
as our country works toward the achievement of the clean water
goals established by the Congress.
James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
•Jater and Hazardous Materials
Charles P. Ellington
Director, Extension Committee
on Organization and Policy
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword - iii
Introduction - Dr. Charles Ellington 1
Keynote Address - The National Water Quality Strategy and
the Role of Agriculture - James L. Agee 4
Agricultrual Water Pollution Control - State and Local
Control Operations - Grant J. Merritt 14
Land Management Effects on Water Quality: An Ecological
Perspective - Kenneth M. Mackenthun 23
State of the Art in Identifying and Controlling Water
Pollution from Agricultural Activities, (Research Implica-
tions) Paul Heitzenrater & Will C. LaVeille 36
Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution From Agricultural
Activities - Robert Thronson 49
Pesticides as a Source - Edwin Johnson 58
Agricultural Water Pollution Control: A Regional
Perspective - Francis T. Mayo 77
Wind Erosion and Sedimentation - Neil Woodruff 86
Water Erosion and Sedimentation - Minora Amemiya 94
Economic Implications for Wind and Water Erosion
Control - Harold Casper 98
Animal Wastes as a Source - Frank Humenik 113
Plant Nutrients as a Source - Samuel Aldrich 124
Technology Transfer - M. Frank Hersman 137
Reports of Discussion Groups:
Water Erosion and Sedimentation - Bob Walker 142
Animal Wastes - Ted Willrich 145
Pesticides - Gayle Worf 150
Plant Nutrients - J. Benton Jones 155
-------
Report and Highlights of the EPA/ECOP National Workshop on
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control
Co-Chainaen: John P. Churchill and J. Ben ton Jones 156
Regional Coordinators/Extension Specialists Summaries on
Nonpoint Source Problem Assessment and Recommendations
For Future Joint Program Activity 160
Appendix
List of Speakers 186
List of Attendees 188
vi
-------
INTRODUCTION
Charles P. Ellington, Director
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Georgia
I am pleased to have the opportunity of meeting with you today
in what I hope will be the first of many such workshops sponsored
jointly between the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Those of you who represent Cooperative Extension are already
familiar with the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
(ECOP). For those of you who may not have previously had contact
with ECOP, a few words of introduction are in order. The Extension
Committee on Organization and Policy is a committee of the National
Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges. It is a
committee composed of the Directors of Cooperative Extension from
each of the 50 States, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
ECOP has several standing subcommittees, one of which is the
subcommittee on Environmental Quality. The subcommittee on Environ-
mental Quality is a new one. It is only two years old. It was appointed
for two main purposes.
One was to provide increased attention to Extension's efforts in
Environmental Quality Education. And specifically to recommend to
Extension Directors and ECOP, methods by which existing efforts may
be strengthened.
Secondly, ECOP needed to establish a subcommittee to provide
continuing liaison with the many Federal agencies involved in environ-
mental efforts. Chief among these agencies is, of course, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Others include the U. S. Department of
Agriculture, HEW, Interior and the National Science Foundation.
You might well ask why is Cooperation Extension interested in
Environmental Education.
There are several reasons:
-------
First, Extension has been in the education business for the past
60 years. It has offices in virtually every county in the United States
and has contacts with farmers, with processors, with marketing firms
and with local leadership. It is hardly stretching the truth to say that
someone in Extension knows every farmer in the United States by his
first name.
Regulatory programs enjoy more success when the target audience
fully understands all the requirements and also understands why they are
necessary. Extension with its contacts can play a positive role in helping
this country to clean up its environment.
Secondly, Extension already has specialists in many of the dis-
ciplines needed in an all out educational program of environmental im-
provement particularly in rural or nonmetropolitan areas. We
already have
Soil Chemists
Agricultural Engineers
Agronomists
Horticulturalists
Entomologists
Wildlife Specialists
Foresters
Food Scientists
And others who can contribute substantially toward environmental
improvement. We also operate laboratories for soil testing, plant
analysis, pesticide residues, feed analysis and others.
Third, we already have contacts and involvements with small and
large operators in the grain and feed industry, the meat packing industry,
the fertilizer industry, the pesticide industry, and poultry industry, and
more recently with developers, with local planning agencies and with
governing bodies at the State, County and Municipal levels.
Fourth, We have an information system which transmits factual
information from the specialists to the county offices and eventually to
the target audiences.
Fifth, because we feel that our contacts and our experiences put
us in a position of possessing information which should be useful to any
regulatory agency in assessing the impact of any proposed regulations.
-------
Sixth, because it's our environment too and we are just as anxious
to see it cleaned up as anyone else.
The real challenge that faces EPA and Cooperative Extension is
broader than just regulating our existing practices in the production
of food and fiber for example, regulating feed lots, or cultural practices
on farm lands. Most agricultural practices enjoy a fragile economic base.
New regulations may upset production practices and ultimately may affect
not only our supply of food but its cost.
No -- the real challenge that faces us -- Extension and EPA --is
to develop practices that •will allow our farmers to continue producing
low cost food •while at the same time enhancing our environment.
So, I am especially glad to have this opportunity to represent ECOP
in jointly sponsoring this -workshop. And I look forward to the develop-
ment of a lasting, mutually beneficial relationship between our two
groups.
-------
Joint Meeting of the Environmental Protection Agency and
The Extension Committee on Organization and Policy
September 15, 1974
Keynote Address to the Morkshop on Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control
by
James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials
"The National Water Quality Strategy and the Role of Agriculture"
I. Introduction
The joining together in this Workshop of one of the oldest and one
of the newest Federal agencies is a significant event. More than a
century of time spans the passage of the Merrill Act by the Connress in
the 1860's, the Smith Lever Act in the early 1900's and the creation of
the Environmental Protection Agency and the passage of the Federal Hater
Pollution Control Act Amendments in the 197D's.
There is a common thrust in the missions of both agencies, l-'ith the
Morrill and Smith Lever Acts, Congress established as the major purpose
the development and transmission of the best possible technology of
conservation management to the American farmer. In the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the Congress mandated the
application of the best practicable control technology and later the
best available control technology for industrial wastes and the best
practicable waste treatment technology for municipalities. Both, are
designed to restore the quality of the Nation's waters.
-------
The acts are comparable in their delegations of responsibility. For
all, the primary responsibility was placed on the State and both depend
on active participation and management by States for successful attain-
ment of stated goals. With these similarities of purpose within the
Federal system, there is every reason to support a joint cooperative
effort to attain the water quality goals established by the Congress.
The Federal/State Extension Service has set an example for all the
world in the transmission of technology from researcher to farmer.
To accomplish the reduction of pollution from our Nation's farms
requires a major effort by all within the agricultural community, and
I see you here today in a key role in the implementation of the neces-
sary environmental technology.
II. The National Hater Quality Strategy
Today we won't talk about pollution control, but rather about pollu-
tion prevention. We must stop pollution before it has damaaed a resource,
and if we are to be successful the Extension Service must play a key role.
On October 18, 1972, the "Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972", (P.I. 92-500) were signed into law. This Act has been acclaimed
as one of the most significant, and most comprehensive and most thorouahly
debated pieces of environmental legislation ever to be considered by the
-------
Congress. It is the culmination of a number of legislative efforts
beginning in 1948.
Title I of P.L. 92-500 established the national policy for restorinn
the integrity of our Nation's waters. It established an interim 1983
goal, which is to achieve a quality in the Nation's water that will pro-
vide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife
and for recreation in and on the water. It established a national goal
for the elimination of discharges of pollutants from point sources into
navigable waters by 1985.
In order to achieve the 1985 goals, Federal, State and local oovern-
ments must:
* cooperate in constructing necessary publicly owned waste treatment
plants
* achieve the best practicable and best available control technology
for industrial, municipal and agricultural point source discharaes
* issue and enforce permits for point source discharges
* upgrade water quality standards to meet State aoals
* develop areawide planning and management processes; pollution
assessment; monitoring; and provide better approaches to the
transmittal of technology and information necessary to reduce and
eliminate all types of pollutional discharges to our navigable
waters, including identification of nonpoint sources of pollution
and development of guidelines for their control.
6
-------
The Congress and the Administration have directed that we aet into
operation the best practicable control technology for point sources by
1977. This program is well underway. We have issued approximately
12,000 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permits, including
4,000 municipal permits serving 27 percent of the Nation's population.
Permits that have involved the agricultural community have been issued
for agricultural processing plants, animal feedlots, irrigation return
flows and fish farms.
Effluent guidelines have been issued for meat product rendering and
processing, dairy product processing, and grain mills and fruit, sugar
mills, and vegetable processing. The permit writing and issuance
process is well along.
For management reasons, the eligibility requirement for permit
applications has been limited on the basis of facility size. In the
case of irrigation return flows, the cut-off point was 3,000 acres of
drainage. In the case of animal feedlots, the minimum size requirina
application for a permit was 1,000 animal units.
You are probably aware that we are under pressure, including a
suit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, to do away with
the size cut-off points and issue permits for all point source regardless
of size. If we move in this direction, either willingly or under court
-------
mandate, we will be involved with an enormous number of feedlot and
irrigation permits.
Generally we have referred to the period from 1973 to 1977 as the
Phase 1 implementation period and the years 1978 to 1983 as Phase 2.
During Phase 1 we are emphasizing, as I indicated above, the issuance
of permits and the awarding of construction grants. These actions
provide the means for meeting many of the 1983 goals, and for some
pollution sources achieving the 1977 requirements will be all that is
necessary for 1983. Many of the pollution problems beinq addressed in
this phase are well identified and are readily correctable, compared to
many of the problems that will remain. Much of the Phase 1 is based on
the solid achievements of the State and Federal governments in past
years.
Phase 2 will be a period when solutions become more subtle and the
alternatives for management and abatement more conflicting. It will
demand a better understanding of the cause-effect and cost-effect
relationships between objectives and results. This will be the period
for implementing most of the plans for reducing pollution from nonpoint
sources and for controlling the more difficult point sources of pollu-
tion. A solid start toward building the program foundations must begin
now.
-------
The State pollution control agencies have divided all basins into
hydrological segments. Where the application of best practicable tech-
nology for industries and secondary treatment for municipal plants will
result in meeting 1977 water quality standards, the segment will he
categorized as an effluent guidelines limited segment. Where this
technological base will be insufficient for the necessary level of
water quality, the segment will be classified as a water quality limited
segment. Initially, we must address our attention to the manaaement of
nonpoint source pollution from agricultural land in water quality seaments
and where it is cost-effective, in effluent limited segments.
III. Nonpoint Sources
About a third of the pollutants entering the Nation's waterways
derive from what we presently describe and define as nonpoint sources.
While Congress has legislated in the point source area for over twenty-
five years, it was not until the 1972 Amendments that Congress addressed
nonpoint sources. Thus, we are just beginning from the water quality
point of view to seriously and programmatically address prevention of
pollution from land runoff.
We in EPA recognize that the agricultural community has long been
engaged in conserving the land and maintaining and increasing the
productivity of the soil. We can list a great number of agricultural
-------
management practices of tillage, pest control, and fertilizinq and
harvesting, which can have substantial impact on improving or degrading
water quality. It is my view that as we begin to articulate the strategy
for the reduction of nonpoint source pollution with better management of
our agricultural activities, that strategy must involve all of you in
this room, as well as the entire agricultural community-
There is no question that nonpoint source control is regarded in
our Act as a cooperative, intergovernmental responsibility with authority
divided between EPA, other Federal agencies, several State agencies and
local governmental units. The principal authority to the extent that
it exists for regulatory activities is vested in the States.
We see two major initial thrusts of the general nonpoint source
program.
* The first is to identify and/or develop State/local institutional
authority to implement nonpoint source management practicies.
* The second thrust is to use currently available nonpoint source
management practices to implement abatement programs on the well
identified nonpoint source pollution problems.
The general program components include:
Assessment and Monitoring -
Planning and Management -
-------
Information, Guidance and Policy Statements -
Pilot Control Programs -
Federal Agency Negotiations -
State and Local Development -
The first task that we have underway is a more definitive assessment
of the contributions of nonpoint sources, including their identification
and alternative measures for control. It is this task to which I see
this Workshop addressing itself, particularly tomorrow afternoon in
the Regional meetings.
The State basin plans and assessments of pollution sources will beain
this year to provide information on nonpoint sources. We do not expect
to have a complete picture by any means, but I am sure that we will have
a good start and in some basins a very good estimation of the nonpoint
source pollution-loadings to the waterways. State extension specialists
already have made substantial contributions in the development of runoff
assessment and predictive techniques for sediment runoff.
EPA has published a series of technical informational reports for the
control of specific types of nonpoint sources of pollution. We now have
the task of refining such information into cost-effective guidelines that
will articulate the best practicable control technology.
11
-------
We in EPA need the continuing assistance from each and every one of
you in the development and transmission of the technical guidelines
and information that we will be issuing on nonpoint source pollution.
We recognize fully the historic roles that the agricultural community
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have had in the development of
technologies and information relating to agricultural wastes. We expect
this continuing cooperation, but as in the past, the transmission and
application of the technology are most important and often the most
difficult links in the process.
One of the critical areas where many of you in the Extension Service
have been working with us, the States and the community is in the
water planning field. Integration of water quality basin and areawide
planning with land use and management planning is essential. We must
thoroughly recognize the long history of the agricultural community in
land management planning. The work of the Soil Conservation Services
together with the Extension Service has resulted in farm conservation
plans and watershed plans. These plans serve as .the basis of water
quality management for the reduction of nonpoint contributions from
the Nation's farms. Thus, the development of a process for the integration
12
-------
of the land planning activities of the agricultural community with
State basin planning efforts, areawide planning and management and
the State program control planning required in P.L. 92-500 is one
of the important aspects that we can begin to address at this work-
shop.
IV. Conclusion
The opportunity before us, then, is to improve communication and
build trust, first of all. Secondly, it is to assess the problems
and probable solutions, which is the focus of your Regional workshop
sessions; and thirdly, and most importantly, build a basis for con-
tinued communication and cooperative efforts. We in EPA know that
without the full dedication of the Federal/State Extension Services,
the management practices to control nonpoint source pollution from
agriculture will not be implemented satisfactorily. We must move
forward, together, with an understanding of common purpose and a
determination to achieve our common objectives.
13
-------
Agricultural Water Pollution Control
State and Local Teamwork
Grant Merritt - Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Based on our experiences in Minnesota, I think it is fair
to say, that fanners individually are as interested in
preventing degradation of our rural environment as anyone. A
year and a half ago, we were confronted with the largest
potential nonpoint source agricultural pollution problem of all,
the Minnesota Experimental City. Planned and designed by
engineers of the University of Minnesota's Institute of
Technology, the project was to contain 250,000 people and was
to be laid out in an agricultural area near Alexandria,
Minnesota or up north near Grand Rapids. We were asked by
State legislators to assess the environmental impact of such a
project.
By working with farmers and local and county governments,
we soon discovered that this philosophy of development, this
huge development project, presumably to provide new experiments
in urban settings, would rip off 50,000 acres of rural
environment. We held meetings, environmental impact hearings,
-------
and by working with the farmers directly, we were able to beat
the project. This is one of the best examples of how the State
government can work directly with the farmers to avoid what I
think would be the largest of all NFS problems.
The State and Federal experiences have primarily been
concerned with point sources. I think this morning probably
the best thing I can do is relate some of the experiences we
have had in establishing the permit program for point sources,
primarily for feedlots. From this framework of experience, we
may be able to transfer our knowledge to solve the very
difficult problem of NFS pollution.
I am sure you know, there are two basic types of animal
confinement operations from which discharge? can occur. One is
the open out-door feedlot, the other, the closed-door
confinement facility. In Minnesota, we have a large number of
open feedlots varying anywhere from two to thousands of
animals. Of course, the potential of pollution hazards from
many of these operations is great because of the vast water
resources we have in Minnesota. The potential pollution
hazards from confined feedlots is somewhat less. Generally,
these facilities have all the animals under one roof. We have
noticed in Minnesota a trend toward the design of confinement
buildings using slatted floors in pits underneath the building.
15
-------
when constructed properly, this system is environmentally sound
and is beneficial both to the farmers and the environment, as
it provides an efficient method for collection and storage of
animal wastes and an opportunity to spread those wastes back on
the land and recycle them.
Many of our operations in Minnesota have had their animal
lots built right next to the streams and on slopes near the
lakes. Some of these lots were situated specifically so that
the wastes could drain into the water. This has created a
problem that we have been trying to correct in Minnesota for
some five or six years, through information distribution
programs using extension personnel, county government solid
waste experts, local government people, and those from our
regional offices.
Our experience has been that we are better off treating the
runoff from these feedlots as a resource and emphasizing the
recyclability, rather than attempting to treat the wastes to
the point where it will meet water quality or effluent
standards. We are now attempting to fuse our State permit
program with NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System) permits. However, this has posed some difficulty,
since the NPDES permit program basically implies a discharge
and involves treating the wastes in order to meet a standard,
16
-------
and our work in the feedlot permitting program eaphasizes
recycling. I hope that in eventually joining these two
programs together, and continuing to recycle the wastes, we can
meet our responsibilities under the Federal law.
Generally, when it comes to nonpoint sources, I think we
should focus on the control over growth and development along
the waterways to prevent erosion and sedimentation pollution
problems. Development will continue along these waterways
unless we adopt some form of State zoning or land use control.
Until then, we will not be able to successfully deal with the
continuing development and associated sediment pollution of the
rivers and lakes.
One of the most troublesome of all NFS problems is the
whole area of pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers. The
trend is to rely more and more on pesticides and artificial
fertilizers to get more yield with less land and less bother.
I do not think that the consequences of this increasing use of
chemicals are really fully understood. These new chemicals are
creating far more serious pollution and environmental problems
than their creator would ever admit. I know that Minnesota
right now is having quite a furor over the use of 2-4-5-T,
primarily by forestry managers. The environmental groups, some
of the same ones suing EPA or other agencies, are developing
17
-------
more and more pressure to stop the use of that kind of
pesticide.
While EPA has led the way in restricting the use of some of
these chemicals, we are still very much concerned and the State
Agency is looking at this problem. In many cases the legal
framework for the control of certain chemicals has been
developed. In talking about control of the use of fertilizers
in farm areas, we have run into the same kind of buzz saw that
we did five or six years ago when we began to discuss State
control of the feedlots. This is an area that will need a
great deal of careful education, information and cooperative
work with Extension groups and local and county governments;
and most important of all, by talking directly with the farmer
about the problems. In order to have a successful program, we
must bring home the problems of the environment directly to the
farmer and ask for his cooperation in developing the program
before it is underway. The farmers, to some extent, have been
encouraged by the chemical companies to use more chemicals than
are necessary. I think that in the future we need to have far
more wisdom than we have exhibited in past to manage the farm
use of these chemicals. Too often some "experts" have been
quick to condemn environmentalists' concern about wide use of
certain chemicals, without considering the possibility that
these concerns may be valid.
18
-------
At this point, I would like to go into greater detail in
discussing the Minnesota experience with feedlot runoff. We
have some one hundred and six thousand confined animal
facilities in Minnesota. Translating that into human
equivalents, it is about 20 million additional humans in
Minnesota over and above 3.8 million population. Some 50,000
of those 106,000 confinement facilities need modification. In
1967, studies were made of causes of lake eutrophication in the
rural areas of South Dakota. The results pointed to runoff
from feedlots, as a major contributor to this eutrophication.
These studies convinced us that we were going to have to
develop some kind of permit program to prevent the feedlot
runoff from causing a water quality problem! In Minnesota we
have a wealth of water not only part of the greatest fresh
water lake, Lake Superior, but some 15,000 or more lakes and a
large number of rivers and streams and creeks. Additionally we
have about a 25 inch average annual rainfall with 5 inch
average runoff. Some 10% of our land is within shoreland. We
had to make some very basic decisions, about how we were going
to begin this program if we were going to be of any success
whatsoever in controlling feedlot runoff.
The Governor appointed a nine member committee, including
farmers to recommend regulations to our pollution control
agency. The farmers, along with local and county officials,
19
-------
helped prepare the regulations. They proposed that we
establish a permit program, hold hearings around the State and
develop as much support as possible for controlling new
feedlots. Existing feedlots which have either a pollution
problem or potential pollution problem, would be grandfathered
into the permit system, at least until there was a change in
ownership or sale.
This program was begun in the late 60's; hearings were held
around the State, numerous information and education programs
were conducted involving Extension agents and SCS personnel and
others. Finally, the permit program was adopted in April 1971.
The first year we had less success than in the first year of
the NPDES program at the National level. We soon discovered
that the only way we were going to develop this program in any
kind of numbers was to rely on county government. By dealing
at the local level, we have issued some 3,000 permits. We are
currently turning out 200-300 permits for feedlots or poultry
lots per month. The further delegation of some of our programs
to the counties will step up this 200-300 per month average by
this time next year.
We have relied heavily on the SCS for the design of the
feedlot control facilities. The substantial incentive to the
farmers was the 75% reimbursement program for conservative
20
-------
practices. The State, also established the tax incentive of a
10% credit against tax.
I think the success of our program, and it has been
successful over the last several years, is the teamwork we have
been able to establish between State, local and county
governments, working directly with the farmers. This kind of
approach really is the only way to deal with nonpoint source
problems. When we look at the future role of the States, I
think the key will be information and education programs for
county personnel and Statewide Extension personnel to work with
the farmers and get them on our side. The farmers, I think,
are more aware of the environment than city dwellers, and I
suppose that is the basic hope that I see for the future as we
grapple with nonpoint source pollution.
21
-------
REFERENCES
1. Minnesota Statutes (M.S.) 115-116 (Including Supplemental
Laws 1973)
2. Minnesota Regulations-Water
A. Chapter WPC-15
B. Chapter WPC-36
3e Minnesota Regulations-Solid Waste
A. Regulation SW 51-55
B. Regulation SW 56-61
4. PL 92-500
5. Federal Regulations
A. Title 40, Part 412
B. Title 40, Part 124
C. Title 40, Part 125
6. Animal Wastes
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Division of Solid Waste
22
-------
LAND MANAGEMENT AND WATER QUALITY
K.M. Mackenthun*
AN ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL
A quarter of a century ago this year, Aldo Leopold (1949) wrote,
"Conservation 1s a state of harmony between men and land." Today, like
all advancing nations, the United States is using land more extensively
than ever before. Certain kinds of land resources are becoming scarce--
land within a reasonable distance of urban centers available for housing,
recreation, and waste disposal; land within cities that can be used for
transportation networks, parks and open spaces; and land to accommodate
commercial facilities, housing, and centers of higher education. We must
conserve valuable farmland in order to provide food and fiber for our
still-expanding population and world markets. Leopold lamented the fact
that despite nearly a century of propaganda, conservation still proceeded
at a snail's pace. He underscored the need for an environmental ethic.
Yet today, the environmental goal must be to harmonize land-use practices
with society's required uses of water. A land-use ethic is needed now
more than in Leopold's time. Quality of life and environmental quality
are synonyms for a living society.
AGRICULTURAL LAND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS
Principal concerns associated with agricultural practices are land
management practices associated with crop production, animal feeding,
* Director, Water Quality Criteria Staff, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D. C.
23
-------
fertilizer application, and pesticide application. The most serious
polluting agents appear to be eroded soils, nutrients, and pesticides.
Four billion tons of sediment are washed into the Nation's streams
annually as a result of land misuse. Not all, but some, originate from
land-management practices in crop production.
Sediments from agricultural lands transport nutrients and pesticides
generally as adsorbed materials. Ungrazed watersheds have been shown to
produce about 70 percent as much runoff as grazed watersheds and sediment
yields from ungraded watersheds averaged 66 percent of those yields from
grazed watersheds (Lusby, e_t aj_., 1971). Nutrient losses from farmland
have been shown to be significantly greater than those from woodland areas
and 5 percent of the pesticides applied to lands may enter waterways through
surface runoff and erosion (Taylor, et_ ajL , 1971; Lin, 1972).
A cow generates as much manure as 16.4 humans, one hog produces as
much waste as 1.9 people, and seven chickens provide a disposal problem
equivalent to that created by one person. As a result, farm animals in
the United States produce ten times as much waste as the human population
(Hawkes, 1966). Obviously, much of this waste remains on the land to resupply
the nutrients that are used in crop production. When it does reach a stream,
water pollution of some consequence is produced.
The wintertime runoff concentrations from unpaved cattle feedlots
have been shown to range from about 7 to 750 mg/1 total phosphorus (P),
24
-------
whereas rainstorm runoff has ranged from about 4 to 46 mg/1 P (Gilbertson
e_t aj_., 1970). The ammonia nitrogen concentration in winter runoff exceeded
a maximum of 2,000 mg/1, whereas during rainstprms, a maximum of about
80 mg/1 was obtained. The areas of the feedlots tested were about 2,000
square feet each.
In the United States, the application of nitrogen in.commercial
fertilizers has risen from less than 400,000 tons in 1940 to about
7,000,000 tons in 1970 (Lin, 1972). In 1972 the Environmental Protection
Agency issued a policy on control of nutrient runoff from agricultural
lands. The essence of the policy was that the use of fertilizers should
be adjusted to the nutrient availability and retention capability of various
soil types of the appropriate agricultural areas. Animal wastes should not
be applied to farmlands under adverse soil or weather conditions except
when planned methods will ensure that they remain on the land. Storage of
the wastes in designated structures until they can be incorporated into the
soil should be used. Watering and feeding points for animals should be
established away from waterways along with the establishment of runoff and
erosion control measures to prevent the concentration of animal wastes in
the vicinity of the streams.
Pesticides may enter surface waters as a result of drift from aerial
applications, overland drainage, intentional dumping, discharge of wastewater
from the cleaning of contaminated materials and equipment, incinerator and
open-burning gaseous and particulate discharges, wind-blown treated materials,
25
-------
and accidental spills. The occurrence of pesticides in waterways is
primarily due to their adsorption on small particles in runoff water. Once
in the aquatic environments pesticides may enter aquatic organisms either
directly through ingestion or absorption of contaminated water or indirectly
by feeding on previously contaminated organisms. Most pesticides are toxic
at some level and may kill an aquatic organism outright. They may interfere
with an important life process of an organism such as spawning or the
development of the young, or they may accumulate within the aquatic food
web later to poison some animal that uses fish or other aquatic life as a
source of food.
Walker (1970) determined that in 1966 about 37 percent of the farmers
growing crops used herbicides, 29 percent used insecticides^ 4 percent used
fungicides, and 8 percent used other pesticides such as growth-regulators,
miticides, and rodenticides.
HATER POLLUTANTS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PRACTICES
There are several types of pollutants associated with agricultural
land management concerns. These include the introduction of nitrates into
groundwaters that later may be used for drinking purposes, the introduction
of erosion sediments and fertilizing nutrients into waterways, pesticides,
total dissolved solids, oxygen-demanding substances, and ammonia concentrations
that may be toxic to aquatic life.
Increases of nitrate in groundwater caused either directly or indirectly
by man's activities have been a special area of concern because of this
26
-------
chemical's suspected harm to children if concentrations in drinking
water supplies exceed 10 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen. According to Walker
et al_. (1972), many Illinois farm groundwater supplies reached or exceeded
20 times the level indicated as dangerous by Public Health Service drinking
water standards. Nitrates in groundwater are a potentially serious problem
in many areas of the country. The primary sources of excessive nitrate
in most affected groundwater supplies have proven to be animal and human
wastes and nitrogen fertilizers. Nitrate is readily dissolved in
precipitation and is carried into surficial groundwater aquifers during
the groundwater recharge period of late fall and early spring. Nitrate
fertilizers pollute surface and subsurface waters where excessive amounts
a,re applied and under high rates of rain and irrigation. Nitrate is
water soluble. Beef cattle feedlots of over 70,000 head in one unit in
Ohio raised the nitrate content of the soil 20 feet deep to a maximum
of 5,000 pounds per acre (Harrold, 1969).
When erosion occurs, phosphorus levels in water may increase because
fertilizers and certain pesticides, tend to attach themselves to top soils
which are lost first during erosion. Armstrong and Rohlich (1970) found
that in many areas of the country agricultural land is an important contributor
of nitrogen and phosphorus to water and to eutrophication. About 60 percent
of the nitrogen and 42 percent of the phosphorus were estimated to come
from agricultural lands where agriculture is practiced. Tile drainage
systems contributed an average of 19.3 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen and 0.09 mg/1
phosphate phosphorus with an average discharge of 1.4 acre feet per
27
-------
acre per year in studies conducted in the San Joaquin Valley (California
State Department of Natural Resources, 1971).
Concentrations of total dissolved solids in Colorado River Basin
streams have been identified as a major problem for lower basin water users
(Blackman et al., 1973). Irrigated agriculture was found to contribute
about 37 percent of the upper Colorado River Basin salt load and about
9 percent of the lower basin salt load. The upper basin contributed about
72 percent of the lower basin's load. Salt yields from irrigated lands
ranged from near 0 to 8.5 tons per year per acre.
Of the total water applied during an irrigation, as much as two-thirds
may be used consumptively by direct evaporation from the land along with
transpiration by plants. The plant uses the pure water fraction of root-
zone moisture and the remainder is left with an elevated mineral and soluble
nutrient concentration. Thus, evapotranspiration alone may concentrate
the solids in the applied water by about 3 times. If application to the
land is excessive, as frequently occurs, downward percolation through the
soil will ordinarily leach additional mineral matter, increasing the
concentration of salts as much as 3 to 10 times the original level in
Irrigation return flow.
Pollution of ground and surface waters can be insidious. The rate of
degradation ordinarily is low and the amount of introduced pollutant
commonly small compared to the volume of the receiving water body. The
increase in water quality degradation easily can remain undetected until
28
-------
such time as physically noticeable effects (taste, damage to salt-sensitive
crops, etc.) call attention to the existence of a serious problem.
Waste from feedlots and other agricultural areas contribute oxygen-
demanding substances that deteriorate the quality of the receiving water,
and during periods of intense runoff, sufficient ammonia has been introduced
from combined animal feeding areas to create massive fishkills in receiving
waters.
AN ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Agricultural wastes encompass all of the major forms of water pollutants:
some are organic and deprive the water of oxygen for its inhabitants; some
wastes contain settleable organic solids that form sludge banks, destroy
living areas for bottom-associated fish-food organisms, and deprive the
superimposed water of oxygen through processes of decomposition; some wastes
contain pesticides and other toxicants that kill fish or other organisms,
are chronically toxic affecting reproductive potentials or other life stages,
or bioaccumulate within the aquatic food web to affect adversely a consumer
of aquatic life; many agricultural wastes contain nitrogen and phosphorus
and other fertilizers that produce an abundant aquatic crop that may result
in a severe nuisance or interfere with other uses of water; most agricultural!'
associated wastes contribute a sediment load to the receiving waterway that
has many destructive aspects; and those agricultural wastes with high
nitrate concentrations often pollute groundwaters to a level that has the
potential to induce methemoglobinemia particularly in infants that may
29
-------
drink the water. These are the major ecological problems associated with
agricultural wastes.
The ecological effects of such wastes on streams, lakes, groundwaters,
and estuaries depend in large measure on the type of receiving waterway.
To describe completely such effects is to develop a book with chapters
devoted to the effects of organic wastes, of inert sediments, of toxic
pollutants, and of nutrients as each may be manifested in streams, lakes,
'o
and estuaries. In the most general sense, silts or sediments will destroy
the aquatic life that is associated with the bed of a receiving water.
Such aquatic life is an essential component of the aquatic food web and its
destruction results indirectly in the destruction or deterioration of fish
and other organisms that may feed upon this type of life. The removal of
oxygen, of course, affects adversely all forms of aquatic life associated
with water. The introduction of pesticides or other toxic substances,
likewise, affects all forms of life when the substance is present in toxic
amounts. It may destroy directly and acutely; it may destroy over a long
period of time through physiological alteration of the organism or reproductive
impairment; or it may accumulate without immediate perceptible harm but
with the latent potential to either affect adversely the organism in which
the toxin has accumulated or that of the next consumer's level within the
food chain. We are all familiar with the effects of nutrients Introduced
into lakes and the resulting problems of eutrophication, which have resulted
in the expenditure of large sums of money to develop means of control and
to pursue avenues of prevention. Estuaries are a particularly fragile
30
-------
ecosystem of the environment. They are the recipients of pollutants from
all of the lands. They are the link between the land and the vast oceanic
resource. They are the nursery areas for the ocean. Unfortunately, they
become the transfer points between pollutants from the land and the aquatic
food supply of nations.
Streams and rivers can cleanse themselves of pollutants quite rapidly
when pollution is stopped. Estuaries cleanse themselves much less rapidly
than streams because of the ebb and flow of the tides and the necessity
for the materials to be flushed from the estuary. With the introduction
of bioaccumulative materials, the process is slowed even more, because of
the necessity to reduce the tissue content sometimes through a process of
succeeding organism generations. Of particular concern are groundwater
aquifers. These are the waters that a great number of people depend upon
for drinking purposes. These are relatively unpolluted waters, but when
pollution does occur, it persists for a great length of time.
DEVELOPING A LAND-USE ETHIC
Laws and regulations provide a framework and a focus for national
concern. Quality criteria provide levels for particular constituents that
are believed to be protective of environmental uses as a result of scientifi
experiments or investigations. Environmental standards provide a legal
framework for implementing designated quality criteria and also provide a
compliance schedule. These avenues of approach to control pollution
31
-------
exist and generally they are adequate and correspond to existing environ-
mental knowledge and the technologic state-of-the-art.
These environmental pollution control tools do not necessarily provide
the ultimate in environmental protection. In addition to a foundation
of good laws, regulations, criteria and standards, we must develop a
meaningful citizens' environmental concern and consciousness in all age
groups. We must develop and practice a meaningful environmental ethic,
both as individuals and as a community. We search still, even as Aldo Leopold
a quarter of a century ago, for such an ethic. He wrote that, "An ethic,
ecologically, is a limitation on freedom of action in the struggle for
existence..." He stated that an environmental ethic must reflect the
existence of an ecological conscience and a conviction of individual and
community responsibilities for the capability of the water, land and air
environments for self-renewal. Such an ethic must embody ethical and
aesthetical qualities in addition to the essential economic and technologic
considerations. The integrity, quality of life, stability, and beauty
of the biotic community and the environment that supports it must be
preserved. He wrote, "A decision is wrong when it tends not to foster
these principles." Leopold knew of what he wrote. He was a renowned
professor of wildlife management at the University of Wisconsin and he
knew the land and the plants and animals that resided thereon.
Today, as never before, society is in need of an environmental ethic
on the part of the residents on this planet Earth. The solution to
32
-------
environmental problems that confront us as a group is the heart of
survival itself. The sages of yesterday were aware of this fact. Today's
man on the street is convinced of its truth.
33
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Armstrong, D.E. and G.A. Rohlich, 1970. Effects of agricultural pollution on
eutrophication. Agricultural Practices and Water Quality, Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa, p. 314.
Blackmail, W.C. et al,, 1973. Mineral pollution in the Colorado River Basin.
Jour. Water Fol17 Control Fed., 45:1517.
California State Department of Water Resources, 1971. Nutrients from tile
drainage systems, bio-engineering aspects of agricultural drainage, San
doaqiiin Valley, California. Environmental Protection Agency Water
Pollution Control Research Series, 13030ELY 05/71-3.
Gilbertson, C.B. et a]_., 1970. The effect of animal density and surface
slope on characteristics of runoff, solid wastes and nitrate movement
on unpaved beef feedlots. University of Nebraska Technology Bulletin,
SB-S08.
Harrold, L.L., 1969. Pollution of water from agricultural sources. The
Ohio Engineer, 29:10.
Hawkes, G.R., 1966. The impact of fertilizers on wastewaters - the kinds,
amounts that may be used and projected trends. In: Agricultural Waste
Waters, Report No. 10, Water Resources Center, University of California,
p. 73.
Leopold, A., 1949. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York.
Lin, S,, 1972. Nonpoint rural sources of water pollution. Illinois State
Water Survey Report No. ISWS-72 CIR III.
Lusby, G.C. e_t a]_., 1971. Effects of grazing on the hydrology and biology
of the Badger Wash Basin in Western Colorado, 1953-66. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper 1532-D.
Taylor, A.W., et al., 1971. Nutrients in streams, draining woodland and
farmland near C"oshocton, Ohio. Water Resources Research, 7:81.
Walker, K.C., 1970. Agricultural aspects of the effects of pesticides in
water resource developments. In: The Effects of Pesticides on Water
Resource Developments, Proceedings of Joint Meeting of the Arkansas - White
Red Basins Inter-agency Committee, New Orleans, La., p. 36.
Walker, W.H. et al_., 1972. Farm ground water nitrate pollution - a case study
Presented at American Society of Civil Engineers Annual and National
Environmental Engineering Meeting, Houston, Texas, Preprint No. 1842
34
-------
89State of the Art in Identifying and Controlling
Water Pollution from Agricultural Activities -
Research Implications"
by
Paul R. Heitzenrater Ł> Will C, LaVeille*
Presented at the
Workshop on Agricultural Non-Point Source
Water Pollution Control
Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D. C.
September 16-17, 1974
"Acting Chief, Agriculture & Non-point Source Control Branch
and Agricultural Engineer, respectively? Non-point Pollution
Control Division, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Protection Ag@ncy, Washington? D. C.
36
-------
State of the Art in Identifying and Controlling
Water Pollution from Agricultural Activities -
Research Implications
I. Introduction
A. Orientation of Program
B. Current Emphasis
II. Animal Wastes Program
A. Goals
B. Details of Studies
1. ARS studies in Colorado and Nebraska
2. Waste handling and land disposal
3. Feedlot waste management manual
III. Irrigation Return Flow Program
A. Goals
B. Details of Studies
1 . ARS studies in Arizona and Idaho
2. Irrigation techniques, scheduling, and modeling
3. Irrigation management conference, canal lining, literature
abstracts
IV. Agricultural Chemical Runoff
A. Goals
B. Details of Studies
1. ARS studies in Piedmont/Georgia
2. Major modeling effort
3. Initial model available for verification
V. National Assessment
A. Loading Functions
B. Information Base
VI. Conclusion
References:
1. "Environment Protecting Concepts of Beef Cattle Feedlot Wastes
Management," EPA, July 1973.
2. "Managing Irrigated Agriculture to Improve Water Quality,"
EPA, May 1972.
3. "Pesticide Transport and Runoff Model for Agricultural Lands,"
EPA, December 1973.
37
-------
Compared to the length of time that research on pollution control
from agriculture has been carried out by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency is a relative new
comer. Health and environmental effects of pesticides were perhaps
the first of the problems related to agriculture to be investigated
by the predecessor agencies to what is now the EPA. A comprehensive
agricultural pollution control research program was initiated in
March 1968 and has been an important component of the Office of Research
and Development ever since. Agriculture studies are currently conducted
within the Nonpoint Pollution Control Division, where other topics
include programs dealing with pollution from mining, oil and hazardous
material spills, and construction activities.
Early studies on agricultural pollution conducted under our research
contract and grant mechanism were oriented toward the treatment of wastes,
as in our animal waste activities. The lack of total success in achieving
a satisfactory level of treatment, coupled with the urgent need to develop
means for water pollution abatement at low cost and within a short period
of time, has led us to emphasize more conventional, remedial measures.
Rather than treatment alone, we are trying to promote control at the source
of pollution by conservation-management practices.
Recent developments in the requirements for water pollution control
have had additional impacts on the direction of research on agricultural
pollution. With passage of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
38
-------
of 1972, nonpoint sources of pollution were brought under constraints
similar to point sources. Certain agricultural operations come under
the scrutiny of the Permit Program and have to meet rigorous effluent
criteria. Just as the law requires that point source discharges imple-
ment "best practicable treatment" (BPT) by 1977, nonpoint sources have
their own BPT - "best preventative techniques." This concept raises a
number of questions, not the least of which is, "How and on what basis
is this best preventative technique selected?" It has therefore been
imperative that some means be developed to evaluate the efficacy of
the various available remedial and conservation measures and to pre-
dict the effects on the environment of changes in commonly employed
practices or the adoption of advanced management methods.
Our present emphasis, to meet the very real needs of the farming
community is therefore to develop the means for assessing the magnitude
of the nonpoint pollution control problem both nationwide and down to
small watersheds and individual farm units, and to have available an
array of demonstrated techniques and management tools to institute under
a wide range of climatic, agricultural, and environmental constraints.
These comments will serve as background for a description of the
three major components of our agricultural pollution control research
and development activities - animal wastes, irrigation return flows,
and agricultural chemical runoff.
39
-------
The major goal of the animal feedlot wastes R&D program is
to define the animal waste problem, conduct and stimulate research,
development and demonstration of practical and economically
acceptable animal wastes pollution control technology and to make
the results available in user-oriented manuals of practice. The
program is designed to meet immediate as well as long range needs
for the application and evaluation of pollution control techniques,
equipment, and recycle and reuse systems.
Studies are done under grants and contracts with universities,
private individuals, and by interagency agreements. At the present
time we have an Interagency Agreement with the USDA-ARS at Fort Collins,
Colorado, and Lincoln, Nebraska, on a project entitled "Pollution Abatement
from Cattle Feedlots in Northeastern Colorado and Eastern Nebraska."
The total cost of this study is estimated at $1.2 million of which EPA
is funding half. The project will determine the extent and kinds of
microbial, chemical and organic pollutants entering the atmosphere, soils,
and surface and underground water supplies and evaluate different feed-
lot management systems for their effectiveness and efficiency in dis-
posing of both liquid and solid wastes from cattle feedlots in two
contrasting climatic zones -- northeastern Colorado with annual pre-
cipitation of 14-15 inches and eastern Nebraska with annual precipitation
of 27-28 inches.
Other projects at various locations around the country are evaluating
systems for handling animal wastes, such as anaerobic-aerobic oxidation
40
-------
ponds, recirculating swine waste treatment systems, land disposal methods,
and recycling and resource recovery. One of these projects involves
determining the status of research on effects of land disposal from
animal waste disposal on land, to assemble recommended loading rates of
animal waste on land and to identify present knowledge gaps and suggest
areas of research needed on the effects of this practice. In the mean-
time, however, other related work includes: evaluation of plant-soil
filters; determination of the maximum environmentally safe application
rates for disposal of wastes on the land compatible with maintaining
reasonable rates of crop production; the concentration and movement
of chemical and bacteriological waste components by surface runoff or
leaching through the soil; the utilization of liquid animal wastes
by crops through overland spray; and, techniques for and effectiveness
of subsurface injection of animal wastes are being studied. The cul-
mination of all of these efforts will be a manual of use incorporating
suggestions on how to determine where, when, how, and how much manure
should be applied to the land. We expect to have final land disposal
assessment and criteria manuals listing BPT equivalent completed by
June 1977.
One such user-oriented manual has already resulted from the studies
on animal waste problems. In July 1973, a manual entitled "Environment
Protecting Concepts of Beef Cattle Feedlot Wastes Management" was pub-
lished. The manual will serve as a guide to insure consideration and
incorporation of pertinent environmental pollution controls in the
41
-------
design and operation of beef cattle feedlots, and to serve as a reference
source for the more detailed information contained in published literature
on feedlot design and operation. The concepts presented in the manual
are applicable to feedlots other than cattle. Topics covered include
discussions of the currently available viable options for confinement
facilities with details relating to wastes management, the factors which
should be considered in choosing a location for a new feedlot or in
modifying an existing lot to avoid pollution-related problems, the
system components available for handling solid manure, slurries,
and liquid runoff, economic comparisons of alternative systems, and
suggestions for coexistence of the feeding industry with society.
Our research on irrigation return flows has a similar practical goal.
The objective of this R&D program is to develop practical and economically
acceptable means to control the pollutant contributions (i.e., salinity,
nutrients, sediments, pesticides) from irrigated agriculture to our surface
and groundwater resources. Specifically the program is developing
knowledge relative to prediction techniques, control measures and man-
agement systems that may be applied to water quality problems of
irrigation return flows are by demonstrating that improved farm water
management offers feasible means of minimizing salt and nutrient
degradation of return flow without sacrificing crop yields. The ultimate
output from these activities will be the development of recommendations
and guidelines on irrigation practices, methods, and systems which
would have the greatest effect of reducing pollutant contributions.
We plan to have the manual available early in 1977.
42
-------
lce Two Interagency Agreements are presently being supported by EPA
tlffe and the Agricultural Research Service on irrigation return flow topics.
The first, designed to minimize salt in return flow by improving
irrigation efficiency, is being conducted by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory
of Riverside, California, at the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage
cli District in Arizona. The second joint project is being conducted with
the Snake River Conservation Reserach Center in Kimberly, Idaho, to
evaluate scientific irrigation scheduling for salinity control in
irrigation return flows.
Additional studies are developing techniques for drip, trickle,
and subsurface irrigation, are evaluating present water laws and the
!J constraints which they place upon agricultural water management reform,
I are demonstrating practical salinity control technology (including
cost-effectiveness) in water delivery and drainage subsystems, and
are developing a mineral quality prediction model which typifies a
combination of soil, climate, geologic, and hydrologic conditions
found in broad areas of irrigated lands throughout the Western states.
Mathematical models will have utility in preassessing the need for
improved irrigation management and/or structural modifications as
well as predicting the quality and effects of irrigation return flows.
We hope to have this model and appropriate user manuals available by
June 1975.
To date, the irrigation return flow research program has produced
a number of major accomplishments, including: a state-of-the-art study
43
-------
which evaluated the characteristics and pollution problems or irrigation
return flows; a national conference on "Managing Irrigated Agriculture
to Improve Water Quality;" the evaluation of canal linings for salinity
control in Grand Valley, Colorado; the publication of literature abstracts
on irrigation return flow topics for 1968 through 1973; and the com-
pletion of feasibility studies on desalination and nitrate removal by
algae growth and harvesting and by anaerobic denitrification which
was conducted in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
California Department of Water Resources.
The third major area of EPA research on agricultural pollution
problems is runoff of agricultural chemicals, including pesticides
and nutrients. In this area our efforts are directed at defining the
factors and establishing the relationships that influence the extent
of chemical runoff from agricultural land with a view toward managing
them to minimize pollution. If the effects and interactions of chemical
type and formulation, soil properties, climatic conditions, watershed
characteristics, and agricultural practices are clearly known, then usage
guidelines can be developed that will aid in reducing runoff and sub-
sequent pollution. It is expected that a mathematical model which
is being developed will have watershed and gross basin-wide predictive
and simulative capability and nation-wide applicability for all major
pesticides and for the plant nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus.
Specifically, the agricultural chemical runoff model will have
several uses: it will predict quantitatively the amount of chemical
44
-------
that will be contributed to a water body in runoff and conversely, will
permit evaluation of benefits expected from the use of alternative
corrective management/engineering practices; it will provide a basis
for making pesticide and fertilizer usage recommendations, i.e.,
specify types, formulations, and application levels of a chemical for
a given set of cultural, management, climatic, and soil conditions
that will assure maintenance of acceptable water quality; and it can
be useful for pesticide manufacturers in tailoring pesticide formula-
tions to meet regional requirements for pollution prevention, and open
the door for labeling and licensing pesticides on the basis of regional
usage acceptability.
Work on the development of this model is being done in part under
an Interagency Agreement with the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research
Center of the ARS. Field data were collected during agricultural growing
seasons from instrumented plots. Development of certain submodels and
the gathering of data on some chemical/plant/soil/water relationships
has been conducted under various research grants in different agricultural
regions. Processes occurring during a rainfall event and accounted for
by the model are downward chemical movement and net chemical transfer
from the soil surface into the runoff film, both in solution and adsorbed
on eroded soil. Processes affecting chemical concentration and phase
redistribution between rainfall events include evapotranspiration,
adsorption-desorption, net movement under conditions of unsaturated
flow, and the attenuation processes of chemical, microbial, and photo-
chemical degradation, volatilization and organism uptake.
45
-------
The model itself has been developed and is available for verification.
Although developed initially to evaluate pesticide losses, studies are
underway to expand the model to account for plant nutrients. The model
has been calibrated and tested for the Piedmont Region — ultimately
the Great Lakes, Corn Belt, and Coastal Plains will be included. As
now developed, the pesticide transport and runoff model is composed of
submodels concerned with hydrology, sediment loss, pesticide-soil inter-
action, and pesticide attenuation functions. The model piggybacks
the applied pesticide onto the movement of water through the soil pro-
file and the loss of water and sediment from the land surface. Ongoing
work includes further calibration and testing of the model and additional
refinement of the pesticide adsorption/desorption and attenuation functions,
One of the major questions still to be answered deals with a
determination of the extent and location of nonpoint pollution and an
evaluation of the degree to which the pollution can be abated by
changes in land use management practices. In this regard, work is
progressing on a project to provide a Nationwide assessment of water
pollution from nonpoint sources. The project is to provide a National,
regional, and basin assessment of the comparative nature, extent,
distribution and variability of nonpoint water pollution sources in
terms of their discharge of pollutants into surface waters. In
addition, loading functions are to be developed using existing data
and evaluated for use in determining the pollutant discharge load
from individual nonpoint sources and from groups of sources found in
typical land use patterns. These loading functions are to be vali-
dated using existing water quality and land use data and are to be
46
-------
integrated into a general handbook that can be used for subsequent
tonpoint assessments on a watershed basis. This project will also
serve as an information base for subsequent assessment and comparison
Df the controllability of nonpoint sources, including cost/benefit
5valuations for management systems. Major nonpoint activities and
sources under consideration in this project are agricultural activities
such as crop production, livestock production including confined feedlot
operations, and natural erosion from agricultural lands; silvicultural
activities such as harvesting, log transport, and regeneration and
protection; mining activities including extraction, preparation, and
oil and gas production; and construction activities such as develop-
ment of utilities and public facilities, residential and commercial
property, and recreational areas.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that while much work
has been done in developing technology and management methods to
specifically address certain waste handling, chemical usage, or soil
and water conservation problems, there remains the need to pull these
scattered tools together into specific recommendations geared to
environmental protection. Clearly there are gaps in the recommended
management systems that can be made at the present time and studies
must be continued to fill in these pieces. Studies must also be made
to optimize cost/effectiveness and to advance alternative techniques
to the demonstration stage to show to the land users the workability
and advantages of various pollution control options. This cannot be
47
-------
solely an EPA effort. Cooperative programs with USDA and the farming
industry are a necessity. Improved communication with the farmers
through Extension Service programs and the farm press will assume
increasing importance. At this point in time the future requirements
are uncertain but the trend toward management of nonpoint sources
of pollution is clear. Present studies designed to identify and
control water pollution from agricultural activities will have a
significant influence on the decisions to be made to bring about
effective management of the environment.
48
-------
Controlling Nonpolnt Source
Pollution Prom Agricultural
Activities.
Robert E. Thronson
We can afford the price of a clean environment.
There are those thay say we connot afford to care. Knowingly or
unknowingly, they would destroy both the environment and industry itself.
They are unaware that it costs more to ignore the needs of the environment
than to protect it. The simple fact is that caring for our land, air, and
water is part of the act of doing business.
We do not object to paying for the cost of safety in our electrical
appliances, buildings, highways, and automobiles. Why should we object to
the long-range safety of our water, air, and land? According to the Wildlife
Federation, the cost of cleaning up our environment will entail an invest-
ment of $500 by the average family by the year 1975. This investment would
be recovered in increased savings by 1979, and from 1980 on each family
would make a profit of $200 per year.
The impact of man's agricultural activities on the nation's water
resources is extremely significant. Modern agricultural practices are be-
coming increasingly complex, particularly in their use of fertilizers,
pesticides, irrigation systems, and confined animal feeding facilities. As
a result, the potential for surface and ground water pollution resulting
from these activities is greatly increasing. Preventing this pollution
must become a major concern for these involved in the field of agriculture.
Identification of Pollutants
Pollutants resulting from agricultural nonpoint sources include sediment,
dissolved salts, plant nutrients, pesticides, organic materials, and pathogens.
Sediment which results from erosion of soils is considered to be the principal
pollutant.
49
-------
Mode of Transport
A knowledge of the mechanisms through which nonpoint source pol-
lutants are transported to water bodies is essential in order to deter-
mine the nature and extent of pollution and measures for prevention or
control, mch basic information is available regarding these mechanisms;
however, the knowledge is not yet adequate to accurately predict losses
from individual pollutant sources.
There are essentially 3 modes of transport of nonpoint pollutants
from agricultural sources. They may be carried to receiving water bodies
by surface runoff, ground water movement, or wind. In water, they may be
transported in a "piggy backed" fashion adsorbed to fine-grained sediments
such as salts and clays. Phosphates and pesticides often are tightly
bound to sediments in this manner.
Philosophy of Control
EPA's early program emphasis will be placed on the implementation
of control programs using presently available control technology. Control
information will be published and widely distributed. Pilot control
projects will be established in critical areas. These will be used to
demonstrate the use of technical means of control, control program
institutional arrangements, and the intergrated use of Federal-State-Local
activities in control programs.
Research and evaluation of institutional arrangements will be con-
ducted. General national policies guidelines will be developed. These
will be adapted into standards and guidelines, to fit Regional, State
and local areas. Because of the very diffuse nature of nonpoint sources,
most of the control will be accomplished by obtaining on-site installation
of control measures.
50
-------
Control Measures
The following discussion provides some Information concerning non-
point pollution control "best preventative techniques" as we see them.
Erosion and Sediment
There are three natural processes Involved in the movement of sediment
from a farm site to a receiving body of water. They are erosion, transpor-
tation , and deposition. Control measures necessary to prevent sediments from
the site and causing water pollution will involve decreasing the first two
processes, erosion and transportation, and Increasing the last one, deposi-
tion.
As you all know, agricultural conservation practices have been developed
which also serve, at least partially, for these purposes. They range from
management of surface cover and tillage to mechanical measures, or a combina-
tion of these.
Conservation tillage systems may be used In combination with other
erosion control measures or may be the only measures used. They often
provide for protection of surface soils with crop residues or develop a
surface configuration that will Increase water storage and infiltration and
so reduce runoff. Other means of erosion control Involve strip cropping,
tilling on the contour, and the construction of terraces, diversions, or
grassed waterways and other structures to control the energy of runoff water.
Additional measures involve the use of cover crops, crop rotation, and other
means of maintaining protective cover on soils. They are limited only by
the Initiative of the landowner and his desire to maintain the productivity
of his soil resource.
Mineral Salts
The control of salinity and other pollution caused by Irrigation return
51
-------
flow cannot be easily achieved. Control methods Include the application
of current technology and the development of new technology. Current
technology Includes methods of Increasing the efficiency of the water
development system, on-the-farm water management, and elimination of surface
discharges of irrigation waters. These, combined with the application of
irrigation scheduling and increased water-use efficiency will minimize
pollution caused by irrigation returns.
Pesticides
There are several methods used to reduce the amount of pesticides moving
into the aquatic environment. They are to (1) control erosion and transport
of sediments, (2) prevent application when wind drift can carry pesticide
into a water body, (3) apply optimum quantities necessary to control target
pests or substitute non-chemical methods of pest control, (4) substitute
biodegradable pesticides to the maximum extent possible, and (5) ensure
proper use and disposal of containers and unused materials.
One involved in farming practices should consider alternatives before
making the decision to use pesticides. They include practices involving
changes in methods of cultivating and harvesting crops to make the site less
hospitable to pests; using the pest's natural enemies for control; insect
sterilization, toxins, or pathogens; resistant crop variations; insect
attractors; and crop rotations.
Plant Nutrients
Most of phosphorous lost from land is associated with sediment. Organic
or humus nitrogen lost is also adsorbed on sediments. Mast nitrogen, however,
is lost in the form of nitrate which is completely soluble in water and moves
with it.
Reducing nutrient losses from agricultural nonpoint sources may be done
52
-------
by applying optimum amounts of nutrients at the proper time and place, adopting
iirproved cultural practices such as conservation tillage and crop rotations
that minimize nutrient losses, and controlling soil and water losses.
Animal Wastes
The nutrient content of animal wastes is highly variable. The most
conmon, ecologically accepted, and lowest cost method of disposal is by ap-
plication to the land.
When sufficient cropland is not available, large quantities of manure may
be applied to the land with the emphasis on disposal rather than plant utiliza-
tion. This may alleviate disposal problems but may create other problems
such as accumulation of nitrate, salts, and other compounds.
Wastes may be solid or a slurry- Solids can be applied on the surface
followed by no incorporation into the soil, immediate incorporation, or incor-
poration at a later date prior to crop planting. Slurry wastes are also
commonly applied to the surface of the land although some injection systems
are used.
Storm water runoff from combined animal feeding facilities is a source
of pollution. Rentention ponds generally are used to trap and store this
water which is removed and applied to the land as soon as possible after the
runoff event to provide for additional storage.
EPA's Nonpoint Source Implementation Activities
The Office of Water and Hazardous Materials is presently involved with
several activities which will provide information on nonpoint pollution control
to Federal, State, and local agencies and lead to implementation of control
programs.
State Sediment Control Institutes
53
-------
In May of 1972, EPA awarded a contract to the National Association of
Conservation Districts in Washington, D.C. for the conduct of a series of
State sediment control institutes. The objectives of these institutes are
to help bring about awareness of the increasing national concern regarding
erosion and sediment control, provide knowledge of existing and proposed
actions in this area by Federal and State organizations, initiate consideration
of the physical and organizational aspects of control, and promote development
of a plan of action for effective control of erosion and sediment runoff by
responsible leaders of the State.
The Environmental Protection Agency uses these Institutes as a medium
of explaining federal legislation relating to erosion and sediment control,
the agency's administrative organization, and its responsibilities in this
area of water quality control. Results of these Institutes are expected to
facilitate and seek the enactment and adequate enforcement of state sediment
control programs and legislation that will meet state and federal standards.
At the present time about 35 of these institutes have been conducted. Ten
States have enacted sediment control laws, fifteen others have drafted
legislation, and twelve of these have introduced these laws before their
legislative bodies for action.
Acceptance of the need for more rapid action in the field of erosion
and sediment control by the States is growing; and new laws are being
initiated. A "spinoff" from this State program appears to be the develop-
ment of county and/or local ordinances which many times are stricter than
State measures.
Forest Practices
There are many small form woodlot owners, particularly in the south-
eastern States, which periodically conduct silvicultural activities. These
54
-------
activities include pest control, fertilization, prescribed burning, timber
harvesting, and the like. All are recognized as potential causes of nonpoint
source pollution. To facilitate control in these areas and where large
forest landowners predominate, we have just initiated development of a Model
State Forest Practices Act to provide guidance to the States and to others in
their nonpoint source control implementation efforts. Accompanying this,
another document is being prepared which will delineate our Agency's policy
on control of pollution from silvicultural activities. It will provide
guidance to our Regions, and other organizations, in their control activities.
Pilot Control Programs
Soon after passage of P.L. 92-500, the Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, it became apparent that effective control of nonpoint
source pollution requires the coordinated efforts of Federal, State, and
local agencies in cooperation with the private sector. Ihere is the need
to combine technical, institutional, and legal aspects into a coordinated
control program surfaced.
It was determined that pilot control programs conducted by our Regional
Offices offered the opportunity to delineate and test the control programs
and to actually obtain effective control in a limited area. Source category
assignments have been made to our ten Regions on the basis of the national
need, magnitude of the problem in the Region, and availability of background
information. Four source categories were assigned for implementation in
FY ?4 with the remaining six to be implemented during FY 75-
Pilot control projects which involve agricultural activities, or are
closely related have been assigned as follows:
FY 75
Region VII (Denver) - Irrigation Return Flows
55
-------
Region X (Seattle) - Silviculture
Region V (Chicago) - Agriculture (Lake Eutrophication Aspects)
Region VII (Kansas City) - Agriculture (Monoculture Aspects)
Schedules for the pilot control programs vary with the thrust and
complexity of each effort. A general pattern of schedule has been established
however, which resolves into the following three phases: (1) project planning,
(2) project implementation, and (3) EPA withdrawal of active participation.
The principal purpose of the pilot control projects is the initiation,
implementation, and evaluation of a coordinated control program. After this
is accomplished, EPA's active participation in the particular project will be
diminished. This does not mean that the project will not be continued, but
that it will be continued by other Federal agencies, State, and/or local
agencies.
Conclusion
There is a definite need to make people and organizations aware of how
nonpoint source pollution resulting from agricultural activities can affect
conditions around them and to provide information on processes procedures,
and methods available for controlling this type of pollution at the source
areas themselves.
Technical and professional people involved with these activities should
become bold enough to express themselves against what they know to be pol-
lution causing activities through their technical societies regardless of
the views of their associates and others. Technical people often hide
behind the "security blanket" of professionalism by limiting their discussion
groups to other professionals only when they would do better by exposing
themselves to public opinion and their critics. Environmental concerns are
not a passing fancy but are here to stay and many professional people are
56
-------
flunking the course by following and not leading in the control efforts.
Effective control requires vigorous and aggressive action by all levels
of government with the complete cooperation and support of concerned members
of the community. We all know that the technical capability of control is
largely available. Ihe development and adoption of measures for effective
control and the preparation of organizational procedures for applying the
technical knowledge required is urgently needed. Cooperation between govern-
mental groups concerned with control and others which provide the technical
"know how" is essential to obtain a meaningful program. State and local
organizations and their officials must acknowledge their share of the respon-
sibility for control which often is diffused among several agencies. Ihese
agencies effectiveness many times is inadequate because they react to damage
rather than undertaking action to prevent the environmental pollution.
EPA will not seek to dictate particular nonpoint source control practices,
when the prescription of such practices may best be left to State and local
authorities. Federal governmental groups can provide broad guidelines and
some financial assistance for local areas but the principal tasks of developing
proper management techniques, establishing adequate implementation procedures,
and requiring effective enforcement methods must fall upon State and local
officials. "The impetus to adopt State legislation and local requirements
for effective control must be provided by concerned and informed members of
the State and the community involved.
57
-------
PESTICIDES AS A NON-POINT SOURCE OF WATER POLLUTION
GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM VERY PLEASED TO BE
PARTICIPATING WITH YOU TODAY IN THIS FINE WORKSHOP
DEVOTED TO THE EXPLORATION OF THE NON-POINT SOURCES OF
AGRICULTURAL WATER POLLUTION. THIS HAS BEEN AND
REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION, IN TERMS OF BOTH DETERMINING PESTICIDE
EFFECTS ON A CAUSAL BASIS, AND DETERMINING SOLUTIONS,
BOTH TECHNICAL AND REGULATORY, TO THE PROBLEMS.
CERTAINLY, ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION IS ONE OF THE
MOST VITAL CONCERNS OF THE OFFICE OF PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU TODAY OUR
THINKING ON THE SOURCES OF PESTICIDE ENTRY INTO
WATERWAYS, THE STEPS WE ARE TAKING TO MONITOR THE
IMPACT OF THOSE SOURCES, AND SOME OF THE MEANS AFFORDED
US BY LAW TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE THOSE SOURCES.
ALSO, I'LL MENTION SOME ASPECTS OF THE ROLE THE
EXTENSION SERVICE CAM PLAY IN THIS AREA.
TODAY, PESTICIDES ARE, OF COURSE, CRUCIAL TO THE
ADEQUATE PRODUCTION OF FOOD AND FIBER IN THIS COUNTRY.
WHILE ADVANCES IN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT MAY CHANGE
THIS RELATION, IT MAY NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAPPEN IN THE
Address by Edv/in L. Johnson, Associate Deputy Assistant
Adninistratcr for Pesticide Programs, before the
Workshop on Agricultural Non-Point Source Water
Pollution Control, Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D. C . ,
September 16, 1974.
58
-------
SHORT-TERM. AGRICULTURAL USES OF CHEMICAL PEST CONTROL
AGENTS HAVE INCREASED OVER THE YEARS AS THE POPULATION
HAS GROWN WITH ITS ACCOMPANYING MEED TO CONCURRENTLY
EXPAND CROP YIELD. CERTAINLY, THE PEST CONTROL ARSENAL
AFFORDED BY MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS CONTRIBUTED
UNQUESTIONED BENEFITS TO SOCIETY. HOWEVER, AS YOU ARE
ALL AWARE, THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES --
THEIR IMMEDIATE TOXICITY, THEIR PERSISTENCE, THEIR
MOBILITY, THEIR ACCUMULATION IN THE FOOD CHAIN --
CONTINUE TO CAUSE ALARM, BOTH IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY AND IN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. ONE OF- THE FACTS
OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO THE PUBLIC IS THE PRESENCE OF
PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN WATER. AS WE IN THE OFFICE OF
PESTICIDE PROGRAMS ARE REMINDED DAILY, THE PUBLIC IS
AWARE, AMD QUITE VOCALLY SO, OF THE ENTRANCE OF
PESTICIDES INTO OUR VALUABLE WATER RESOURCES, AND IT
WANTS, IT DEMANDS. THAT THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AN ACTIVE
PART IN REDUCING SUCH CONTAMINATION.
ONE OF THE MORE INTRIGUING ASPECTS OF PESTICIDES,
AND CERTAIN OF THE OTHER POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF
WATER, SUCH AS FERTILIZERS, WHICH YOU WILL BE
DISCUSSING IN THESE WORKSHOP SESSIONS, IS THAT THE
MATERIAL MUST INTENTIONALLY BE RELEASED INTO THE
59
-------
ENVIRONMENT IF IT IS TO ACHIEVE ITS BENEFICIAL EFFECTS.
ONCE SO RELEASED, ITS LATER MOVEMENT AND EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT ARE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO CONTROL. THIS
IS A CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE FROM MOST
POLLUTION SITUATIONS IN WHICH CONTAMINANTS ARE RELEASED
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO RESIDUAL
ECONOMIC VALUE AND ARE MERELY BEING THROWN AWAY IN THE
CHEAPEST POSSIBLE MANNER.
IN THE CASE OF PESTICIDES, OF COURSE, ASIDE FROM
MANUFACTURING DISPOSAL AND EXCESS PESTICIDE DUMPING, IT
COSTS MONEY AND PRODUCES BENEFITS TO INTENTIONALLY
PLACE THESE SUBSTANCES IN THE ENVIRONMENT. THEY ARE OF
NO AGRICULTURAL VALUE UNTIL THEY ARE SO UTILIZED. THIS
CIRCUMSTANCE MAKES UNIQUELY IMPORTANT THE ROLE OF THE
EXTENSION SERVICE AS FARM PRACTICE LEADERS AND
EDUCATORS IN REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WATER CONTAMINATON
FROM PESTICIDES. AS WE CONSIDER VARIOUS SOURCES OF
PESTICIDES IN WATER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT REDUCTION IN
THE AMOUNT OF THESE CHEMICALS REACHING WATER MAY BE
ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH AT LEAST TWO MECHANISMS:
FIRST, BY REDUCED USE OF PESTICIDES IN GENERAL, OR
OF PESTICIDES ESPECIALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ENTRY INTO
WATER. THIS TASK MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH FULL
60
-------
COGNIZANCE AND REGARD FOR COST/YIELD RELATIONS AND
THEIR IMPACT ON THE FARMER'S ECONOMIC POSITION, TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT NEW TECHNOLOGY OF PEST CONTROL,
PARTICULARLY THE RAPIDLY DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGIES OF
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT.
SECOND, THROUGH APPLICATION OF OTHER
AGRICULTURALLY DESIRABLE PRACTICES, SUCH AS THOSE
RELATED TO WATER CONSERVATION AND SOIL EROSION
PREVENTION.
PROPER USE DIRECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT TO ASSURE
USE CONSISTENT WITH SUCH DIRECTIONS ARE OF COURSE MAJOR
ELEMENTS OF EPA'S PESTICIDES REGULATORY PROGRAM.
1
HOWEVER, BEFORE THE FACT COMPLIANCE IS AT LEAST AS IF
NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN AFTER THE FACT ENFORCEMENT, AND
WE IN PESTICIDES ANTICIPATE THE EXTENSION SERVICE
PLAYING A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN EDUCATING THE FARMER TO
THE PROPER UTILIZATION OF PESTICIDES, AND TO THE
ADOPTION OF LESS PESTICIDE INTENSIVE METHODS OF PEST
CONTROL. THE EXTENSIVE AND UNIQUE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
CAPABILITY, THE SCOUTING PROGRAMS, AND THE DAY-TO-DAY
PROGRAM WITH GROWERS,pONDUCTED BY THE EXTENSION SERVICE
PROVIDES A VEHICLE FOR MUTUALLY FURTHERING THE CAUSES
OF AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT TO THE BENEFIT OF
61
-------
SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.
OBVIOUSLY, THE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF
ANY PESTICIDE GOVERN ITS MOVEMENT FROM ONE ECOLOGICAL
SYSTEM TO ANOTHER. WHILE WE CERTAINLY DO NOT KNOW ALL
THE ANSWERS ABOUT THE MOVEMENT OF THESE CHEMICALS, WE
DO KNOW THAT THE PROCESSES WHICH REGULATE THE RATE OF
MOBILITY OF PESTICIDES FROM SOIL TO WATER ARE
INFLUENCED BY THE CLAY AND ORGANIC CONTENT OF THE SOIL,
THE SOLUBILITY OF THE PESTICIDE, TEMPERATURE AND OTHER
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS. OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS THE
DEGRADATION OF CHEMICALS BY SUNLIGHT AND OXYGEN, AND BY
ACID AND MICROBIAL ENZYME ACTION, LEACHING, AND UPTAKE
BY PLANTS CONTRIBUTE TO THE ABILITY OF THE PRODUCT TO
REACH WATER SUPPLIES. DATA ON THESE ASPECTS IS
REQUIRED AS PART OF OUR REGISTRATION PROCESS, WHICH
I'LL EXPLAIN FURTHER IN A FEW MOMENTS. THE ROUTES OF
PESTICIDE ENTRANCE INTO WATER ARE OF COURSE VARIED, AND
I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO SUMMARIZE THESE
POTENTIAL SOURCES FOR A MOMENT.
FIRST, AND MOST OBVIOUSLY, PESTICIDES CAN ENTER
WATER SOURCES AS A RESULT OF DIRECT APPLICATION. MANY
ORGANIC PESTICIDES ARE ADDED DIRECTLY TO WATER TO
CONTROL AQUATIC INSECTS, TRASH FISH, AND AQUATIC
62
-------
PLANTS. MOST OF THESE APPLICATIONS ARE MADE FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND THE AMOUNT OF PESTICIDE ADDED IS
CLOSELY CONTROLLED. OF CONCERN, HOWEVER, IS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT CONTROL CAN BE LAX IN MASSIVE
APPLICATIONS, SUCH AS EMERGENCY MOSQUITO CONTROL
EFFORTS. IN SOME CASES, TOO, NON-TARGET SPECIES MAY BE
ADVERSELY AFFECTED IN MAN'S ATTEMPT TO CONTROL THE
TARGET INSECT, FISH, OR PLANTS. DITCH BANK WEED
CONTROL PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF PESTICIDE USE WHICH, AT
LEAST IN THE ARID WEST, MIGHT BE REDUCED COMPATIBLE
WITH OBJECTIVES OF WATER CONSERVATION AND SALINITY
REDUCTION BY CANAL LINING AND ALTERNATIVE IRRIGATION
TECHNIQUES.
A SECOND ROUTE OF EXPOSURE IS AGRICULTURAL AND
URBAN LAND DRAINAGE. NOT ALL PESTICIDES APPLIED TO
LAND END UP IN A WATERWAY, BUT IT IS LIKELY THAT THE
MAJORITY OF THE PESTICIDES IN STREAMS RESULT FROM STORM
RUNOFF OR OVERLAND FLOW. PESTICIDES ARE USED FOR MANY
OUTDOOR PURPOSES, NOT ONLY IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS, BUT
ALSO IN PARKS, GOLF COURSES, HOME LAWNS, AND GARDENS IN
URBAN AREAS. SOLUBLE PESTICIDES MAY ENTER SURFACE
WATERS DISSOLVED IN DRAINAGE WATER. HOWEVER, IT IS
BELIEVED THAT MOST OF THE PESTICIDES REACH WATER WITH
63
-------
SEDIMENTS WASHED FROM THE LAND. PESTICIDES CAN BE
TRANSPORTED, OF COURSE, WHEN THEY ARE BOUND ONTO
PARTICULATE MATTER OR OTHERWISE BOUND TO SOIL.
SOIL EROSION IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL MEANS BY
WHICH BOUND PESTICIDE RESIDUES CAN TRAVEL FROM THE SITE
OF APPLICATION. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT APPROXIMATELY
FOUR BILLION TONS OF GROSS SEDIMENT ARE ERODED IN THE
UNITED STATES EACH YEAR. AS YOU KNOW, THIS LOSS OCCURS
BY THE PROCESSES OF SHEET EROSION, GULLYING, AND STREAM
CHANNEL EROSION. ERODED SOILS PREVIOUSLY TREATED WITH
PESTICIDES ARE MAJOR SOURCES OF SURFACE WATER
CONTAMINATION. AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS AIMED AT REDUCED
EROSION CAM BE BENEFICIAL IN REDUCTION OF PESTICIDES
FROM THIS SOURCE.
RUNOFF IS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTOR TO THE
ADDITION OF PESTICIDES TO WATER SOURCES. THE GREATEST
DANGER FROM RUNOFF OF SOLUBLE PESTICIDES IS IN THE
PERIOD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING APPLICATION AND PRIOR TO
THE TIME THESE SUBSTANCES ARE FIXED TO THE SOIL. AS I
HAVE STATED EARLIER, THERE ARE MANY FACTORS WHICH
AFFECT THE PROPENSITY OF ANY PRODUCT TO RUNOFF. FOR
INSTANCE, THE MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE SOIL, AS WELL AS
THE INTENSITY AND FREQUENCY OF RAINFALL, AFFECTS THE
64
-------
OVERALL MOVEMENT OF PESTICIDES IN THE SOIL. A LOW
MOISTURE CONTENT FAVORS RETENTION OF THE PESTICIDE IN
SOIL. STUDIES ON HERBICIDE MOVEMENTS HAVE INDICATED
THAT THE FREQUENCY, LENGTH, AND INTENSITY OF RAINFALL
MUST BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER IN PROJECTING PESTICIDE
LOSSES. CERTAIN PESTICIDES ARE LEACHED IN GREATER
AMOUNTS AND TO GREATER DEPTHS UNDER LOWER RAINFALL
INTENSITIES. OTHER STUDIES HAVE INDICATED THAT WEATHER
PATTERNS MAY BE AS IMPORTANT AS TOTAL RAINFALL IN
DETERMINING THE iMOVEMENT OF HERBICIDES IN SOIL. THESE
MYRIAD FACTORS ARE CONTINUALLY BEING STUDIED SO THAT WE
MAY BETTER UNDERSTAND THE FATE OF PESTICIDE APPLICATION
IN THE SOIL. AGAIN, IT SEEMS LOGICAL THAT AGRICULTURAL
PRACTICES IN BOTH PESTICIDE USE AND SOIL CONSERVATION
PRACTICES CAN PLAY AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN REDUCING
RESIDUE TRANSFER.
A THIRD AREA OF POTENTIAL PESTICIDE MOVEMENT TO
WATER IS THROUGH ATMOSPHERIC PROCESSES. PESTICIDAL
COMPOUNDS MAY ENTER THE ATMOSPHERE IN SEVERAL WAYS AND
IN VARIOUS PHYSICAL STATES AND THEN BE REDEPOSITED
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INTO THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT.
FOR INSTANCE, DIRECT DRIFT FROM SPRAYING OPERATIONS CAN
CONTRIBUTE PARTICULATE OR GLOBULAR MATTER; OR, SEVERAL
65
-------
PESTICIDES, SUCH AS ORGANOCHLORINE INSECTICIDES, CAN
VOLATIZE FROM TREATED SOILS, THUS ADDING A SLOW BUT
LONG-TERM RESIDUE SOURCE WHICH CAN BE CARRIED BY THE
WIND AND REDEPOSITED AT SITES FAR FROM APPLICATION.
A FOURTH WAY IN WHICH PESTICIDES CAN ENTER THE
AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT IS THROUGH ACCIDENTS AND IMPROPER
DISPOSAL TECHNIQUES. DISPOSAL NEED NOT BE DIRECTLY TO
WATER TO ACHIEVE ADVERSE EFFECTS; LAND DISPOSAL
PRACTICES TOO CAN LEAD TO EVENTUAL TRANSFER TO WATER.
OCCURRENCES OF THIS NATURE ARE WELL DOCUMENTED, AND IN
FACT WERE ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THE CONGRESS FELT A
GREAT NEED TO AMEND THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE,
AND RODENTICIDE ACT (FIFRA) IN 1972, WHICH I WILL
DISCUSS FURTHER IN A FEW MOMENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT
PROPER EDUCATION OF AGRICULTURAL USERS CAN DO MUCH TO
REDUCE THESE SOURCES.
NOW THAT I'VE REVIEWED THE PRINCIPAL ROUTES OF
ENTRY OF PESTICIDES INTO WATER, I FEEL IT ONLY LOGICAL
TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE IN THE OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
ARE DOING IN THE AREA OF DETECTING AND MONITORING THESE
CHEMICALS IN OUR WATERWAYS. AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, THE
NATIONAL WATER MONITORING PROGRAM FOR PESTICIDES WAS
ORIGINALLY CONDUCTED BY THE U. S. PUBLIC HEALTH
66
-------
SERVICE. AS OF 1973, THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN JOINTLY
SPONSORED BY THE U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY -- WHICH
COLLECTS THE SAMPLES -- AND EPA, WHICH ANALYZES THE
SAMPLES. THERE IS A 162 STATION NETWORK DESIGNED TO
SAMPLE SURFACE WATERS AND SEDIMENT IN ORDER TO
ESTABLISH BASELINE RESIDUE LEVELS AND CHANGES
THEREFROM. WATER SAMPLES ARE COLLECTED QUARTERLY, AND
SEDIMENT SAMPLES GATHERED SEMI-ANNUALLY.
THE GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PERSONNEL NORMALLY COMPOSITE
SEVERAL DEPTH INTEGRATED WATER SAMPLES FROM THE CROSS
SECTION OF A STREAM. ALL SAMPLES ARE SENT TO THE EPA
PESTICIDE MONITORING LABORATORY AT BAY ST. LOUIS,
MISSISSIPPI, FOR ANALYSIS. SOIL AND WATER SAMPLES ARE
ANALYZED FOR CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS,
ORGANOPHOSPHATES, AND PHENOXY HERBICIDES. WE ARE
HOPEFUL OF EXPANDING THIS PROGRAM THIS YEAR.
WE ALSO CONDUCT A NATIONAL ESTUARINE MONITORING
PROGRAM WHICH IS INTENDED TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE, OR
ABSENCE, OF PERSISTENT PESTICIDE RESIDUES, ESTABLISH
BASELINE RESIDUE LEVELS, AND DETECT TRENDS. THE PROGRAM
WAS INITIATED IN 1965 BY THE GULF BREEZE LABORATORY,
WHICH WAS THEN A PART OF THE BUREAU OF COMMERCIAL
FISHERIES IN THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.
67
-------
THE PROGRAM TODAY INVOLVES THE SEMI-ANNUAL
COLLECTION OF COMPOSITE SAMPLES OF HERBIVOROUS AND
CARNIVOROUS FISH FROM 113 ESTUARIES IN THE UNITED
STATES, THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, AND PUERTO RICO. SAMPLES
OF FISH ARE COLLECTED THROUGH CONTRACTS AND VOLUNTARY
ASSISTANCE BY STATE AND UNIVERSITY PERSONNEL.
ALL SAMPLES ARE CURRENTLY ANALYZED FOR
ORGANOCHLORINES, ORGANOPHOSPHATES, PHENOXY HERBICIDES,
PCB'S, AND MERCURY. RESULTS OF THESE ANALYSES ARE
PUBLISHED, AND ARE OF CONSIDERABLE INTERNAL VALUE TO
THE AGENCY IN ASSESSING TRENDS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS.
EPA ALSO, IN COOPERATION WITH USDA, OPERATES A
SOIL MONITORING PROGRAM WHICH EXAMINES PESTICIDE
APPLICATION RATES, CROP UPTAKE AND SOIL RESIDUE. USDA
PERSONNEL COLLECT^THE SAMPLES AND USE DATA, AND EPA
PERFORMS THE RESIDUE ANALYSES. ALL SOIL SAMPLES ARE
ANALYZED FOR ARSENIC, CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS,
ORGANOPHOSPHATES, AND TRIOZINES. SAMPLES ARE ALSO
ANALYZED FOR PHENOXY HERBICIDES WHEN RECORDS INDICATE
APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE. CROP SAMPLES ARE ROUTINELY
ANALYZED FOR CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS AND
ORGANOPHOSPHATES, WHILE TRIAZINE AND PHENOXY HERBICIDE
68
-------
ANALYSES ARE PERFORMED IF THERE IS A RECORD OF THEIR
USE.
IN ADDITION, WHERE THE PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS
OF THE PESTICIDE RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT ITS MOBILITY IN
CERTAIN SOIL TYPES WITH A POTENTIAL FOR EASY TRANSFER
TO WATER, SPECIAL MONITORING PROJECTS ARE UNDERTAKEN.
AN EXAMPLE OF SUCH PROJECTS IS THE PICLORAM STUDY IN
TEXAS.
AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FACET OF THE EPA PESTICIDES
STRATEGY IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL MODELS WHICH
WILL REtATE THESE VARIOUS PIECES OF MONITORING
INFORMATION INTO AN ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS APPROACH.
ONE DANGER IN DESIGNING MONITORING PROGRAMS IS THE
POTENTIAL FOR MONITORING THE WRONG THINGS. THE
EXTENSION SERVICE IS IN THE FOREFRONT OF KNOWLEDGE
RELATED TO PESTICIDES IN CURRENT USE BY FARMERS, THOSE
WHOSE USE HAS BEEN CURTAILED, AND THOSE WHICH ARE THE
MOST LIKELY TO BE USED HEAVILY IN THE FUTURE. THIS
EXPERTISE CAN MAKE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS TOJHE PROPER
DESIGN AND CONSEQUENTLY THE VALUE OF OUR MONITORING
EFFORTS.
69
-------
THE OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS, OF COURSE,
ATTEMPTS TO MINIMIZE THE ESCAPE OF APPLIED PESTICIDES
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE
INITIAL REGISTRATION OF A PESTICIDE. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA REQUIREMENTS WERE DEVELOPED BEGINNING IN THE EARLY
'60'S AND FINALLY ARTICULATED IN STANDARDS IN 1970-
ALL APPLICATIONS INVOLVING NEW CHEMICALS OR CHANGED USE
PATTERNS OF ESTABLISHED CHEMICALS ARE SUBJECT TO DATA
REQUIREMENTS DEMONSTRATING SEVERAL IMPORTANT
CHARACTERISTICS AS FOLLOWS:
1. THE RATE OF DISSIPATION OF THE PESTICIDE IN
THE SOIL. STUDIES DEMONSTRATE THE LENGTH OF TIME
INVOLVED FOR THE PARENT COMPOUND AND DEGRADATION
PRODUCTS TO BE REDUCED TO SMALL PERCENTAGES OF THE
ORIGINAL APPLICATION. IF THE PROPOSED USE PATTERN
INDICATES, STUDIES MUST BE CONDUCTED WITH REPEATED
APPLICATIONS OF THE SUBJECT PRODUCT.
2. THE MECHANISM OF DEGRADATION OF THE PESTICIDE
RESIDUES. THESE STUDIES ARE OFTEN FIELD STUDIES WHICH
DEMONSTRATE SUCH FACTORS AS:
A. PHOTODECOMPOSITICN IK SOIL AND WATER
B. DEGRADATION AND METABOLISM FROM THE
PRESENCE OF MICROORGANISMS
C. HYDRADATION IN WATER
70
-------
D. DURATION OF THE BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY
3. THE PROPENSITY OF THE CHEMICAL TO LEACH IK THE
SOIL .
H. THE PROPENSITY OF THE CHEMICAL TO MOVE FROM
THE SITE Or APPLICATION.
5. THE PROPENSITY OF THE CHEMICAL TO BE BOUND IN
SOIL. IF RADIOCHEMICAL TRACER OR OTHER STUDIES
INDICATE THAT THE PESTICIDE IS BOUND, ADDITIONAL
STUDIES ARE REQUIRED TO
A. IDENTIFY THE RESIDUE
E. DEMONSTRATE THE PHYTOTOXICITY OF THE
RESIDUE
C. DETERMINE WHETHER BOUND RESIDUES MAY BE
RELEASED FROM THE SOIL BY PLANTS OTHER THAN THCSE
INITIALLY GROWN IN TREATED AREAS, SUCH AS ROTATIONAL
CROPS.
AND FINALLY
6. THE PROPENSITY OF THE CHEMICAL TO ACCUMULATE
IN THE FOOD CHAIN. STUDIES IN THIS AREA INVOLVE
FEEDING THE PESTICIDE, PRIMARILY, TO FISH, AND EXAMINING
THE TISSUE OF THE SUBJECT SPECIES FOR RESIDUES OF THE
CHEMICAL OR ITS METABOLITES.
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING FURTHER
DEFINED IN OUR REGULATIONS TO IMPLEMENT SECTION 3 OF
THE A MEND ED- FIFEA, AND IN THE MAJCF REVISION OF THE
'GUIDELINES FOR REGISTERING PESTICIDES IN THE UNITE:
STATES.' WHICH WE HOPE TC COMPLETE THIS FALL.
71
-------
BEFORE CLOSING, I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS
THE IMPACT OF THE 1972 AMENDMENTS TO FIFRA, AND THEIR
IMPLICATIONS CONCERNING NON-POINT SOURCES OF WATER
POLLUTION. THE PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE
LEGISLATION CAN, I BELIEVE, BE SUCCINTLY STATED BY THIS
QUOTATION FROM THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMTTEE'S REPORT
ON THE BILL:
THE COMMITTEE FOUND THE GREATEST NEED FOR REVISION
OF EXISTING LAWS TO BE IN THE AREAS OF
STRENGTHENING REGULATORY CONTROL ON THE USES AND
USERS OF PESTICIDES; SPEEDING UP PROCEDURES FOR
BARRING PESTICIDES FOUND TO BE UNDESIRABLE;
STREAMLINING PROCEDURES FOR MAKING NEW MEASURES,
PROCEDURES, AND MATERIALS BROADLY AVAILABLE;
STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES TO PROTECT
AGAINST MISUSE OF THESE BIOLOGICALLY EFFECTIVE
MATERIALS; AND CREATING AN ADMINISTRATIVE AND
LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH CONTINUED RESEARCH
CAN PRODUCE MORE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT BETTER WAYS TO
USE EXISTING PESTICIDES AS WELL AS DEVELOPING
ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS OF PEST CONTROL
. . . OLD FIFRA IS CHANGED FROM A LABELING TO A
REGULATORY PROGRAM.
THE NEW FIFRA FOR THE FIRST TIME MAKES MISUSE OF
PESTICIDE PRODUCTS AN ILLEGAL ACT, PUNISHABLE BY CIVIL
72
-------
AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES. FOR THE FIRST TIME, TOO,
PESTICIDES WILL BE CLASSIFIED FOR GENERAL OR RESTRICTED
USE, WITH THOSE IN THE RESTRICTED CATEGORY LIMITED TO
USE BY CERTIFIED APPLICATORS OR ANY OTHER RESTRICTONS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR. INTRASTATE
PRODUCTS AS WELL AS THOSE SHIPPED IN INT-ERSTATE
COMMERCE WILL BE SUBJECT TO REGISTRATION. IN SHORT,
THE NEW ACT PROVIDES THE AGENCY WITH SIGNIFICANTLY
STRENGTHENED POWERS TO CONTROL THE FATE OF PESTICIDE
CHEMICALS THROUGH TIGHTER REGULATON AND ENFORCEMENT
RECOURSES. THE MOST HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, IN TERMS OF
POTENTIAL HARM TO THE APPLICATOR OR TO THE ENVIRONMENT,
WILL BE USED ONLY BY THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED.
COMPETENCE TO HANDLE THESE PRODUCTS PROPERLY. THESE
PROVISIONS, WILL, WE ANTICIPATE, MINIMIZE MISUSE,
OVERUSE, ACCIDENTAL SPILLS, AND IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF
PESTICIDE PRODUCTS. THE NEW LAW, FURTHER, AUTHORIZES
THE AGENCY TO REGULATE PESTICIDE DISPOSAL IN GENERAL,
AND WE HAVE ALREADY PUBLISHED SOME GUIDANCE IN THIS
AREA IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.
THE OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS INTENDS TO
EXERCISE ITS NEW REGULATORY AUTHORITY IN A MANNER WHICH
STRIVES TO ENSURE THAT PESTICIDES ARE USED
73
-------
INTELLIGENTLY, JUDICIOUSLY, AND WITHOUT "UNREASONABLE
EFFECTS ON HAN AND THE ENVIRONMENT." THIS CONCEPT IS
FOREMOST IN OUR THOUGHTS AS WE DEVELOP REGULATIONS TO
IMPLEMENT THE NEW LEGISLATION. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT
THE STEPS WE ARE TAKING TO MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE EFFECTS
OF PESTICIDE PRODUCTS, BOTH THROUGH OUR REGULATORY
INVOLVEMENT AND THROUGH HELPING FUND SUCH ACTIVITIES AS
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, WILL RESULT IN
WISER USE AND FEWER MISHAPS INVOLVING THESE CHEMICALS,
AND IMPROVED QUALITY OF OUR EARTH, AIR, AND WATER
RESOURCES.
EPA AND USDA HAVE ENTERED INTO INTERAGENCY
AGREEMENTS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL TO BEST UTILIZE THE
CAPABILITIES OF EACH AGENCY IN ANALYSIS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ECONOMIC AND PRODUCTION EFFECTS,
PROBLEM SOLUTIONS, AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, MECHANISMS
FOR INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE IN ADDRESSING THESE AREAS OF
CONCERN. REGIONAL OFFICES OF EPA HAVE BEEN AUGMENTING
THESE NATIONAL AGREEMENTS ON A MORE SPECIALIZED BASIS
WITH COOPERATIVE STATE EXTENSION SERVICES. SUCH
ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN MANY CASES, BUT WE
NEED TO GO FARTHER. THIS CONFERENCE PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BETTER DELINEATE POTENTIAL AVENUES OF
74
-------
COOPERATION AND MUTUAL EFFORT. ALONG THESE LINES, THE
EXTENSION SERVICE HAS A POTENTIALLY MAJOR ROLE TO PLAY
WITH RESPECT TO REDUCING PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION OF OUR
WATER RESOURCES BY ASSURING, THROUGH ITS UNEOUALED
CAPACITY FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER,
- THAT SOUND USE OF PESTICIDES IS PRACTICED IN
AGRICULTURE,
- THAT TRAINING OF APPLICATORS FOR RESTRICTED USE
PESTICIDES IS CARRIED FORTH IN AN EXPEDITIOUS FASHION,
- THAT REDUCTION IN PESTICIDE USE IS ACHIEVED
WHERE IPM TECHNIQUES MAKE THIS FEASIBLE AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIRABLE. IPM HAS IN MANY CASES BEEN
SHOWN ADVANTAGEOUS, BUT INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS IN
REACHING GROWERS SEEMS TO LAG.
IN TURN, EPA HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK
CLOSELY AND REALISTICALLY AT THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE
CONSEQUENCES OF PESTICIDE USE AND APPROACH ITS
REGULATORY MISSION REALISTICALLY, IN TERMS OF BOTH THE
BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PESTICIDES TO THE AGRICULTURAL
COMMUNITY AND TO SOCIETY AT LARGE.
IF WE IN EPA AND USDA DO NOT MUTUALLY MESH OUR
RESPECTIVE MANDATES TO THE BENEFIT OF MAN AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE CAN ONLY STAND TO
75
-------
BE THE LOSER.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS OUR
PROGRAM WITH YOU TODAY, AND WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.
76
-------
Agricultural Water Pollution
Control - A Regional Perspective*
by
Francis T. Mayo**
We, in the Environmental Protection Agency, appreciate the opportunity
to meet with the Extension Service and discuss nonpoint source pollution
problems, and to develop firm communications for the agricultural role in
helping solve environmental problems.
Region V covers the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Ohio and Wisconsin. We have initiated several programs which involve the
Extension Service and I would like to state the success we are havina with
these programs can be attributed to your efforts and cooperation.
Our first meeting, with the Extension Directors, was called on
June 3, 1973. From this conference, we set in motion our working relation-
ship with the Extension. The agenda for the conference was simple and
informal. We covered EPA's organizational structure and followed with
specific programs, such as the (1) permit program; (2) solid waste: (3)
pesticides; (4) research; (5) livestock feedlots, and (6) erosion.
*To be presented at the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control
Workshop, Mayflower Hotel, Colonial Room, Washington, D. C., September 16-
17, 1974.
**Regional Administrator, Region V, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1 North Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
77
-------
Scope of Nonpoint Source Program within Region V
Our nonpoint source pollution program in Region V does not have a
specific identity as such, but crosses over several divisional lines.
The most active program at the present is the International Joint Commis-
sion. This is a joint agreement between the United States and Canada.
Included in this program is the Sec. 108 program which also addresses
itself to pollution control of the Great Lakes. Under these proarams,
we have committed $11.9 million to seven projects. We class all of these
programs as nonpoint in nature and they will also satisfy the requirements
of the Water Bill (P.L. 92-500).
The Surveillance and Analysis Division is involved in the Great
Lakes by developing programs, furnishing project directors, computinq
sediment loadings, and setting up the data to be stored and analyzed by
STORET.
In our Air and Water Programs Division we have planners and a
special section on interagency planning which meets with State and Federal
agencies. The guidance for this program falls under Sees. 208, 303, 304
and 305(b) of the Water Bill (P.L. 92-500). I believe these sections are
particularly important to our cooperative effort to control water pollution,
These sections not only provide insight into what are nonpoint sources,
but also set a pattern for the implementation of our common programs.
Probably the greatest input from Extension would be related to
agricultural permits in EPA. On May 3, 1973, proposed rule-making was
78
-------
published in the Federal Register covering livestock. This established
who must apply for an NPDES permit, and the rules covering the large
operators in livestock feeding. Thus, we must finally address the problem
of small feeders and Extension must play a major role to help develop the
standards and engineering designs that will reduce the pollution. But,
the major thrust later will be the educational materials with meetinqs
to implement the concepts.
To be more specific about our programs, I will give you a brief
review of our pilot control projects and studies.
Black Creek Pilot Control Project #1
The Black Creek Project is located Northeast of Fort Wayne in Allen
County, Indiana, and is a tributary to the Maumee River Basin. The pur-
pose of the project is to assess the Environmental Impact of Land Use on
Water Quality. The prime contract was made with the Allen County Soil
and Water Conservation District for $1.9 million over a five-year period.
This District Board in turn subcontracts, by agreements, with Purdue
University for the research, and with the Soil Conservation Service for
planning and technical assistance. This watershed has approximately 170
farm families, and a contract is written with each farm family to install
farm and structural practices for water quality improvement.
The major participants include local, county, State, and Federal
agencies all cooperating to make this project function.
79
-------
The project has been operating for over a year. From the Black
Creek project, we have released two publications. The first one was the
work plan entitled, "Environmental Impact of Land Use on Water Quality11
and the second publication is an "Operating Manual". These publications
have been distributed to you at this Conference.
I would like to elaborate briefly on the "Operations Manual" because
this publication gives the details of just how this project is conducted.
The first thing you will note on the second and third pages is a
list of principal participants. You can see it's quite extensive.
The handbook contains the basic policies, regulations and specifica-
tions for the administration of the Black Creek Project.
It is hoped that the data obtained from this study can be applied
specifically to the Maumee River Basin, and, in general, to other areas
to reduce sedimentation and improve water quality.
Under administrative heading, we define areas of authority and
responsibility of all participants in the project and give a typical
flow diagram of the grant process.
The application section gives who and what land is eligible with
a procedure for the farmers to apply for assistance. A priority system
was developed to expedite the program.
80
-------
For the plan of operation, we describe the selection of conservation
practices and give details on the development of 5-year plans with the
farmer and farmer groups. We define the procedure for plan approval and
certification by contracting officer.
Under the section on contracts, the legal aspects are given such as
contract modification, termination, termination by mutual consent, viola-
tions, compliance, and appeals. We also give a procedure for group
contracting.
The handbook gives cost-sharing for each approved practice and
defines cost-sharing not subject to claims.
Research to be carried out on the project is given in detail such
as the goals, techniques, monitoring, surface flow, and subsurface flow.
The type of stage recorders has been given with the location of the rain
gauges. We also give what elements will be tested for and the analytical
procedures to be used. Other research includes tillage trials with
rainulator (simulated rainfall) tests on each tillage practice. Modeling
and prediction with data management is described. Also gives biological
studies and fish collection. Throughout the project, a social-economic
study will be conducted.
In the Appendix of the handbook, examples of all agreements, con-
tracts and project accounting formats are exhibited.
81
-------
Pilot Control Project #2 - Western Lake Superior Basin Erosion-Sediment
Control Program (Minnesota and Wisconsin)
This project will cover the famous Red Clay Area. The soils are
very unstable and are a source of pollution into Lake Superior and the
Harbor of Superior, Wisconsin.
The planning of this project is extremely complicated due to the
fact that it will involve two States and five counties. Here aaain, we
have asked for the cooperation of many local organizations, county, State
and Federal agencies, and have received their enthusiastic participation.
The project has been funded by EPA for $2.7 million over a 4-year
period. A plan of implementation will be developed shortly.
Pilot Control Project #3 - Menomonee River Basin (Wisconsin)
Our third pilot control project in the erosion-sediment control field
is located on the Menomonee River in Wisconsin. The major thrust of this
project will be to develop and implement a sediment control ordinance with
institutional arrangements developed initiating control methodology on
urban and rural lands.
The project has been funded from Sec. 108 funds for $2.2 million and
is in the planning stage.
All three projects I have spoke of are implementing programs with
concurrent research. The projects are not study or state-of-the-art
programs.
82
-------
International Joint Commission - Michigan State University Sub-Basins
C$953.000 Additional f
Methodology
Felton-Herron Creek Subwatershed Studies (Tasks 1-4): As part of the
study plan for the Felton-Herron Creek Program, Michigan State University
investigators will look, in detail, at the entire cycle of water reachina
the land, its modifications while on the land, and the quality of the water
and associated materials as they leave the land and enter the receiving
watercourse. The physical facilities now available for this study are
uniquely suited for an in-depth evaluation of liquid irrigation sites.
The facility, covering approximately one square mile, constitutes
the majority of a well defined watershed and includes a diverse array of
soils quite typical of the Great Lakes States. Conceptually, and from an
analytical viewpoint, this area represents a microcosm for most land
irrigation sites in the Great Lakes Basin.
Available will be flexibility in stressing the spray irrigation
site with an array of water application regimes and water qualities,
ranging from almost continuous application to no application above that
of natural rainfall. Quality can be varied from that of a poor quality
secondary effluent to application of water treated to high purity and
low solids concentration. Under this system, nearly all of the recognized
types of application of water to land can be evaluated with concurrent
measurement of stress effects. Included would be the response of a
broad array of vegetative types, rate and quality of runoff from these
83
-------
vegetative types, effectiveness of different soils, and effects on macro
and microclimate. The transport of water through underground systems can
be measured on both tilled and untilled areas. Through a series of 64
monitoring wells (now installed) it will be possible to thoroughly
characterize vertical and lateral water dispersion. In addition, the
chemical constituents of the applied water can be traced through the soil
mantle and on into the entrace to the potable water aquifer or as it may
be discharged in the form of springs to the nearest watercourse.
The public health aspects of runoff and groundwater will be examined
in detail. Programs now underway have already perfected a variety of virus
isolation techniques and these are now being applied to surface and ground-
water in the area for necessary background information.
Within the Felton-Herron Creek watershed are two well-defined micro-
watersheds of size and design to enable the partitioning of runoff due to
independent treatments. Tested here will be variables that in a larger system
would be possible to conduct detailed analyses of the effects of ground
vegetation of water quality and effect of cropping procedures on the ground
vegetation itself or to the quality of the water leaving the watershed.
Within the microwatersheds and throughout the entire area will be an
extensive network of climatic and water quality monitoring instrumentation.
Weighing and non-weighing lysimeters will be installed to provide invaluable
information on evapotranspiration, a little understood but extremely important
variable in water balance studies.
84
-------
M-ill Creek Subwatershed Studies (Tasks 5-6): Activities for this phase of
the subwatershed program will focus on drainage from a fruit orchard area in
Southwestern lower Michigan. This area has been the subject of intensive
research activity in recent years and with supplemental funding for hydro-
local studies and increased sampling activity the output of results
applicable to IJC objectives will be greatly accelerated.
This area is extremely important because of its heavy pesticide use
pattern and the subsequent implications of the ranslocation of the pesti-
cides into the Great Lakes via runoff and/or evaporation and subsequent
precipitation. Of special importance is the persistence of the newer
pesticides that are replacing the chlorinated hydrocarbons and how far
they move in a watershed system.
85
-------
WIND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
Neil Woodruff
I. Introduction
A. Assignment
Provide background information on magnitude of problem, conse-
quences and hazards from blowing soil, and methods of control.
B. Modus operandi
Define and discuss reasons for occurrence, areal extent, quanti-
ties of soil transported, consequences, factors affecting, and
principles and methods of control.
II. The Problem
A. Definition and kinds of duststorms
1. Wind erosion is simply removal and transport by wind.
2. Kinds of duststorms are khamsin, haboob, desert, and steppe.
3. Average area involved is 188 square miles.
4. Duration is 6.5 hours.
B. Reasons for occurrence
1. Soil conditions are unprotected, smooth, bare, loose, finely
granulated.
2. Kind of agriculture is wheat and sorghum or any crop having
large expanses.
3. Winds are strong, exceeding 35 mph at least 2 percent of time,
43 mph for 1 hour each 2 years, 41 mph for 3 hours each 2
years. Magnitudes are high and greater than 400.
4. Droughts occur frequently and there is close correlation with
duststorms.
C. Areal extent
1. Locations with wind erosion problems are Great Plains, Great
Lakes, Eastern Seaboard, Southeastern Coastal, California,
and Northwest.
2. Wind erosion is dominant problem on 70 million acres, 34 per-
cent is adequately protected so 46 million need special
practices.
-------
3. Land damaged ranges for last 30 years are 1 to 16 million
acres per year. Average is 4.8 million acres per year.
III. Quantities of Soil Transported
A. Modes of transport are surface creep (500 to 1,000 y), saltation
(100 to 500 y), suspension (less than 100 y).
B. Proportions in modes are highly variable but in round numbers
20 percent surface creep, 70 percent saltation, 10 percent
suspension.
C. Concentrations
3
1. Individual storms in 1950's ranged from 675 to 280,000 yg/m .
2. Decade of 1950's averaged 4,850 yg/m3.
3. Decade of 1960's averaged 3,538 yg/m3.
D. Dust passage
3 2
1. 1950's averaged 61 x 10 tons/vertical mile .
3 7
2. 1960's averaged 13 x 10 tons/vertical mile .
E. Dust particulate loads
1. 1950's averaged 37 to 551 million tons/year with a 244 million
ton/year average.
2. 1960's averaged 77 million tons/year.
F. Deposition
1. Available estimates in 1950's indicate 1.5 tons/acre average.
2. In 1960's, measurements showed deposition dependent on
distance from heart of old dust bowl. It averaged 1,164
close in and 7 pounds per acre per month at distances greater
than 1,000 miles.
G. Saltation and surface creep transport
Depends on climate and size of areas. Bad years and large areas
average 25 tons per acre. Good years and large areas average 2
tons per acre per year. Individual fields may lose 75 to 350 tons
per acre per year.
37
-------
IV. Consequences
3
A. Pollutes air, and concentrations far exceed 80 ug/m , considered
tolerable.
B. Removes silt, clay, organic matter, and plant nutrients, thus
lowering land productivity.
C. Causes auto accidents.
D. Interferes with air travel; buries fences, ditches, and roads;
fouls machinery and electrical switching apparatus, etc.
E. Pollutes water
1. When soil materials eroded by wind are blown into drainage
ditches, streams, lakes, and reservoirs, or are dropped back
to earth's surface, water may be polluted.
2. Relative importance
a. Wind erosion is a minor contributor to water pollution
compared to water erosion.
b. Worldwide sediment delivery to oceans ranges from 66 to
397 million tons per year or only about 1 percent of
total delivery from other sources.
c. In the United States, good estimates of the proportion
of windblown materials going to inland waters are not
available but it is estimated that 154 million tons per
year during periods of low wind erosion incidence and
488 million tons per year during high incidence are
equally deposited over land and water areas. However,
this is less than 4 percent and about 12 percent, respec-
tively, of the estimated 4 billion tons of sediment
washed into streams each year. Short distance transport
in surface creep and saltation into drainageways may
indirectly contribute an additional 480,000 tons per fi
year during low wind erosion incident years and 6.0 x 10
tons per year during high erosion incident years.
3. Contaminates other than soil particles
a. In addition to soil particles, wind may carry plant
nutrients, animal wastes, residues from burning, and
pesticides.
b. Conclusive data on quantities and extent of adsorption
of pesticides on dust particles is lacking; however, some
measurements indicate a low (14 ppb) hazard from dust
contaminated with insecticide.
83
-------
Factors Affecting Wind Erosion
A. Major factors affecting the amount of wind erosion from a given
field are soil cloddiness, surface roughness, windspeed and
direction, soil moisture, field length, and vegetative cover.
1. Clods prevent erosion because they are large enough to
resist wind force and they shelter other erodible materials.
2. Roughness alters windspeed by absorbing and deflecting part
of wind energy.
3. Erosion decreases as soil moisture increases. Air-dry soil
erodes about 1 1/3 times more rapidly than soil at wilting
point for plants.
4. The amount of soil loss from given field is determined by
distance across field along prevailing wind direction and
windspeed. A 30 mph wind is more than 3 times more erosive
than 20 mph wind.
5. Living and dead vegetative cover reduces wind erosion by
preventing direct force of wind from reaching soil particles
and trapping moving particles.
6. Interaction of these factors is expressed in a wind erosion
equation: E = f(I',K',C',L',V).
Principles and Methods of Control
A. Principles
1. Establish and maintain vegetative or nonvegetative cover.
2. Produce, or bring to the soil surface, aggregates or clods
large enough to resist wind forces.
3. Roughen land surface.
4. Reduce field width along prevailing wind direction.
5. Level or bench land, where economically feasible.
B. Methods of control
Principles of wind erosion control can be applied by following
a number of practices—some permanent, some temporary.
1. Establish and maintain vegetative cover.
89
-------
a. Use stubble mulch or conservation tillage practices
with general goal of maintaining as much residue on
land in a standing or near erect condition as is com-
patible with seed planting procedures.
b. Plant cover crops where land is .bare between regular
crops.
c. Control grazing of both rangeland and winter wheat to
prevent complete denuding of vegetation and pulverizing
of soil.
d. Use crop rotations in which two or more crops or one
crop and fallow are alternated on given area in regular
sequence.
e. Regrass and reforest areas such as sand dunes, blowouts,
and other unproductive land to prevent spread of erosion
to more productive land.
f. Apply hauled-in mulches or nonvegetative and processed
covers to areas of severe erosion or to areas with high
economic return.
2. Roughen the land surface
a. Most effective roughness height is 2 to 5 inches.
b. Conservation tillage leaves rougher than conventional
tillage.
c. Special planters such as deep-furrow drills are especially
effective in providing wind-resistant surfaces.
d. Use emergency tillage as last resort when other means of
control fail.
3. Produce soil clods and aggregates
a. Soil clods larger than 0.84 mm in diameter are resistant
to wind erosion.
b. Degree of cloddiness needed depends on levels of other
factors affecting wind erosion and can be calculated
with wind erosion equation.
c. Degree of cloddiness produced by tillage depends on soil
texture, soil moisture, speed of operation, and kind of
tillage tool.
90
-------
4. Reduce field widths along prevailing wind direction
a. Wind erosion is an avalanching process; therefore, any
measure that reduces field length along prevailing wind
direction reduces erosion.
b. Use stripcrops oriented at right angles to prevailing
winds. Required widths vary with soil texture, cloddi-
ness, roughness, and wind velocity and can be calculated
with wind erosion equation.
c. Use wind barriers of trees and shrubs in 1 to 10 rows,
narrow rows of field crops, snow fences, solid wooden
or rock walls, and earthen banks. Effectiveness of any
barrier depends on wind velocity and direction, and on
shape, width, height, and porosity of the barrier.
5. Level or bench land
a. Land is sometimes leveled or benched for purpose of
irrigation, water erosion control, and moisture con-
servation, and these modifications affect rate and
amount of erosion by wind.
b. Research information on the relationship between land
modification and wind erosion is meager but estimates
in Great Plains indicate shortening field lengths from
1,000 to 100 feet by benching reduces erosion by 50
percent.
91
-------
References
1. Brown, Merle J., and L. D. Bark. Drought in Kansas. Kans. Agr.
Expt. Sta. Bui. 547, 12 pp., 1971.
2. Chepil, W. S., and N. P. Woodruff. Sedimentary characteristics of
dust storms: II. Visibility and dust concentration. Amer, Jour.
Sci. 255:104-114, 1957.
3. Free, E. E. The movement of soil materials by the wind. USDA Bureau
of Soils Bui. No. 68, 272 pp., 1911.
4. Hagen, L. J., and N. P. Woodruff. Air pollution from duststorms in
the Great Plains. Atmos. Environ. 7:323-332, 1973.
5. Hagen, L. J., and N. P. Woodruff. Particulate loads caused by wind
erosion in the Great Plains. Paper No. 73-102, Proc. 66th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Assoc., Chicago, 111., June 1973.
6. Johnson, Wendell C. Wind in the Southwestern Great Plains. USDA-
ARS Conservation Res. Rpt. No. 6, 65 pp., 1965.
7. Judson, Sheldon. Erosion of the land. American Scientist 56(4):
356-374, 1968.
8. Skidmore, E. L., and N. P. Woodruff. Wind erosion forces in the
United States and their use in predicting soil loss. USDA Agr. Hand-
book No. 346, 42 pp., 1968.
9. Smith, R. M., and Page C. Twiss. Extensive gaging of dust deposition
rates. Trans. Kans. Acad. of Sci. 68(2):311-321, 1965.
10. Svobida, Lawrence. An Empire of Dust. The Caxton Printers, Ltd.,
Caldwell, Idaho, 203 pp., 1940.
11. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil and Water Conservation Needs—A
National Inventory. Prepared by Conservation Needs Inventory Comm.
Misc. Pub. No. 971, 94 pp., 1965.
12. Wadleigh, Cecil H. Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
USDA Misc. Pub. No. 1065, 112 pp., 1968.
13. Woodruff, N. P., and L. J. Hagen. Dust in the Great Plains. Proc.
of Great Plains Agr. Council Seminar on Control of Agriculture-
Related Pollution in the Great Plains, pp. 241-258, Lincoln, Nebraska,
1972.
14. Woodruff, N. P.. Leon Lyles, F. H. Siddoway, and D. W. Fryrear. How
to control wind erosion. USDA Agr. Inf. Bui. No. 354, 22 pp., 1972.
92
-------
15. Woodruff, N. P., and F. H. Siddoway. Wind erosion control. Proc.
National Conservation Tillage Conf., pp. 156-162, Des Moines, Iowa,
1972.
16. Woodruff, N. P., and F. H. Siddoway. A wind erosion equation. Soil
Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 29(5):602-608, 1965.
93
-------
WATER EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION^'
21
Minoru Amemiya-
I. Introduction
A. Erosion-sediment relationships
B. Consequences of soil erosion
1. On-site
2. Off-site
II. Factors affecting soil erosion by water
A. Soil erosion—a physical process involving detachment
and transport of soil material
B. Universal soil loss equation
1. Rainfall
2. Soil properties
3. Slope length and steepness
4. Cropping management
5. Supporting practices
C. Examples of available research information related to
soil erosion by water
1. Water infiltration and storage
- An outline of material prepared for presentation at the national
ECOP-EPA workshop on agricultural non-point source pollution control,
September 16-17, 1974, Washington, B.C.
21
- Professor of agronomy and extension agronomist, Iowa State
University, Ames,,Iowa.
94
-------
2. Energy considerations
3. Vegetative cover
4. Soil wettability
III. Soil erosion control
A. Objective is to dissipate energy of forces involved
B. Vegetative cover
C. Tillage methods
D. Slope modification
IV. Physical control of sediment
A. Agronomic
B. Structural
V. A program for erosion and sediment control
A. Elements
1. Education
2. Incentives
3. Control
B. USDA and EPA involvement
95
-------
References
Baver, L. D. 1956. Soil Physics. 3rd ed. New York, N. Y.: John Wiley.
Borst, H. L. and R. Woodburn. 1942. Effect of mulches and surface con-
ditions on the water relations and erosion of Muskingum soil. U.S.
Dept. of Agric. Tech. Bui. 825.
Burwell, R. E., R. R. Allmaras, and L. L. Sloneker. 1966. Structural
alteration of soil surfaces by tillage and rainfall. Jour. Soil and
Water Cons. 21:61-63.
Burwell, R. E. , L. L. Sloneker, and W. W. Nelson. 1968. Tillage influ-
ences water intake. Jour. Soil and Water Cons. 23:185-188.
De Bano, L. F. 1969. Water repellent soils. Agric. Sci. Rev. 7(2):11-18.
Duley, F. L. and M. F. Miller. 1923. Erosion and surface runoff under
different soil conditions. Missouri Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. Bui. 63.
Glymph, L. M. 1956. Importance of sheet erosion as a source of sediment.
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 38:903-7.
Gottschalk, L. C. 1964. Reservoir sedimentation. In Handbook of Applied
Hydrology, ed. V. T. Chow. pp. 17-1 to 17-34. New York, N. Y. :
McGraw-Hill.
Holtan, H. N. 1965. A model for computing watershed retention from soil
parameters. Jour. Soil and Water Cons. 20:91-94.
Jacobson, P. 1966. New developments in land terrace systems. Am. Soc.
Trans. Am. Soc. of Agric. Eng. 9:576-577.
Kramer, L. A. and L. D. Meyer. 1968. Small amounts of surface mulch
reduce soil erosion and runoff velocity. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 12:638-641, 645.
Laflen, J. M. and W. C. Moldenhauer. 1971. Soil conservation on agri-
cultural land. Jour. Soil and Water Cons. 26:225-229.
Larson, W. E. 1964. Soil parameters for evaluating tillage needs and
operations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:119-122.
Mannering, J. V. and R. E. Burwell. 1968. Tillage methods to reduce
runoff and erosion in the Corn Belt. U.S. Dept. of Agric. Info.
Bui. 330.
96
-------
Mannering, J. V. and L. D. Meyer. 1963. Effects of various rates of
surface mulch on infiltration and erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
Proc. 27:84-86.
McCalla, T. M. and T. J. Army. 1961. Stubble mulch farming. Advances
in Agronomy 13:125-197.
Meyer, L. D. and J. V. Mannering. 1968. Tillage and land modification
for water erosion control. In Tillage for Greater Crop Production,
pp. 58-62. Am. Soc, Agric. Eng. PROC-168, St. Joseph, Michigan.
Moldenhauer, W. C. and W. D. Kemper. 1969. Interdependence of water
drop energy and clod size on infiltration and clod stability. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33:297-301.
Moldenhauer, W. C. and J. Koswara. 1968. Effect of initial clod size on
characterization of splash and wash erosion. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.
32:875-879.
Osborn, J. F. and R. E. Pelishek. 1964. Soil wettability as a factor in
erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 28:294-295.
Piest, R. F. and R. G. Spomer. 1968. Sheet and gully erosion in the
Missouri Valley loessial region. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng.
11:850-853.
Smith, D. D. and W. H. Wischmeier. 1962. Rainfall erosion. Advances in
Agronomy 14:109-148.
Soil Conservation Society of America. 1973. Conservation tillage: the
proceedings of a national conference. SCSA, Ankeny, Iowa.
U. S. Corps of Engineers. 1970. Fluvial sediment. In Upper Mississippi
River comprehensive basin study, Appendix G. U.S. Army Engineer
District, St. Louis, Missouri.
Wadleigh, C. H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
U.S. Dept. of Agric. Misc. Publ. 1065.
Wischmeier, W. H. and J. V. Mannering. 1969. Relation of soil properties
to its erodibility. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 33:131-137.
Wischmeier, W. H. and D. D. Smith, 1965. Predicting rainfall erosion
losses from cropland east of the Rocky Mountains. U.S. Dept. of
Agric. Agricultural Handbook 282.
Willrich, T. L. and G. E. Smith (editors). 1970. Agricultural practices and
water quality. 415 pp. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
97
-------
Economics of Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on Agricultural Production
By Harold R. Cosper*
The agricultural community has been developing and improving soil
conservation practices for a long time. The increased public demand
for improving water quality, as evidenced by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, has brought new focus to soil erosion and sediment control.
There are direct and indirect economic consequences that will result
from improving the quality of water. An evaluation of the economic
implications of reducing soil loss and sediment levels in streams and
lakes is critical if Federal and State water quality goals are to be
consistent with other goals of our society. I plan to discuss briefly
some of the critical economic considerations, economic information that
is presently available, and needs for additional information
Economic Concerns
The establishment of water quality standards raises a number of
economic questions: (1) What are the most economically efficient controls
to achieve improved water quality?; (2) What are the benefits?; and (3)
What are the adverse impacts? We need answers to these questions if we
are to decide how much society is willing to pay for improved water
quality and who should bear the costs. In other words, an appropriate
balance between public or social costs and benefits and private costs
and benefits must be determined.
The control of erosion and sediment has different impacts on differ-
ent individuals. A farmer's view of erosion control may differ consider-
ably from that of the sanitary engineer or the fisherman, because they
*Agricultural Economist, Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Lincoln, Nebraska
98
-------
are faced with different sets of cost and benefits. It is essential that
the various public and private costs and benefits associated with sediment
control be evaluated so that the economic trade-offs among alternative
control and sediment levels are known. Only by knowing the economic
trade-offs can society decide the appropriate goals, and the policies
needed to achieve these goals.
Soil erosion and sediment loss cause both on-site and off-site
damages. The erosion of these soils, the loss of plants nutrients and
pesticides resulting from this erosion, and gullying are common on-site
damages. Farmers can use a combination of production practices and
structures such as conservation tillage, strip cropping, terracing, and diver-
ion to control these damages. If the damages severely affect produc-
tivity and income, farmers readily appreciate the direct benefits that
would accrue to them by adopting these practices.
Off-site damages include out-of-bank flows and damage to bordering
lands and vegetation caused by waterways clogged by sediment. Other
adverse impacts of sedimentation (including plant and mineral elements
carried on the sediment) are unsuitable habitats for some species of fish,
eutrophication of receiving waters and resulting algal blooms, and decreased
recreation potential. These damages can be reduced by off-site control
methods involving dredging and collection basins. The off-site damages
can also be reduced by the use of on-site control practices previously
mentioned. However, unless the farmer receives direct benefits, it may
be difficult for him to justify adoption of these practices which require
additional investment and/or operating capital and make management more
complex. Certainly, this is why cost-sharing has been used to encourage
99
-------
on-site conservation practices.
There are other potential impacts than those mentioned above. If
decisions were made to set soil loss limits requiring intensive use of
control procedures and changes in cropping patterns, adverse regional
and national impacts could result. Unless on-site controls and practices
are consistent with high levels of productivity and improved farm income,
major shifts in total production, composition of production, location of
production, and productivity may occur. These effects would, in turn,
affect national supplies of food and fiber, consumer prices, foreign
trade, domestic consumption patterns. These impacts are critical.
Research is underway on these concerns, and more needs to be done.
Currently, detailed information on these problems is scanty.
Once the farm, regional and national damages have been assessed
attention must focus on another set of economic questions. What are
acceptable goals and standards for erosion and sediment control, and
how can they be achieved most effectively? This brings us back to the
evaluation of trade-offs between public and private benefits and costs.
A number of policy options, such as cost-sharing and tax advantages,
should be considered if we are to provide the necessary incentives
for adoption of erosion control practices.
To date, most of the attention on the economics of soil and sedi-
ment control has focused on site-specific farm situations. I am now
going to turn to a discussion of some of the site-specific information
that has been generated over the years. This type of research and
information is important, but we should not lose sight of the fact that
aggregate analyses are also critical if we are to meet reasonable
100
-------
environmental quality standards that are consistent with other goals of
our society.
Results of Some Site-Specific Economic Studies
Many studies dealing with the economics of soil conservation have
been made over the years in many different areas of the country. These
studies are site-specific, and a review of the literature reveals the
difficulty in generalizing the results of any particular study to other
areas. A review also indicates the sensitivity of results to particular
assumptions regarding economic and physical variables, such as planning
horizons, discount rates, prices and costs, conservation alternatives,
and the effects of conservation practices on short- and long-run
productivity.
Conservation measures can and frequently do pay off. However, in
many cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to project a payoff on
an individual farm basis. For example, a study of more than a hundred
farms in Northeastern Illinois concluded that conservation measures not
only were effective in maintaining soil productivity for future use,
but could also add to net farm income. However, these results were
obtainable only by increasing the level of inputs and outputs under a
higher level of managerial skill (24). A more recent study in the same
area considered the relationship between soil loss and crop yield, but
excluded changes in production techniques (30, 12). Income per acre
declined as the proportion of meadow in the crop rotation on a Swygert
soil was increased. However, farming on the contour was always more
101
-------
profitable than farming up and down the slope (Table 1). The study
assumed that decreased crop yield caused by increased erosion would not
be offset by increased use of fertilizer. A 5.0% discount rate was used
in computing the value of the net return from three cropping systems, two
planting techniques and four planning horizons.
Two systems were considered—up-and-down slope planting (6% slope)
and contour planting using three cropping systems for a 20-year planning
period. The difference in per acre net returns was $36 for continuous
corn, $14 for a corn-corn/soybean-oat rotation, and $9 for a meadow
rotation. Continuous corn grown on the contour gave the highest net
return per acre. Soil losses declined with contouring and as the propor-
tion in meadow increased (Table 2). The 2 years of meadow farmed on the
contour reduced soil loss by more than one-third of that for continuous
corn on the contour on a 6% slope, but with a sacrifice in income of
$21 per acre.
Planting and tillage techniques as a means of soil and water con-
servation had their beginning many years ago (7). However, conservation
tillage was not readily accepted by most farmers. Farmers were accustomed
to clean-tilled fields and were reluctant to accept the trashy appearance
associated with the limited till system. Also, new types of planting
equipment were needed, as well as a higher level of farm management.
Reduced Tillage Systems
Reduced tillage, if properly managed produces yields comparable to
other tillage methods, reduces tillage costs, and significantly reduces
soil losses by erosion (3, 18, 22, 5, 32, 19). Early efforts with
conservation tillage sometimes showed yield reduction, due primarily to
improper residue placement (23, 16).
102
-------
Table 1.—Value of accumulated income per acre, by rotation, slope, method
of cultivation, and length of planning horizon (discount rate
of 5.0%), Northeastern Illinois*
Length of
planning
horizon
in years
5
10
20
30
Continuous crop : C-C-SB-0-M : C-C-0-M-M
Slope : Slope : Slope
Up and down : Contouring : Up and down : Contouring : Up and down : Contouring
4% : 6% : 4% : 6% : 4% : 6% : 4% : 6% : 4% : 6% : 4% : 6%
103
177
267
310
79
130
180
192
106
185
289
347
83
143
216
251
89
157
245
295
j_/uj_j.ciJ-a
66
113
170
197
90
159
253
309
67
118
184
221
87
154
246
300
69
120
186
223
88
156
250
307
70
123
195
237
*Swanson, E. R. and C. E. Harshbarger, 1963. An Economic Analysis of Effects of Soil Loss
On Crop Yields, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 19, No. 5
-------
Table 2.—Annual soil loss estimates from Swygert
silt loam soil, by crop rotation and
planting systems*
Crop rotation
Continuous Corn
C-C-SB-0-M
C-C-0-M-M
Planting technique
Up and down slope: Contour
4% slope:6% slope:4% slope:6% slope
_L Olio /
18.8 29.2
7.4 13.6
4.4 8.2
9.4 14.6
3.7 6.8
2.2 4.1
*Swanson, E.R. and C.E. Harshbarger, 1963. An Economic
Analysis of Effects of Soil Loss
on Crop Yields.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 19, No. 5.
Conservation tillage procedures require fewer tillage operations, and
therefore reduce the cost of operation. Planting and tillage costs
with a till plant system on a sandy loam soil in central Nebraska were
approximately half the cost of the conventional planting system (34).
Planting and tillage costs for conventional planted corn were $14.12,
per-acre, lister planting $8.79, and till planting $7.54 (Table 3). The
lower costs due to reduced tillage would, to some degree, be counter-
balanced by increased herbicide costs. Soil loss from both the no-till
and till plant systems was only a fraction of the loss from convention-
ally tilled field under two simulated storm intensities (Table 4).
Similar studies at the same location for a wheat-fallow rotation
indicated yearly per acre field production costs of $7.50 for convent-
ional tillage at $6.25 for the stubble mulch system and $5.25 for the no-
till system including herbicide costs (25, 33).
104
-------
Conventional tillage and stubble mulch tillage for a wheat-
fallow rotation were compared in a study for eastern Washington. All
production costs were considered. This study concluded that stubble
mulch tillage increased production costs $2.15 per acre over the costs
for conventional tillage (9). However, a soil loss was reduced 30
to 50 percent.
Terracing
Altering the topography of the land to protect against soil
erosion is both complex and costly. Terracing systems not only require
a large initial capital outlay for construction, but also a yearly
maintenance to insure proper operation.
Various economic studies have been made to determine the economic
feasibility of terracing as a soil conservation alternative. A major
problem is to obtain reliable estimates of probable yields with and
without terracing. In apprasing the economic feasibility and methods
and practices to reduce soil loss, the following factors are important.
(1) Length of the planning period,
(2) Difference in yields over the appropriate time period,
(3) The discount rate to be used, and
(4) Product and factor prices over the appropriate time period.
A study of terracing in the southern Piedmont area of North Carolina
concluded that benefits exceeded costs only if a low discount rate at
or near the 2.5 % level was used for capital investment (11). A similar
case study was made of 24 sample farms representing specific situations
in the four southern states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama,
and Tennessee (10).
105
-------
Table 3. —Per acre planting and tillage costs for three crop
production systems on a sandy loam soil, central
Nebraska*
Field Operation
Cutting Stalks ^J
Disking
Plowing
Harrowing
Planting ?J
Rotary ho ing
Cultivation ^J
Cultivation
Total Cost
Conventional :
1.62
1.58
3.52
1.20
1.95
0.97
1.64
1.64
14.12
Planting systen
Lister :
— — Dollars — — -
1.62
1.58
—
—
2.31
—
1.64
1.64
8.79
i
Till
1.62
—
—
—
2.64
—
1.64
1.64
7.54
*Wittmus, H. D. and N. P. Swanson 1964. Till Planted Corn
Reduces Soil Loss. Agricultural Engineering, Vol. 45
I/ Stalk cutting replaces one disking operation
2J All planters equipped with fertilizer and band application
attachments.
3/ Cultivator equipped with fertilizer attachments.
Table 4.—Soil loss from a Bridgeport very fine sandy loam
under three tillage systems and two storm intensities,
North Platte, Nebraska*
Tillage System
Convential tillage
Till-plant
No-till
60-minute sto
2% inches rain
hour
10.7
3.4
0.8
rm, 18-minute storm,
per 4 inches rain per
hour
Tons /Acre — ~ —— — ~ — — —
8.0
3.2
0.4
*Whittmus, H. E. and N. P. Swanson, 1964. Till-planted Corn Reduces
Soil Loss. Agricultural Enginerring, Vol. 45
-------
Reduction in soil loss was based on the universal soil loss equation,
expanded to the county level for each situation. The study indicated
that the costs for terracing were generally greater than benefits re-
ceived for most of the sample farms. This relationship varied with the
interest charge and length of planning period used.
Conservation alternatives, including crop rotation with and with-
out a terracing system, were compared for the Walnut Creek Watershed
of northeastern Kansas. Without a soil loss restriction, the most pro-
fitable farming system in this study was a fertilized, unterraced
rotation.
Table 5 shows construction costs for a terracing system for each
of the six soil groups. Total terracing costs, based on 100 acres of
cropland, ranged from $2,202 to $2,689.
Table 5.—Terracing construction costs based on 100 acres of cropland
with and without ACP payments, Walnut Creek Watershed,
Brown County, Kansas*
Soil Type and Slope
Marshalling and Sharpburg,
2-4%
Marshalling and Sharpburg,
5-7%
Grundy, 2-4%
Grundy 5-7%
Shelby, 5-7%
Shelby, 8-11%
Cost of Construction
Operator's
Without ACP payment :
2,202
2,493
2,271
2,582
2,493
2,689
*Micheel, Charles C. and Charles W. Nauheim, 1961,
Conservation Northeastern Kansas. Ag. Econ. Refs.
Cost
With ACP payment
755
834
774
856
834
887
Economics
No. 101,
of Soil
Kansas
Ag. Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas
107
-------
Average net return for 100 acres with terraces was $3,446 with
an estimated soil loss per acre was estimated of at 9 tons/acre. If
the farmer paid an average of $2,455 for terracing to achieve a 5 -
ton/acre soil loss level, his net return would be reduced $152. When
society paid an average of $1,632 of the terracing cost, leaving $823
for the farmer to pay, these farm net revenue would be reduced only
$88. This resulted in an annual private benefit of $64 ($152 minus
$88) for a one-time social cost of $1,632.
A study of the Mendota West Fork Watershed in north-central
Illinois concluded that annual net income above nonland costs for
continuous corn with convential tillage, planted up and down the
slope, was $86.15 per acre, with an estimated annual soil loss of
12.66 tons per acre (20). Off-site sediment damages (costs) from
this system, based on the cost of dredging, were estimated at $4,525.
Plow-planted continuous corn, contoured and terraced, yielded an
annual net income above nonland costs of $84.51 per acre, with an
annual soil loss of 1.51 tons per acre. Off-site sediment damages
(costs), based on dredging costs, were $557- For the watershed as
a whole, considering both on-site and off-site effects, the latter
system showed $1,,601 in annual benefits.
A further sampling of completed research studies would reveal
that in many but not all instances, reduction of soil erosion to low
levels may increase production costs and reduce net farm incomes. It
follows, then, that stringent erosion control could result in lower
production and higher consumer food and fiber prices. This is the
nature of the trade-off that society must consider, if it wants fewer
pollutants in streams.
108
-------
Summary
Numerous private and public economic impacts are associated with
soil erosion and sediment controls to improve water quality. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act dictates that the public benefit
from improved water quality, but the magnitude of these benefits
has not been determined. Previous economic research on erosion and
sediment control has been site specific and does not permit a generalized
assessment of the magnitudes of impacts. The research does indicate
that in some instances the economic and environmental objectives of
erosion complement the objectives of economically efficient food and
fiber production. In other instances, the objectives are competitive.
Given the relatively slow rate of adoption of conservation practices,
even with cost-sharing, the latter situation is probably common.
Stringent guidelines to control erosion and sedimentation could
have adverse economic impacts on farmers, and in turn, pervade the food
and fiber production and marketing system. These impacts must be
balanced against the positive impacts to be realized from improved
water quality. More research is needed, especially on the aggregate
impacts of erosion and sediment control, if society is to evaluate the
economic trade-offs between public and private costs and benefits and
decide upon policy options consistent with society's goals for environ-
mental quality and food production.
109
-------
REFERENCES
1. A national program of research for soil and land use. A Joint
Task Force of the USDA and the State Universities and Land
Grant Colleges. April, 1969.
2. Agricultural engineers yearbook, 1973-74. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers R 291.1. Pp. 329-330.
3. Borst, H. L. and H. J. Mederski, 1957. Surface mulches and mulch
tillage for corn production. Res. Bui. No. 796, Ohio Agr. Exp.
Sta., Columbus, Ohio.
4. Brown, Carl B., 1948. Perspective on sedimentation. Proceedings,
Federal Inter-Agency Sedimentation Conference, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Washington, D. C.
5. Buchele, W. F. and W. G. Lovely, 1970. Use of crop residue
and surface topography in a compatible system for corn production.
Paper No. MC-70-701, Am. Soc. Agr. Engr. Midcentral Region Mtg.,
St. Joseph, Missouri.
6. The report of the Chief of Engineers to the Sec, of the Army on a
study of streambank erosion in the United States. Committee Print
91-11, Ninety-First Congress, 1st Session, House of Representatives,
Committee on Public Works. August, 1969.
7. Duley, F. L. and J. C. Russel, 1942. Machinery requirements for
farming through crop residues. Agr. Eng. 23:39-42.
8. Emerson, John W., July 23, 1971. Channelization; a case study.
Science Vol. 173: 325-326.
9. Erickson, Duane H. and Samuel M. Doran, 1973. Grain production
costs and returns in the Davenport-Edwall area of Washington.
EM No. 3780, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington.
10. Grubb, H. W. and G. S. Tolley, 1966. Benefits and costs of soil
conservation in the South. Tech. Bui. No. 172, North Carolina
Agricultural Experiment Station, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina.
11. Harris, G. S., G. S. Tolley and A. J. Coutu, 1963. Cropland rever-
sion in the South. A. E. Inf. Series 100, Dept. of Agr. Econ.,
North Carolina State College, Raleigh, North Carolina.
110
-------
12. Harshbarger, C. E. and E. R. Swanson, 1964. Soil loss tolerance
and the economics of soil conservation on Swygert soils. 111.
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 4, No. 2, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois.
13. Heady, Earl 0. and Carl N. Allen, May, 1951. Returns from capital
required for soil conservation farming systems. Research Bulletin
No. 381, Agricultural Experiment Station, Iowa State University
of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
14. Held, Burnell and Marion Clawson, 1965. Soil conservation in
perspective. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
15. Landgren, Norman E. and Jay C. Anderson, 1962. A method for
evaluating erosion control in farm planning. Agr. Econ. Research
Vol. XIV, No.. 2. Pp. 57-65.
16. McCalla, T. M., W. D. Guenzi and Fred A. Nordstat, 1964. Phyto-
toxic toxic substances in the stubble-mulch system. Trans. 8th
Congress Int. Soil Science Soc. Pp. 933-943.
17. Michael, Charles C. and Charles W. Nauheim, 1961. Economics of
soil conservation, northeastern Kansas. Ag. Econ. Rep. No. 101,
Kansas Agr. Exp. Sta., Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.
18. Moldenhauer, W. C. and M. Amemiya, 1967. Control erosion from
row-cropping today. Iowa Farm Sci. 12(10): 3-6.
19. Modenhauer, W. C., W. G. Lovely, N. P. Swason and H. D. Currence,
1971. Effects of row grades and tillage systems on soil and water
loss. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 26(5): 193-195.
20. Narayanan, A. S., M,. T. Lee, Karl Guntermann, W. D. Seitz and
E. R. Swanson, 1974. Economic analysis of erosion and sedimentation
Mendota West Fork Watershed. Agr. Econ. Res. Rep. No. 126, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign,
Illinois.
21. Obstacles to conservation on midwestern farms. North Central Farm
Management and Land Tenure Research Committees. Bui. No. 574,
Agr. Exp. Sta., University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri.
June, 1952. P. 9.
22. Olson, Tamlin C. and LaVern S. Shoeberl, 1970. Corn yields, soil
temperature, and water use with four tillage methods in the western
corn belt. Agron. J. 62: 229-232.
Ill
-------
23. Parker, D. T. and W. E. Larson, 1962. Crop residue placement in
soil and its effect upon growth of corn. Agron. J. 54: 263-267.
24. Sauer, J., L. McGurk and L. J. Norton, June, 1950. Costs and
benefits from soil conservation in northeastern Illinois. Bui. 540,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois.
25. Smika, D. E. and G. A. Wicks, 1968. Soil water storage during
fallow in the central Great Plains as influenced by tillage and
herbicide treatments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 32: 591-595.
26. Spomer, R. G., W. D. Shrader, P. E. Rosenberry and E. L. Miller,
1973. Level terraces with stabilized backslopes on loessial crop-
land in the Missouri Valley: a cost-effectiveness study. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 28(3): 127-131.
27. Stall, John B., September, 1962. Soil conservation can reduce
reservoir sedimentation. Public Works. P. 125.
28. Stall, John B., 1966. Man's role in affecting the sedimentation of
streams and reservoirs. Proceedings of the Second Annual American
Water Resources Conferences, Chicago, Illinois.
29. Stall, John B., 1972. Effects of sediment on water quality. Journal
of Environmental Quality, Vol. 1, No. 4: 353-359.
30. Swanson, E. R. and C. E. Harshbarger, 1963. An economic analysis
of effects of soil loss on crop yields. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 19(5): 183-186.
31. Wadleigh, Cecil H., 1968. Wastes in- relation to^ agriculture, and
forestry. USDA Misc. Pub. No, 1065.
32. Whitaker, F. D., J. S. McKibben and M, M. Jones, 1966. Reduced
tillage in corn production. Res. Bui. No. 852/3, Mo. Agr. Exp.
Sta., Colubmia, Missouri.
33. Wicks, G. A. and D. E. Smika, 1973. Chemical fallow in a winter
wheat-fallow rotation. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. 21: 97-102.
34. Wittmus, H. D. and N. P. Swanson, 1964. Till planted corn reduces
soil loss. Agricultural Engineering 45: 256-257.
35. Drainage of agricultural lands. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of Census, Census of Agriculture, 1959, Vol. 4, Washington,
D. C., 1961. P. 3.
112
-------
ANIMAL WASTES AS A NON-POINT SOURCE
Frank J. Humenik, Associate Department Head
Biological and Agricultural Engineering
North Carolina State University at Raleigh
I. Non-point source regulations
A. Term definition
B. Logic and direction
C. Zero discharge concept for 1985
II. Current federal EPA effluent guidelines and limitations for feedlot industry
A. There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to navigable
waters; i.e.,
1. Overflow from a pretreatment unit such as a lagoon or oxidation ditch
2. Rainfall runoff from less than prescribed storms of 24-hour, 10-year
(1977) or 24-hour, 25-year (1983) that has come in contact with manure
in housing areas or feedlot condition.
B. A feedlot is defined as an area that does not support vegetative cover,
so when livestock are decentralized to allow crop or forage growth, the
combined effect of soil and vegetative assimilation and the lower rate of
manure deposition could reasonably be expected to preclude any significant
pollution problem and thus runoff from such an area does not have to be
restricted from flow into surface waters.
C. Waste pollutants may overflow to navigable waters when rainfall, either
chronic or catastrophic, cause an overflow of processed wastewater from
a facility designed, constructed, and operated to contain all processed
generated wastewater plus the feedlot runoff from a 24-hour, 25 year
rainfall event.
III. Point source conditions requiring control to achieve a no discharge or non-
point source situation
A. Stream discharge of pretreatment units
B. Rainfall runoff from feedlot condition for event less than specified storm
C. Direct stream contact during land application
D. Overload of terminal soil-plant receiver
E. Animal access to streams under certain conditions
113
-------
IV. Evaluation of non-point source situations
A. Rainfall data
1. Table I (mg/1)
2. Table II (kg/yr/M)
B. Runoff data for pasture land and land used for manure disposal
1. Table III - North Carolina and Wisconsin data
a. Similar data from North Carolina and Wisconsin are corroborative,
but caution must be exercised against universal applicability.
2. Table IV - elaboration of North Carolina data
a. Mass balance analyses for North Carolina study
Site E - 200 sows on 3 acres of dry lot plus waste from
300 confined hogs spread on 5 acres
Parameter % of total defecated load
recovered in stream
BOD 0.69%
TOG 1.66%
TKN 3.0%
b. Summation of literature mass balance data for feedlot and
disposal site runoff indicates generally less than 10% of
defecated raw waste load leaves in surface runoff.
C. Summary of non-point source characteristics
1. Table V
a. Note similar area yield rate for crop or unused land used for
manure disposal and other lands
D. Graphical summary of nitrogen and phosphorus contributions by various
non-point sources
1. Figure 1 (mg/1)
2. Figure 2 (kg/ha/yr)
a. Note similar yield for precipitation, land receiving manure and
other land uses, but much higher yields from animal feedlot
1 runoff.
114
-------
Sampling and analytical requirements for non-point source inputs
A, Parameter selection considerations
1. Environmental protection
2. Technical validity
3. Analytical requirements
4. Enforcement demands
B. Parameters suggested for evaluation of non-point source agricultural
pollution are:
1. Flow rate
20 pH
3. Temperature
4. Turbidity
5. Suspended sediment
6- Dissolved oxygen
7. BOD
8. P
9. N
10. MPH (coliform)
11. Specific conductance
C. Judgement basis
1. What is actual background quality or judgement basis?
2. Is background load beneficial, of minor local concern, or detrimental?
Regulatory approach
A. Relationship to previous or existing laws
1. Would non-point source criteria relate to stream quality classifications,
effluent guidelines and limitations, or no discharge regulations?
2. Could developing non-point source criteria result in disapproval of
terminal land application systems currently being constructed and
operated according to best available technology and EPA effluent
guidelines and limitations for the feedlot industry?
115
-------
3. Will fear of non-point source criteria severely hamstring current
progress to implement terminal land application systems for recycling
and elimination of point source discharge?
4. Can all non-point source inputs be controlled, treated, eliminated?
5. Is a uniform national criteria logically and technically sound for
control or assessment of non-point source inputs?
6. Allowance for different geoclimagraphic-land use regions: high
rainfall-runoff vs. low rainfall-runoff conditions.
B. Are we alluding to a zero tolerance concept?
VII. Control techniques
A. Control procedures are similar for all agricultural chemicals and basicallj
involve good conservation techniques.
B. Specific control techniques
1. Pretreatment alternatives
2. Application procedures
3. Loading and placement
4. Agronomic considerations
5. Contouring and terracing
6. Sediment basins
7. Water management structures
8. Grassland borders
C. Cost associated with contemporary waste treatment techniques is prohibitive
especially when compared with economics of land application and recycling
systems for nitrogen and phosphorus removal and utilization.
VIII. Proposed monitoring and regulatory criteria for animal waste
A. COD-nitrogen monitoring criteria
1. Least non-redundant and most technically feasible analyses that give
insight to all associated characteristics
2. Would be particularly applicable for overland flow or diffuse inputs
B. Regulatory approach
1» Define and enforce standards vs. recommended management practices
116
-------
Difficult questions
A. What length of overland attenuation zone is required between land disposal
site and receiving water?
B. What is total mass reduction associated with overland flow treatment
vs. dilution?
C. Does all rainfall runoff from prescribed storm carry pollutional load in
excess of natural runoff?
D. What accommodation should be made for local conditions and desires of
indigenous population?
117
-------
REFERENCES
Methods for Identifying and Evaluating the Nature and Extent of Nonpoint Sources
of Pollutants. EPA-430/9-73-014. October 1973. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Washington, D. C.
Methods and Practices for Controlling Water Pollution from Agricultural Nonpoint
Sources. EPA-430/9-73-015. October 1973. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Program Operations, Water Quality and Nonpoint Source
Control Division, Washington, D. C.
Loehr, R. C. Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-point Sources.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation. 46(8):1849-1872. August 1974.
Robbins, J. W. D., D. H. Howells, and Go J. Kriz. Stream Pollution from Animal
Production Units. Journal Water Pollution ontrol Federation. 44(8): 1536-1544,
August 1972.
Howells, D. H. _et al., Role of Animal Wastes in Agricultural Land Runoff. Final
Project Report. Project 13020 DGX EPA 1971.
Humenik, F. J., M. R. Overcash, and L. B. Driggers. Swine Production Industry Waste
Characterization and Management. North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
N. C.
118
-------
TABLE 1—Precipitation Characteristics
Constituent
Nitrogen
NH4-N
NOa-N
Inorganic Nf
Total N
Phosphorus
Total PO<-P
Hydrolyzable PO4-P
Suspended solids
COD
Major ions
Ca
Cl
Na
K
Mg
SO4
HCO,
Concentration under Given Conditions* (mg/1)
1963-64
Urban'
—
—
0.7
1.27
—
0.24
13
16
—
—
— .
—
—
— .
1963-64
Rural'
—
—
0.9
1.17
— .
0.08
11.7
9
—
—
—
—
—
— .
Cooper1
— .
0.14
—
— .
—
— .
— .
— ,
0.65
0.57
0.56
0.11
0.14
2.18
Northern
Europe1
0.06
0.31
—
—
—
—
—
— .
—
—
—
—
—
1963-69
Forest1'. "
0.16
0.30
— .
—
0.008
— .
— .
.
0.21
0.42
0.12
0.19
0.16
3.1
0
Feth'
0.17-1.5
0.56
—
. — .
—
— .
— .
.
—
,
— .
—
— .
4 yr
Ohio'
1.1
1.15
— .
0.02
,
.
.
Joyner1
—
0.73
0.04
.
.
,
—
—
—
* Data are primarily yearly averages; numbers in headings refer to references.
t Inorganic N = NH4, NO2, and NO3-N.
Originally presented by R. C. Loehr in Characteristics and Comparative
Magnitude of Non-point Sources. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, August 1974.
TABLE 2 .—Reported Precipitation Characteristics—Average Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Location
World mean
World mean
Europe and U. S.
Temperate zone
Humid temperature zone
New York
United Kingdom
Upland
Northern
Netherlands
Rural
Industrial
Canada
Hamilton, Out.
Ottawa
Ceylon
Western Australia
Scotland
Ithaca, N. Y.
Aurora, N. Y.
Geneva, N. Y.
Hubbard Brook, N. H.
Cincinnati, Ohiof
N
Total*
(kg/yr/ha)
6.2
(0.8-7.0)
8.7
(1.8-22.2)
—
—
5.6
10.0
8.2
8.7-19
8.5
16-100
—
7.7
(4.8-12.9)
—
0.5-3.2
8.2
— .
—
— .
—
9.6
NOi*
NHi-N
(kg/yr/ha)
—
—
0.8-2.1
6.8
—
—
—
—
• —
— •
6.0
—
12.9
—
—
7.4
7.6
8.3
5.8
5.2
p
(kg/yr/ha)
— •
—
—
—
— •
—
0.27
0.2-1.0
—
— '•
—
—
—
—
0.45-0.7
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.10
0.6
Reference
11 (pre-1954)
11 (1905)
11 (pre-1952)
11 (1938)
11 (I960)
11 (pre-1948)
12
12
13
13
14 (1948)
14 (1924-25)
14 (1941)
3
10 (1962-63)
15
15
15
16
9
* Data in parentheses indicate range of data.
t Average U. S. rainfall of 30 in. (76 cm)/yr assumed.
Originally presented by R. C. Loehr in Characteristics and Comparative
Magnitude of Non-point Sources. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, August 1974.
-------
TABLE 3.—Characteristics of Runoff from Pasture Land and Land Used for Manure Disposal
Location and
Conditions
North Carolina (g/
day/ha)
Wisconsin (kg/yr/ha)
Manure not spread
Manure applied*
Winter
Spring
Constituent
BOD
30
17
35
94
3,450
26
1,850
46
—
—
—
COD
_
750
10,700
320
4,350
720
—
—
—
TOC
63
124
97
150
3.750
72
2.250
150
—
—
—
NOa-N
_
1.8
1.7
4.0
46.5
8
14
—
—
—
—
Total N
7.6
10.4
7.7
38
400
10
435
5.8
4.4
(3.6-5.5)
12.7
(3.0-27)
3.8
(3.0-5.2)
Total P
2.8
0.6
3.5
25
130
1.8
—
1.8
1.3
(1.2-1.5)
2.9
(1.0-5.8)
0.8
(0.7-1.0)
Remarks
Mixed grains and orchard, swine
waste spread
Pasture, corn, orchard, swine waste
spread
250-hog drylot. row crops, wood.
grassland
Pasture for 50-100 dairy cows, plus
corn
Pasture for 160 cows on 15 acres
Poultry waste spread on 5 acres 3
times/yr
22 tons of poultry waste spread on 4
acres once
35 beef cows on 15 acres of pasture
3-yr average — 1967-69, dairy cattle
manure spread at the rate of 15
ton/acre
Refer-
ence
40
41
* High values due to a thaw and a 0.75-in. rain immediately after spreading manure In winter; manure spread in the spring was
incorporated into the soil after spreading.
Note: Acre X 0.405 = ha; in. X 2.54 = cm.
Originally presented by R. C. Loehr in Characteristics and Comparative
Magnitude of Non-point Sources. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation, August 1974.
120
-------
TABLE 4.—Site Data and Yearly Mean Stream Quality from Agricultural Land Runoff
Variable
Number of animals*
Watershed area, acres
Soil types
Slopes, %
Flow, cfs
gpd/acre
gpd/animal
Study period
Number of samples
FC, 103 col/100 ml
10» col/day/acre
10' col/day/animal
BODs, mg/1
Ib/day/acre
Ib/day/animal
TOC, mg/1
Ib/day/acre
Ib/day/animal
N, mg/1
Ib/day/acre
Ib/day/animal
P04, mg/1
Ib/day/acre
Ib/day/animal
Value at Given Site
F
Of
75
Sandy
loams
0-25
0.109
940
—
12/68-8/69
148
10.0
0.33
— .
2.0
0.015
—
14.6
0.111
—
1.4
0.011
—
0.2
0.002
—
E
sot
35
Sandy and
fine sandy
loams
0-15
0.040
740
510
12/68-8/69
176
190
5.12
3.58
4.7
0.028
0.020
9.6
0.057
0.040
3.7
0.022
0.015
1.2
0.007
0.005
K;
20§
50
Loamy
sands
0-6
0.047
590
1,540
4/69-8/69
100
370
8.2
20.4
6.4
0.031
0.079
17.6
0.087
0.216
1.7
0.008
0.021
1.9
0.009
0.023
P
42 #
65
Fine sandy
loams
2-10
0.055
550
850
6/69-4/70
108
9.6
0.19
0.30
5.2
0.023
0.036
14.2
0.063
0.097
3.5
0.015
0.024
1.2
0.005
0.008
X
38||
5
Sandy
loams
2-10
0.006
780
100
2/70-4/70
27
0.2
0.01
0
265
1.66
0.218
322
2.02
0.266
62
0.389
0.051
—
—
—
z
21**
25
Sandy
loams
0-25
0.020
520
620
11/69-4/70
78
30.7
0.58
0.69
9.8
0.041
0.049
32.5
0.136
0.162
2.6
0.011
0.012
1.1
0.005
0.006
* 1,000 Ib live weight basis.
•f Devoid of domestic animal wastes.
I 200 sows on 3 acres of dry lots plus wastes from 300 confined hogs spread on 5 acres.
§ 200 hogs on 6 acres of dry lots.
# 60 tons of poultry wastes plus shavings spread on 15 acres, yearly.
|| 22 tons of poultry wastes spread on 4 acres, once.
** 35 beef animals on 15 acres of pasture.
Note: Acres X 0.405 = ha; gal X 3.785 = 1; Ib X 0.454 = kg.
Originally presented by J. W. D. Robbins, D. H. Howells, and G. J.
Kriz, in Stream Pollution from Animal Production Units. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, August 1972.
121
-------
TABLE 5 ...—Summary of Non-Point Source Characteristics*
Sonrrp
Precipitation
Forested land
Range land
Agricultural crop land
Land receiving manure
Irrigation tile drainage.
western U. S.
Surface flow
Subsurface drainage
Crop land tile drainage
Urban land drainage
Seepage from stacked
manure
Feedlot runoff
Concentration (mg/1)
COD
9-16
—
—
80
—
— .
—
—
85-110
25.900-31.500
3,100-41,000
BOD
12-13
—
—
7
—
—
—
—
12-160
10.300-13.800
1,000-11.000
NOa-N
0.14-1.1
0.1 -1.3
0.4
—
0.4-1.5
1.8 -19
—
—
—
10-23
Total N
1.2-1.3
0.3-1.8
9
—
0.6-2.2
2.1-19
10-25
3
1.800-2,350
920-2,100
Total P
0.02-0.04
0.01-0.11
0.02-1.7
—
0.2 -0.4
0.1 -0.3
0.02-0.7
0.2 -1.1
190-280
290-360
Area Yield Rate (kg/yr/lia)
COD
124
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
220-310
- —
7,200
BOD
—
—
—
—
—
—
30-50
—
1,560
NOj-N
1.5-4.1
0.7-8. S
0.7
—
—
83
—
—
—
— .
Total N
5.6-10
3-13
—
0.1-13
4-13
3-27
42-186
0.3-13
7-9
3
100-1,600
Total P
0.05-0.06
0.03-0.9
0.08
0.06-2.9
0.8 -2.9
1.0 -4.4
3-10
0.01-0.3
1.1-5.6
—
10-620
Surf r Ar nf T tnrpqt
Total land area
Forest area
Range land
Active crop kind
Crop or unused land used for
manure disposal
Irrigated western soils
Irrigated western soils
Active crop land requiring
drainage
Urban land areas
Manure holding area
Confined, unenclosed animal
holding areas
* Data do not reflect the extreme ranges caused by improper waste management or extreme storm conditions; the data represent the range of average values reported in previous tables.
Originally presented by R. C. Loehr in Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-point
Sources. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, August 1974.
-------
CONCENTRATION - mg/1
AREAL LOADING RATE - kg/ho/yr
3 ° — W 0 O
D O O p — cnpp g o
_ ui — biO boo 01
1 In --PRECIPITATION »- z§
. ixvoooovv^v^w^ FOREST
I"10 zpi>:^;;>^;>^vc^v^ LAND
r \ CROP ~y R
T3| | LJ5,fJ[) -^fcl
TJ| | zf^Njs^<^s^Nx^N>ssS\;s^^
^SUBSURFACE
PPHP 1 AMH Til F i •— i n ^^-^ »-»-»-«
DRAINAGE N>.SS>;a
URBAN LAND i 1 -^rq
nnAlNAGF ' •- •••' «•
O o O
O ^ A
MANURE SEEPAGE -p| | z^
ANIMAL FEEDLOT ^Q zf^s^
1 III
FOREST
LAND '
CROP
LAND n
LAND RECEIVI
IRRIGATION
RETURN
FLOWS
URBAN LAND
O
2 P -
O 01 O
till) I 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1
"1 -* . . PRPrtPITATlON
1 "0
•oQ RANGE LAND
3|
NG MANURE "o[
oUHrAt,t *• "|
SUBSURFACE
DRAINAGE T[Z
o ^:
o *•{*
h""""""^-v^-ysys^.
W 0 $3
bo b
Z t^s^Si^S^Si^
l^^^i^^^ijZ
| ts^^^s^lZ
c^s^^<^^SSi^lz
T^l 1
^" 2BSS^\^N^\\^X\>^J
« §
1 fc-^z
5
1
^ ANIMAL FEEDLOT
^ RUNOFF •
FIGURE 1.—Comparison of non-point sources^ giving range of
total N and P concentrations.
FIGURE 2.—Contributions of total N and P by various non-
point sources.
Originally presented by R. C. Loehr in Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-point Sources. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, August 1974.
-------
PLANT NUTRIENTS IN NON-POINT SOURCES OF WATER POLLUTION
Samuel R. Aldrich
(Agricultural Non-Point Source Water Pollution Control
Workshop. Washington, D. C. September 16-17, 1974)
I. STATUS AND TRENDS
Nearly all concern centers on nitrogen and phosphorus.
A. Nitrogen
1. Nitrate in many Corn Belt streams exceeds the
present USPHS standard (10 mg/1 NO~-N) for a few
weeks in most years.
2. Annual average N0~ concentrations in streams in
intensively farmed areas typically increased about
50 percent from 1956 to 1972; some increased only
25 percent, other 100 percent. NOj in the
Mississippi River above the confluence with the
Assistant Director, Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Illinois. Champaign-Urbana.
125
-------
Ohio River increased 50 percent from 1956 to 1973
(from 1 up to 2 mg/1 NO-N).
3. NO^ concentration in small streams in the northern
half of the U.S. tends to be highest in April
through June {but to be associated quite directly
with volume of flow at all times) and lowest in
July to September.
B. Phosphorus
1. The available phosphorus in most surface waters in
important agricultural areas is adequate to support
nuisance algal blooms if all other factors are
favorable (.01 mg/1 PO~ - P).
2. Neither total nor soluble phosphorus is increasing
very dramatically except locally where there are
major point-source inputs.
3. There is no strong seasonal trend in filtered
phosphates in medium to large rivers, but land
runoff would be highest in the fall and early
spring when the ground is frozen and residues have
decomposed.
126
-------
II. SOURCES AND MECHANISMS
A. Nitrogen
1. Sources
a. High inherent organic matter content in the
soil. Release is accelerated by drainage and
tillage.
b. Over-application of nitrogen fertilizer.
Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin researchers
found little accumulation of NOj in the soil
profile with 100 to 150 Ib. annual
applications. (Application in a corn-soybean
system is usually less than 100.)
c. Large applications of animal manure or sludge.
Suggested maximum of 20 to 30 tons annually of
large animal manure (h for poultry manure); 250
Ib. per acre of NH+-N in sludge the first year,
200 thereafter.
d. Nitrogen released from leguminous sod.
e. Rainfall (5-6 Ibs. generally, but higher
locally).
-------
f. Free living nitrogen fixers.
g. Colorado researchers reported that large
amounts of Ammonia were absorbed by surface
waters in the vicinity of large feedlots.
2. Mechanisms
a. Nitrogen reaches surface water by moving
through the soil to tile lines or in base flow,
The time scale is not established.
b. Most fertilizer nitrogen enters the biological
system in the year of application. How to
reconcile with downward moving bulge of NO^?
c. Nitrogen most vulnerable to moving is that in
NO^ form after crop uptake ceases in the fall.
Relates to hydrologic cycle.
B. Phosphorus
1. Sources
128
-------
a. Sediment resulting from erosion. Soil and
solution phosphorus equilibrates/ hence
sediment may increase or decrease soluble
content.
b. Soluble organic compounds from the decay of
plant residues especially when soil is frozen.
c. Soluble phosphates from animal manures
especially on sloping, frozen fields.
d. Fertilizer: only 1 percent following 5 inches
of simulated rainfall on a steep slope
(Purdue).
e. Rainfall. Amounts not well established.
2. Mechanisms
a. Phosphorus moves over the soil surface.
b. Retention capacity of agricultural soils
adequate to hold all practical rates of
application. (Some compounds "leak
through"?) (Michigan)
129
-------
c. Retention capacity can be exceeded by heavy,
repeated animal manure and sludge applications.
(Retention capacity regenerates within a few
months.)
III. ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
A. Nitrate Concentration in Water
1. Human health effects.
a. Fetus. Possible effects unknown. None
established.
b. Infants 0 to 6 months, especially with
digestive upsets. Most vulnerable because of
high gastric pH. Last death was in 1949.
U.S.P.H.S. Standard appears to have a sizeable
built-in safety factor, but some scientists
speculate that there are hidden, delayed
effects. Infants can be protected by alternate
water sources and possibly by assuring adequate
Vitamin C intake.
130
-------
c. Adults. No known problems within realistic
range, but a sensitive element in the
population has been postulated.
2. Livestock
a. Monogastric animals (swine, poultry). High
tolerance.
b. Ruminant animals (cattle, sheep). Less
tolerance than monograstric, but literature is
very confusing. No realistic problem is likely
to surface waters. Well water even up to 10
times USPHS standard has not caused
identifiable problems. Nitrates in corn stalks
and oats have caused deaths.
3. Aquatic life. Very sensitive to NH+. No toxicity
standards for NO^. Doubtful that N is the
controlling factor in eutrophication and excessive
algal growth.
131
-------
|V, CONTROL OR AMELIORATION
The 1977 goal of "best practicable control technology
currently available," the 1983 goal of "best available
technology economically achievable," and the 1985 goal of "no
discharge of pollutants" do not apply to non-point sources,
including agricultural runoff!
The 1983 "interim goal of water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife
and provides for recreation in and on water "whenever
attainable" does apply to non-point sources.
A. Nitrates
1. Match rate of fertilizer N to efficient crop
utilization. Raise crop yield potential with good
supporting practices.
2. No fall or early spring application on sands.
3. Discourage fall application generally (?); apply
late if at all and in NH+ form or compounds that
convert to NHt.
4
132
-------
4. Nitrification inhibitors? Possibly for fall
application generally and early spring on sandy
soils. Of doubtful value end may be
counter-productive for many situations because it
may increase the amount of NO^ in the soil after
crop growth ceases in the fall.
5. Minimize application of fertilizer and animal
manure on frozen, sloping fields near streams or
lakes.
6. Avoid over-application of manure or sludge.
7. Plant grass cover crops in the fall to absorb
8. Shifting dependence from fertilizer to organic
sources of N of doubtful value. (See item 4
above . )
B. Phosphorus
1. Control soil erosion.
2. Avoid building excessive phosphorus soil test
levels.
133
-------
3. Avoid application of fertilizer and animal manure
on frozen, sloping fields near streams, lakes, and
reservoirs.
4» Prevent direct runoff from feedlots.
50 Do not site large concentrations of livestock
adjacent to surface water.
6, Avoid exceeding the retention capacity of the soil
by applications of manure or sludge.
7. The impact of no~plow and trash mulch systems is
uncertain. Sediment yield will be less, but
phosphorus level of sediment will be higher,
Runoff of soluble organic phosphates will be
higher.
8. Large, infrequent broadcast applications plowed
under or disked in would minimize runoff.
C. The concept of amount of plant nutrients from non-point
sources ger unit of_ crop produced should be introduced
into the decision-making process.
134
-------
REFERENCES
Accumulation of Nitrate. 1972. National Academy of Sciences
Report.
Advisory Report on Health Effects of Nitrates in Water. 1974.
IIEQ Doc. No. 74-5 Illinois Institute for Environmental
Quality.
Aldrich, S. R. In the Matter of Plant Nutrients. 1972.
Decision of Illinois Pollution Control Board and
Supplemental Statement.
Aldrich, S. R., W. R. Oschwald, and J. B. Fehrenbacher.
Implications of Crop-Production Technology for
Environmental Quality. 1971. Environmental Geology Notes.
No. 46. Illinois State Geological Survey.
Aldrich, S. R. Some Effects of Crop-Production Technology on
Environmental Quality. 1972. Bio Science 22:2.90-95.
Aldrich, S. R. The influence of Cropping Patterns, Soil
Management and Fertilizers on Nitrates. 1970. Proceedings
135
-------
Nelson, D. W., L. B. Owens, and R. E. Terry. Denitrification
as a Pathway for Nitrate Removal in Aquatic Systems. 1973.
CAED Report No. 38. Tech. Report No. 42. Purdue
University. Water Resources Research Center.
Productive Agriculture and a Quality Environment. 1973.
Report of National Research Council.
Third Annual Report. Council on Environmental Quality. 1972.
Viets, F. G. and S. R. Aldrich. Crop Productions Sources of
Nitrogenous Compounds and Methods of Control. In
Nitrogenous Compounds in the Environment. 1973. EPA-SAB-
73-001.
Wiese, Richard A. and Deon D. AxtheIra. Proceedings Nitrogen in
the Environment. 1974. Univerisity of Nebraska.
136
-------
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
M. Frank Hersman
Director, Office of Intergovernmental
Science and Research Utilization
National Science Foundation
Washington, D.G. 20550
I would like to begin this evening on a rather lofty plane by quoting Alfred
North Whitehead. In his Lowell lecture series of 1925, Whitehead devoted one
lecture to "The Nineteenth Century," in which he stated:
The greatest invention of the 19th century was the invention of the
method of invention. We must concentrate on the method itselfj that
is the real novelty, which has broken up the foundations of the old
civilization. Science, conceived not so much in its principles as
in its results, is an obvious storehouse of ideas for utilization.
But, it is a great mistake to think that the bare scientific idea is
the required invention, so that it has only to be picked up and used.
An intense period of imaginative design lies between. It is a process
of disciplined attack upon one difficulty after another.
Almost a half century later, we are still in that learning process. This spring
one of the most sought-after documents in town was a National Academy of Engineering
booklet entitled Technology Transfer and Utilization! Recommendations for Redirecting
the Emphasis and Correcting the Imbalance. The popularity of this publication is
a clear indication of the lively and continuing interest in the topic of technology
transfer on the part of industrial leaders, academics, and government officials at
all levels. In its assessment of where we stand, the National Academy report had
this to sayi
The Federal government should not simply tell users about promising
technologies» it should concentrate instead on actually transforming
technical information into ultimate uses that fulfill public or private
socio-economic needs. This will likely require $1 billion annually, not
the $43 million currently being spent.
Another indication ol' the continuing interest in technology transfer is the forma-
tion of two Federal agency committees within the past several months. In April,
the Federal Council on Science and Technology chartered an Inter-agency ad hoc
Committee on Domestic Technology Transfer, which seeks to improve the process for
transferring technology from the Federal to the State and local levels. Last
month the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget con-
vened an Inter-agency Committee on Executive/Policy Management Assistance. This
committee, which I chair, is attempting to develop options and Federal strategies
for strengthening executive management capability of State and local governments.
These two committees are currently assessing where we stand vis a vis technology
transfer, in the hope of pinpointing successful approaches and learning from less
successful endeavors. One of the most tantalizing aspects of this field is that
there are so many paths to success, yet so many more dead-end roads.
This evening I'd like to survey briefly five of the strategies which people in
this field have pursued in order to facilitate the process of technology transfer.
137
-------
1. Increase technical capability of manpower in State and local governments.
The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (or IPA) program alms to improve State
and local core management, or "general government," capabilities through
personnel management improvements, employee training and development, and
temporary exchanges of expert personnel. This personnel exchange represents
a high degree of cooperation between levels of government, with over 1500
participants in the program's three years of existence.
The 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act has resulted in a con-
solidation o±' manpower programs, and is providing that most of the FY 1975
manpower appropriation be distributed to State and local governments. State
and local governments can then determine the best allocation of funds for
manpower training, public service employment, and other services.
2. Disseminate technological information to State and local governments.
In the past, Federal agencies have tended to depend upon the passive tech-
niques of collecting, indexing, storing, and disseminating scientific and
technical information upon the specific request of a potential user.
However, experience seems to indicate that an information system becomes more
useful as it becomes more needs-specific and/or functions as a broker instead
of a passive clearinghouse. Several mission agencies have undertaken more
active approaches — the USDA, the Department of Transportation, and the Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, to name a few.
The Department of Defense Laboratory Consortium, whose activities are
coordinated through a Federal laboratory liaison officer in the NSF Office
of Intergovernmental Science and Research Utilization, is a brokerage network
consisting of nearly 40 Federal laboratories which have undertaken over 100
technology transfer projects to date, with a reimbursed funding level in
excess of $10 million.
The Department of Transportation and the National Science Foundation have
recently funded the Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives in association
with Public Technology, Incorporated. PTI, a Washington-based non-profit
organization with 100 State and local dues-paying subscribers, seeks to pro-
vide technical information and products to State and local governments in a
form which is amenable to immediate application. The Urban Consortium net-
work, which links the 26 largest U.S. cities and six urban counties — repre-
senting 38 million Americans and a total budget of $21 billion — is a
cooperative technology transfer and utilization effort through which the cities
can identify common problems, seek the appropriate technology, exchange infor-
mation and work with the Federal or private R&D establishments to pursue
relevant research.
3. Increase State and Local participation in Federal science and technology
policymaking.
This is an area where much of the initiative has been - indeed, must be —
taken by the State and local leaders themselves. My committee and the
Federal Council for Science and Technology Committee place a high priority
on State and local inputs, but this is not enough. Greater opportunities
must be provided for State and local membership on Federal policymaking
committees. Furthermore, market aggregation through various networks is
bound to influence Federal policymakers more than isolated requests, and
more of this is needed. Active groups such as the Council of State Govern-
ments and the National League of Cities serve as an important link between
their constituents and Federal policymakers. In addition, individual State
138
-------
and local governments must actively seek a larger role, In much the same vein
as they worked to obtain general revenue-sharing. The recently-enacted energy
bill in California, with its specific provision that the State Energy Resources
Conservation and Development Commission should attempt to influence Federal
energy R&D priorities, may be a sign that States plan to have a greater say
in matters of vital importance to them,
4. Technical support to State and local governments from institutions with
science and technology resources.
Almost every Federal R&D agency has funded this kind of activity, so let me
mention just a few examples. The HUD-sponsored Urban Observatory program
offers university expertise to approximately a dozen cities. NASA's "TATs"
(Technology Application Teams), consisting of professional transfer agents
with a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, are based at research institutes
around the country. The NSF-supported Four Cities program in California and
the Tacoma, Washington, Totem I program are providing technical aerospace
personnel to local governmental units. The R&D Incentives Office at NSF is
sponsoring an Urban Technology System, a three-year, $f.2 million initiative
to foster innovative ways to accelerate the transfer of science and technology
to practical applications! 2? Technology Agents and their back-up technical
organizations, are serving 2? cities in the 50,000 - 500,000 population class.
5. Support or conduct research and/or demonstration projects.
Again, this is a popular option which many Federal agencies have followed.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example, has recently
launched a $2.5 million R&D project affecting over 60 cities in nine states,
with a primary goal of finding and testing management tools and techniques
which can be used by local government policymakers.
The National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, which is the
research center of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, supports
research, evaluation, and technology transfer projects. An interesting tech-
nology transfer technique is the Exemplary Projects program, through which
LEAA spotlights unusually promising practices and strategies In the field of
criminal justice. The Institute helps selected communities to reproduce
successful programs by providing handbooks and guidelines, specially tailored
training materials and courses, financial assistance, and evaluation.
Since it is your particular interest in environmental activities, especially as
they relate to Public Law 92-500, that brings you to Washington, I would like to
single out three environmentally-related technology transfer efforts for your
consideration,
First, I would mention the role of the International City Management Association
in providing city managers with usable information on current, successful methods
of solid waste management. The ICMA solid waste management project, under contract
with the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste Management Pro-
grams, came in response to EPA's concern that its technological products were not
being used at the local level. The ICMA response began with regional seminars,
with 100 participants becoming charter members of the Solid Waste Management Net-
work. Through this network the ICMA has disseminated products such as a solid
waste management decision-making guide, special technical information packages,
management information and inquiry services, and other relevant documentation.
In addition, professional transfer teams offer a manager-to-manager exchange for
139
-------
the purpose of information dissemination in subjects not addressed by the EPA
technical assistance staff. Thus, the EPA technical assistance staff provide
technological expertise and the professional transfer teams offer practical
managerial advice and experience to city managers facing solid waste disposal issues,
A second example is found at Lake Tahoe. Not only is the Lake Tahoe area an eco-
system where the quality of the land directly impacts that of the lake, but it also
exemplifies the thorny intergovernmental dilemmas which confront officials who must
decide how best to preserve the fragile ecology of Lake Tahoe, amid rapid development,
The Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, ratified by Congress in 1969. provided a strong
basis for coordination of the governmental activities of 15 Federal agencies, 20
State agencies, and a large number of local and intergovernmental bodies, through its
creation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This Agency is mandated to guaran-
tee the Basin's orderly development through preparation and enforcement of a regional
plan. While developing the plan, the Agency discovered an alarming lack of pertinent
qualitative and quantitative information, despite the considerable body of research
being undertaken by various groups. To address this need, the Lake Tahoe Area
Research Coordination Board, which is sponsored by my office, is identifying research
needs, encouraging research applicable to those needs, and developing an information
system to make the results readily available. The success potential for this pro-
ject is significantly enhanced for several reasons. It exists in response to a
specific need articulated by the user community. The Research Coordination Board is
easily accessible to the research and user communities which it servies. During its
first year it has sought new contacts and the development of research needs agendas,
and its inventories of research, seminars, and newsletters have contributed to the
Board's effectiveness and visibility. These factors, as well as the group's specific
environmental focus, make it likely that the Research Coordination Board will remain
an integral part of the research and planning process in the Lake Tahoe Basin.
I would like to conclude this evening by discussing a way in which the Cooperative
Extension Service might forge new links between agriculture and other scientific
disciplines, while at the same time strengthening its own technology transfer
capability.
In September 1972, the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a National Environ-
mental Information Symposium, where 1700 producers and users of environmental infor-
mation convened to explore how more efficient means of dissemination and utilization
of environmental information could be achieved. In response to the suggestion at
that meeting that the Cooperative Extension Service be tested as a delievery
mechanism for environmental information, we at NSF hosted a meeting of EPA, USDA,
and Extension Service representatives, where it was agreed that feasibility studies
should be undertaken. Colorado State University, Oklahoma State University, and the
University of Tennessee were awarded small planning grants to survey environmental
problems in their respective states and to develop pilot programs for an Environ-
mental Extension System.
Each of the proposed pilot programs has a difrerent mode for reaching its own
target groups. Tennessee will try a joint operation of two independent agencies —
the Agricultural Extension Service and the Institute for Public Service — to locate
environmental information and then re-package it appropriately to make it useful to
towns and small cities in a four-county region in the southeastern part of the State.
Oklahoma, by linking its Cooperative Extension Service with strong on-campus back-
up and a network of advisory committees, will attempt to address a limited number of
statewide issues. The Oklahoma project will engage in training programs for present
County Agents to increase their capability to provide specific environmental advice
on topics which are given priority by the groups they serve. The traditional County
140
-------
Agent approach, supplemented by on-site Environmental Technology Transfer Agents
and campus-based Environmental Specialists, is the strategy to be employed in
Colorado to deal with a wide range of problems faced by three different communities
in environmentally distinct regions of the State.
Several factors point to the probable success of an Environmental Extension
System based on the Cooperative Extension Service, provided that adequate funds
are allocated to the project. Over sixty years' experience in agricultural
technology transfer has resulted in credibility and respect for your well-
established delivery system. As professional Extension workers, your contacts
with both the academic world and the user communities are already well defined.
The Environmental Protection Agency Office of Technology Transfer has indicated
its commitment to provide every possible kind of technical assistance to help
ensure the success of this pilot venture. This commitment is particularly im-
portant to make sure that Extension workers have access to and understanding of
R&D results from government and industrial laboratories. The expertise and
contacts available through the staff of NSF's Division of Advanced Environmental
Research and Technology will complement that of the EPA.
I hope that the time is right for the Cooperative Extension Service, based on
its enviable success in the past, to accept a new challenge and to contribute
its unique capabilities to help this Nation understand and protect its environ-
mental heritage. I hope that you also will share my enthusiasm for this oppor-
tunity to write a new chapter in the story of technology transfer.
141
-------
Subject Matter Report
Water Erosion and Sedimentation
Discussion Leader: Robert D. Walker
Recorder: Berlie L. Schmidt
Conservation tillage for controlling soil erosion was considered
an excellent soil erosion control practice by the thirty participants
in the workshop session. There are many types of conservation tillage
ranging from plow - plant systems to no-till. The no-till system is
generally the most effective soil erosion control system but is dependent on
chemicals for weed and insect control and requires the highest degree of
management. No-till systems seem best adapted to the South and South-east
and with drained soil. The chisel plow or disk system that leaves some
crop residue on the surface is used in the Great Plains and Corn Belt to
control wind and water erosion, but may result in reduced yields or poorly
drained soil. Regardless of the system selected, the farmer is making a
compromise in his farming system to best meet his needs. The system is
re-evaluated each year.
Conservation tillage alone will not control all field soil erosion.
It should be supplemented with other practices such as contouring, grass
waterways, structures, terraces, etc. depending on the need.
Most states that have developed soil erosion reflations have adopted
the soil loss tolerance (T values) as their standards for permissable soil
142
-------
loss. T values are based on the amount of soil loss that scientists believe
should not be exceeded if we expect to maintain production over a long period.
The group felt that we need further refinement through research of the T
values. In addition, we need more information on how a soil erosion program
will affect water quality.
Discussion was centered primarily around controlling soil erosion on
agricultural land, but soil erosion from urban development, highway construc-
tion, stream banks and gullies was also recognized as adding silt to streams
and lakes. A water quality program must consider all sources of soil erosion.
Section 305(b)of PL 92-500 places responsibility on states to develop
guidelines and standards. The Cooperative Extension Service can assist in
developing guidelines by supplying their own expertise, by identifyinn local
leadership, and by taking the proposed guidelines out in the state for public
input. The program should be conducted in such a way that the Extension
Service and Land Grant University is not identified with establishina regu-
lations or they may lose much of their effectiveness in carrying out
educational programs.
Development of guidelines at the state and local level will be
required to solve specific local soil erosion problems. For example, soil
erosion on irrigated lands, low organic matter soils, deep loess areas,
forest areas, etc.
14:
-------
We have the knowledge to develop soil conservation programs to control
much of the man made soil erosion but, because of social and economical!
reasons, many farmers have not adopted conservation programs. We need
additional information on how to get farmers to accept sound soil erosion
control programs.
Several major problem areas were not covered in the conference and
should be considered for a future conference. These include soil erosion
on irrigated land, salt problems as related to irrigation, soil erosion
on federal land, and soil erosion on forest land.
Because there were no participants that selected the Workshop on
Wind Erosion and Sedimentation, this workshop was combined with the work-
shop on Water Erosion and Sedimentation. The consensus of the discussion
leader and the resource person (Dr. Woodruff) was that, while wind erosion
is a concern regarding air quality, there is little concern about the
contribution of wind derived sediment to water quality degradation.
144
-------
SUBJECT HATTER REPORT
on
ANIMAL WASTEV
Probably in no area has the intensity of Extension involvement in pollution
control been greater than in the field of livestock waste management. Most
of us have by now grown accustomed to the fragile balances we sometimes have
to maintain in dealing with both agricultural producers and regulatory agencies
while maintaining our posture as educators. We hope the wisdom this expetiehce
has provided can help guide Extension programs in agricultural non-point source
pollution control in the days ahead.
The discussion session on animal waste as a non-point source of water pollution
was attended by some 41 persons. The main thrust of our discussion was to
identify areas of agreement to assist EPA in establishing regulatory programs
and to guide Extension educational programs that will begin to unfold. In a
lively two-hour discussion session, we addressed ten questions, with responses
summarized below:
Question 1;
Answer:
What is the limit to land disposal rates for animals manures
such that non-point source pollution problems are avoided?
The acceptable loading rate all depends upon waste characteristics
as well as climatic and economic factors. Application rates foir
disposal vs. utilization of animal wastes are widely different,
ranging (on a 40% moisture basis) from as high as 150 to 300 tons
per acre per year for disposal with minimal crop damage to as low
as 10 tons per acre per year for maximum utilization of manure
fertilization value. Surface and ground water qualities are not
impaired by application rates consistent with maximum economic
utilization of manure, according to most research.
Will stream watering sites for cattle be affected by non-point
source regulations, guidelines, or standards?
EPA should not define pollution potential in terms of animal units,
expecially for non-point sources. Each farm or feeding operation
should be inspected individually; this is far better than any
national guideline.
What would people look for or measure during on-site inspection of
a livestock operation?
Multi-parameter equations, which relate factors such as number of
animal units, type of facility, distance to stream, waste manage-
ment practices, etc., to pollution potential, are helpful and
have been used sucessfully by some state agencies. Sampling to
prove the existence or non-existence of a pollution problem is
^Extension - EPA Workshop on Non-Point Source Pollution, Washington, B.C.,
September 16 - 17, 1974; Ted L. Willrich, Oregon State University, discussion
leader; John M. Sweeten, Texas A&M University, reporter.
Question 2;
Answer:
Question 3;
Answer:
145
-------
Question 4:
Answer:
Question 5:
Answer:
difficult and expensive. The method of assessment may not differ
much from procedures already used for identifying point-source
pollution problems. Extension can have maximum impact in training
regulatory officials in the agricultural community as to just what
constitutes a real vs. an imagined pollution problem.
Have the State Extension Services conducted statewide programs for
producers in the area of animal waste management and pollution
abatement?
This has apparently been done in most states, whether through
commodity channels, Extension meetings, publications, mass media,
or whatever. In this connection, however, specialists felt that
the credibility of Extension programs are impaired when specialists
are unable to answer positively that animal waste management
systems recommended today will be acceptable with respect to
forthcoming regulations on non-point sources or odors. This
would especially be true at the present time when non-point source
regulations are expected and the current animal-unit definition of
a point source may be lowered as a result of litigation. Not all
states have experienced the credibility problem, however.
Amid changing regulations, the surest bet is to expound basic
measures that are known to be helpful both in controlling pollution
AND in streamlining the onerous task of manure management. Examples
of such basic steps include diversion of outside drainage, providing
adequate manure storage capacity, collecting obviously polluted
runoff from corral areas, and proper land disposal of manure to
recycle plant nutrients.
Are present practices that ultimately involve land disposal adequate
from the standpoint of non-point source pollution control?
Research at various locations has shown that runoff from manure-
applied land did not contain appreciably higher pollutant loadings
than runoff from natural or "background" areas.
Some participants suggested that agencies and/or Extension develop
guidelines for land disposal that would assure compliance and avoid
the almost impossible task of monitoring every agricultural water-
shed that contains livestock. From recent and ongoing research
it may be possible to define these loading rates. Other participant!
took the view that we could not wait for research to define these
loading levels and prediction models, but rather that we need to
work now with agencies, farmers, and environmental interest groups.
Because of the obvious infeasibility of monitoring every watershed,
participants favored design ("good practice") standards versus
performance standards for determining acceptability of livestock
operations. If an operation conforms to "good practice", the
producer should be considered in compliance.
146
-------
Question 6; Can we define good agricultural practices in terms of best
practical and best available technologies?
Angwer; EPA officials feel that someone in agriculture needs to define
or to certify just what constitutes "good practice". Extension's
role in this might be a very controversial one. However, the
group concluded that Extension should provide general recommenda-
tions to agencies as to what constitutes "good practice" within
a given industry segment on a state and local basis only.
Question 7; What considerations need to be a part of non-point source guide-
lines?
Answer; One approach would be to handle all waste water and any runoff
from corrals and manure disposal areas as if it were polluted;
in other words, requiring zero discharge automatically. On the
other hand, some argued that many practices that would otherwise
appear pollutional are proving otherwise by careful research. A
middle of the road approach might be to apply manures and waste-
waters to land at rates that make maximum economic use of the
nutrients as fertilizer. Otherwise, discussion of this question
was inconclusive and incomplete.
Question 8; What constraints are imposed by regulatory manpower levels in
trying to establish non-point source requirements?
Answer; EPA does not want (and from a practical standpoint is unable) to
establish a program of issuing permits to every livestock operation
in the U.S. One approach to building a state regulatory staff to
handle increasing demands entails using fees collected from permittees
(on a per head basis) to hire additional manpower.
When an agency's reach exceeds its grasp, its credibility and the
level of compliance can suffer. For example, one state has experi-
enced a low level of registration (about 10%) with a four-year old
regulation which swine producers feel is unjustified and discrimin-
atory.
Question 9; What should EPA non-point source criteria for livestock production
operations be?
Answer; Most participants felt we should be able to categorically exclude
certain activities such as proper land disposal based on research
data presented to date. One EPA official felt that we may already
be near or at the point of zero discharge from a practical stand-
point when we exercise prudent land disposal. The agency should
rely on stream monitoring networks and state inventories of sources
to identify potentially serious or real non-point pollution sources.
Extension specialists can then work with these producers upon
request to solve their problems.
147
-------
The National Commission on Water Quality, created pursuant to
Section 515 of Public Law 92-500, should be given the benefit of
Extension expertise and experience in meeting its obligation to
define for Congress needed legislation. This is especially true
as controversy grows over the zero discharge concept. (See
attached resolution.)
Question 10; In reporting to Congress next October concerning state and federal
assessments of non-point source pollution problems, does EPA plan
at this point to ask for authority to directly regulate agricultural
non-point sources?
Answer; No. EPA has its hands full already in issuing permits to point
sources. And EPA does not feel it has the answer yet to establish
sound regulations for agricultural non-point sources.
148
-------
RESOLUTION
The discussion group on animal wastes, assembled at the Extension Service -
EPA Workshop on Non-Point Source Water Pollution Control, which convened
September 16 & 17, 1974 in Washington, B.C., unanimously adopted the following
resolution:*/
WHEREAS THE HYPOTHESIS OF ZERO DISCHARGE HAS BEEN PROMULGATED; AND, WHEREAS
THIS HYPOTHESIS HAS BEEN QUESTIONED FROM A TECHNICAL AND A PRACTICAL POSITION
OF ATTAINMENT;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY BE
REQUESTED TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY AND SOCIAL IMPLICATION OF SUCH A GOAL
THROUGH CONSULTATION WITH APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE AND OF LAND GRANT COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES.
resolution was drafted by Vic Osterli, Cooperative Extension Service,
University of California, and Ted L. Willrich, Cooperative Extension Service,
Oregon State University.
149
-------
SUBJECT MATTER REPORT - PESTICIDES
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Workshop
8:15-10:15 A.M., September 17, 1974
Mayflower Hotel, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Gayle L. Worf Dr. Burton R. Evans
Discussion Leader Recorder
Pesticide sources in water are acknowledaed to cone from
accidental or careless contamination; annlication procedures--
including spray drift-runoff; seepage or infiltration; and
contamination resulting from erosion of soil particulates to
which chemicals are attached.
Regulatory approaches toward pesticide contamination control
are recognized as an important element of environmental
protection. FEPCA (PL 92-516) provides a framework for
considerable control mechanisms, and as such, should supplement;
objectives and procedures of PL 92-500. For instance,
applicators using restricted use chemicals after October, 1976,
must be certified through a cooperative Federal-State
arrangement. However, users of "general use" pesticides will not
be so regulated. Furthermore, the residual pattern, solubility,
150
-------
fish and wildlife toxicity and similar characteristics must be
determined for all registered pesticides. This information
should be helpful in developing the most appropriate means of
selecting, applying and handling pesticides.
The law also directs procedures, which when properly followed
and/or enforced, will essentially eliminate water pollution that
presently results from chemical containers and leftover or
residual materials entering public waters accidentally or
carelessly. Examples of this include old pesticide barrels used
as floating devices and equipment rinse water flushed into water
directly or in waterways. There are some technical problems to
be resolved as yet, and there will be continued educational needs
to encourage applicators to follow the intent as well as the
letter of the law. Development of a deposit charge system for
reusable containers; triple rinse procedures; destruction and
proper disposal of non-recycling containers were suggested as
specific possibilities.
Monitoring^ programs are underway that help identify present
and potential contamination problems. Methodology of monitoring
remains a technical difficulty. What level of contamination by
pesticides can be tolerated? What levels of standard and
monitoring procedures will be established? Should these deal
151
-------
with the water—or both? Will the concept of "zero tolerance" be
applied to chemicals in water?
There is evidence that urban areas are a source of much
higher pesticide contamination per unit area than corresponding
rural areas. Both technical, legislative and educational needs
may be challenged by this fact.
Concern over drift contamination resulting from aerial
application was discussed. Other application procedures cause
drift problems, too, though they are less often reported or
Observed. The value of aerial application to agriculture in many
parts of the country was stated, but several violations of good
judgment were also noted. These included spraying over bodies of
water; during periods of excessive wind; without regard to
adjacent crops or properties, etc. Considerable technology
exists to help reduce contamination, e.g., foaming agents,
precision nozzles and equipment, etc. Some chemicals are likely
more adaptable to aerial application without adverse effects than
others. Assigning liability to applicator for contamination
problems may reduce error in judgment.
Deleterious effects of spraying involve psychological as well
as physiological phenomenan. Following a series of reported
livestock and human illnesses that always occurred after aerial
152
-------
application in one location, applications using water only were
made to examine effects on the number of such reports that would
occur. The same number of illnesses were reported, thus
verifying that emotions can play a substantial role in response
to chemical application.
The general concept of_ integrated pest management to reduce
overall pesticide use and the consequent employment of
alternative pest control programs, e.g., rotation, plowing under
debris, etc, in many instances will conflict with certain soil
conserving (and nonpoint water pollution control) practices. For
instance, no-till corn production requires an increase in
herbicide use and increases the threat of disease and insect
attack. Even with more precise application of farming
technology, which is a requirement of such practices, il: may be_
necessary to accept some compromise among ideal objectives.
It appears certain that control of nonpoint agricultural
pollution while maintaining economic agriculture will require a
high degree of management capability by the producer. It must
also provide for flexibility of operation to cone with new
situations, for example, new disease or insect outbreaks that
arise. Consequently, educational approaches, supported by proper
economic incentives, are considered to be a_ primary means of
achieving agricultural nonpoint pollution control.
153
-------
Summary;
Because of these factors identified, it appears that
effective pesticide educational programs to minimize water
contamination must be designed to deal with the commercial
applicator and grower regarding their specific pest control
techniques, including proper chemical selection, use and
disposal; the general public must be educated sufficiently to
alleviate emotional concern to the level that an objective
"systems management" approach considering both economic and
ecological factors can be employed in making necessary decisions;
and an adequate educational program for urban pesticide users to
reduce contamination from urban areas. When these are combined
with adequate regulations to enforce necessary steps, our
nation's water should be protected safely from pesticide
pollution.
154
-------
Workshop Session
Plant Nutrients
Discussion Leader: J. B. Jones
The 10 ppm N03-N concentration in waters as the critical con-
centration for determining water quality was discussed at great
length. Waters in Israel containing up to 20 ppm N03~N are con-
sidered non-hazardous and acceptable. Similarly many waters in the
United States contain NOs-N levels at or above the 10 ppm level with-
out noted health or environmental hazards. A closer look at the
10 ppm N03-N criteria for water deserves more study and possible
adjustment upward.
A number of states (KA, CO, S.D., N.D., Minn.) in the'north-
central region of the United States offer farmers a soil test for
N03-N. The sampling, analysis and interpretation vary from state
to state but the concentration of N03~N found in a soil sample is
used to adjust downward N fertilizer recommendations. This soil
testing technique may have wide application. The test can be an
effective educational tool to avoid N fertilizer excesses, and pro-
vides for the economical use of N fertilizers. The timing for col-
lecting the soil sample is critical in high rainfall areas, not
critical in low rainfall areas and of limited use in sandy soil
areas. Arkansas is working on a soil testing and petiole analysis
procedure to assist farmers in determing N needs for cotton produc-
tion. The group strongly endorsed the use of soil tests as a measure
of determining fertilizer needs.
A proposed national policy on the regulation of fertilizer nitro-
gen use was discussed. The group agreed that such a proposal would be
very difficult to regulate. The program would have to tailor needs
and recommendations to fit each state. Setting a maximum limit on N
fertilizer rates would have the effect of encouraging low N user to
apply the maximum allowable rate, thereby increasing the total use of
N fertilizer. With today's increasing prices for N fertilizer, this
may be an effective deterrent to excessive use.
It was agreed that Extension does have an important role to play
in advising farmers on the potential environmental hazards associated
with the improper use of N and other fertilizers. It was agreed that
there is need for better data related to the economic consequences asso-
ciated with fertilizer use if environmental restrictions are imposed.
155
-------
Report and Highlights of the
EPA/ECOP National Workshop on Agricultural
Nonpoint Sources Water Pollution Control
September 16-17, 1974
Co-Chairmen: John R. Churchill and J. Benton Jones
The workshop was initiated by the Subcommittee on Environ-
mental Quality of the Extension Committee on Organization and
Policy. The purpose was to inform and involve State Extension
personnel in environmental programs. Charles Ellington,
Director of Georgia State Extension, in his introduction, made
it very clear that Extension had an environmental education
responsibility to the agricultural community, but that the
Extension Service's first responsibility was to American
farmers. The pledge was to assist in continuing in opening up
communications between the Extension Service and EPA and the
development of coordinated programs.
James Agee, Assistant Administrator for Water and
Hazardous Materials, stated that EPA needed the full
cooperation and participation of the agricultural community
and the USDA agencies serving that community to develop the
156
-------
goals and means for an effective nonpoint source control
program.
Francis Mayo, Regional Administrator, Region V, reported
on the pilot projects being done under the Great Lakes 108
funds, with the major emphasis on how the agricultural
community was involved in the project. Grant Merritt, State
Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, discussed
the evolving relationships of the State pollution control
agencies in the agricultural community with particular
attention to the permitting of feedlots under the solid waste
law of Minnesota. Kenneth Mackenthun, Robert Thronson, and
Paul Heitzenrater of EPA Washington staff, discussed the
biological effects of agricultural activities, the status of
our technical knowledge and research direction and our present
EPA program progress.
State Extension personnel developed the following
technical subjects and made several recommendations which will
be included in a compendium of the meeting. The topics
included 'Wind Erosion and Sedimentation1 by Neil Woodruff of
Kansas State Extension, 'Water Erosion and Sedimentation' by
Minora Amemiya of Iowa State Extension and the 'Economic
Implications for Wind and Water Erosion Control' by Harold
Casper of the Economic Research Service in Nebraska. Frank
157
-------
Humanik of North Carolina State Extension discussed 'Animal
Wastes as a Source1 and Robert Walker of the Illinois State
Extension Service followed with a discourse on 'Plant
Nutrients as a Source.'
The major issues brought out by the Extension people at
the meeting were:
1. The Extension personnel did not clearly understand
EPA's mandated goals or programs. Their major concern
was "the requirement that nonpoint sources will be
required to achieve no discharge by 1985."
2. will enforcement of agricultural nonpoint sources thru
water quality standards require a farmer to implement
better than "Best Preventative Technology" recommended by
State 303(e) guidelines?
3. EPA has lost credibility with the Extension Service.
Many Extension Services were geared up to communicate the
feedlot and irrigation return flow guidelines as requested
by EPA. The delay in issuance of these and the
substantial changes in the guidelines between their
publication and promulgation got many Extension personnel
out on the limb too early with the wrong message.
158
-------
4. The Extension Service has very little communication
with State pollution control agencies.
5. Most important, the Extension Service has a vast store
of technology and projects EPA Regions are unaware of.
6, The recommendation of representatives of the Extension
Service at this meeting is that the Extension Service take
leadership in developing State-wide committees to write
and issue State 304(e) guidelines.
7, It was made very clear by all that EPA should not ask
Extension to actively participate in its regulatory
responsibilities in order that Extension can maintain the
confidence of the agriculture community.
8. Extension specialists were generally unaware of the
305(b) requirements and many recommended that Extension
ahd other agricultural agencies be asked to cooperate in
this first report.
159
-------
Regional Coordinators/Extenstion Specialists
Summaries On
Nonpoint Source Problem Assessment
and
Recommendations For Future Joint Program Activity
REGION AND AREA
Region I - Boston, tess
Connecticut, Maine, Massachu-
setts* New Hampshire, Rhode
Island, Vermont
Reion II - New York, N. Y.
New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands
Reaion III - Philadelphia, Pa.
Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia, District
of Columbia
Region IV - Atlanta, Georgia
Alabama, Florida, Georgia,
Kentucky, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee
Region V - Chicago, Illinois
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin
Region VI - Dallas, Texas
Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas
Region VII - Kansas City, Mo.
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri,
Nebraska
Region VIII - Denver, Colo.
Colorado, Montana, North
Dakota, Utah,
Wyoming
Region IX - San Francisco, Cali
Arizona, California, Hawaii,
Nevada, American Samoa, Guam,
Trust Territories of Pacific
Islands, Wake Island
Region X - Seattle, Wash.
Alaska, Idaho, Oregon,
Washington
160
-------
REGION I - Bart Hague
Identify Major Problems and Activities
A. Massachusetts
(1) Horse manure foremost, animal waste and dairy
cattle next. (Intensive land usage Connecticut
River Valley dairy farms poses problems re: any
buffer strips).
(2) With very little regulation now, Extension has
set up a Livestock Manure and Waste Management
Committee (R. G. Light, Chairman). Comprises
farmers, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Depts. of
Agriculture Public Health, and Water Pollution
Control. Thus, with Region I Permits involved,
expect recommendations to be acceptable to
regulatory agencies. The Committee's eight Ta«h
Forces embrace land applications farm processing
plants, residue disposal, and financing
implementation.
(3) Agricultural Economics Department has published
bulletins on impact of poultry/dairy manure on
land.
(4) County experts try to become "instant
specialists" to help localities solve problems
such as solid waste.
B. Connecticut
(1) Fear any guidelines would become law.
(2) Poultry greatest problem.
(3) Good coordination between USDA agencies and
State Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). DEP staff attempting to visit every farm
re: animal waste, in connection with State
permit program (delegatee).
(4) USDA - State cost share farm waste management
facilities (manure storage and diversive
ditches. DEP issues permit on wide order; SCS
1G1
-------
gives technical assistance? USDA (ASCE) helps
fund.
D. Vermont
(1) Dairy wastes a problem on heavy clays.
(2) Statewide land use regulation promising, but
must involve townships.
REGION II - Theresa Faber
Identify Major Problems and Activities
A. New Jersey
(1) The non-point source problems that the extension
representatives felt were occurring were:
(a) Agricultural runoff into small farm ponds
causing their eutrophication. At the
present time the extension staff is
controlling the resulting weeds by
herbicides and dredging of the bottom by
Mud Cats.
(b) Septic tank difficulties. There are
problems in getting the Health Department
to act toward enforcing the improvement of
septic tanks.
(c) Small manufacturers, located along small
streams, who are not discrete point
sources.
(d) Leaching and seepage from junkyards and
dumps into streams. There was some
Question as to whether or not this and the
previous problem were actually point
sources.
(e) Urban street runoff.
162
-------
B. New York
(1) Non-point source problems in New York were felt
to be:
(a) The disposal, particularly on land, of
animal wastes which come from the dairy and
poultry farms, the predominant agriculture
in the State.
(b) Septic tank problems.
(2) The research activities undertaken in the State
are:
(a) Animal waste studies are being done to
develop parameters for loading rates which
vary with the time of the year.
(b) A study is being performed to determine the
effect of nitrogen fertilizers on the
potato fields of Long Island. The area has
difficulty in keeping levels of N below 10
ppm N03-H, so the research is trying to
develop adoptable practices to minimize N
concentrations and maintain yields, gearing
practices to rainfall and crop needs.
(c) An intensive sampling program is being
performed on a watershed as a means to
determine nitrogen and phosphorus levels.
Input from the local STP can be readily
determined, but it is difficult to separate
septic tank and fertilizer contributions.
(d) The dairy manure management committee has
established guidelines that are available
to the extension field staff.
II. Program Needs and Priorities
Northeast Needs and Priorities. A suggestion for study
from New Jersey was the septic tank district concept where
there would be a central authority as opposed to individual
owners of septic systems. New York mentioned tho agricultural
district where rural non-farm uses would enter the zone at
163
-------
their own risk, i.e., be subject to agricultural odors.
Further discussion mentioned urban development and land
development concepts land use planning, and the variety of
runoff problems for which controls are needed--deicing,
highways, construction, and silviculture.
A major issue is whether extension should have the Afield
capacity to cope with all aspects. Staff are self-training
themselves to handle these problems.
III. Recommendations for Follow-Up
This was a joint discussion also, so our comments were
written as a single statement. All agreed on the need for
communication between Extension and EPA regional staffs. The
group concluded that state-by-state meetings between key EPA
programs and Extension, SCS, State agriculture and
environmental agencies would open up needed lines of
communication. Further relationships need to be developed
between the county agents and program specialists as (land
grant colleges as well as EPA and other environmental
experts).
Ultimately, county and local personnel (such as county
agents and RC&D supervisors) should be involved in local or
subsequial workshops.
Subsequently, specialized problems (animal wastes, solid
wastes, pesticide application) should be tackled through
regional workshops. (i.e., New England divide).
Extension - SCS should be given the opportunity to provide
major assistance to the States and EPA on 305(b) reports. EPA
should alert Extension on pending requirements landowners
would have to meet, such as post 1977 nonpoint effluent
regulations.
Northeast Program Needs and Priorities. Hague attempted to
seed some consensus on regional priorities as follows:
(1) Guide location, density, and siting design of
development (especially second home) to prevent
future pollution, especially septic seepage,
sediment, and runoff in pristine resort areas.
164
-------
(2) Develop pilot programs as individual disposal
systems, including regional districts.
(3) Control urban runoff pollution, local design and
ordinances for oils, deceiving materials, sediments,
debris...
(4) Regulate road and building construction practices
through constructive plan conditions and approval.
(5) Improve logging and sliding ^practices through forest
practice legislative and technical assistance to the
on-the-site working jobbers and operators.
(6) Provide specific information to land owners on
effects of agricultural practices and animal wastes
on specific lakes/streams and estuaries.
(7) Plan and regulate location and operation of landfills,
REGION III - Larry Merrill
The meeting among Region III representatives began with a
summary of planning efforts relating to non-point sources that
are underway in the Region. Besides the 303(e) basin planning
efforts being developed in each State, the status of 208
planning was provided. Currently, the Region has four
approved 208 designations and three others proposed. Also
detailed was the State 305 (b) reports and it was emphasized
that all these efforts are a continuing process, with
provisions and requirements for revisions and additions.
State Assessments;
Following the introductory talk, each State, with the
exception of Delaware, provided an assessment of their
particular problems in the areas of non-point sources relating
to agriculture and what they felt was needed to improve
efforts involved in non-point source control.
165
-------
Maryland
Maryland representatives identified four areas of concern.
These included; (1) sediment and erosion control, both in
agricultural and silvicultural areas? (2) domestic wastes,
involving sludge and septic tank problems? (3) land use policy
relating to agriculture? and (4) pesticides-herbicides usage
on the Eastern shore. That was felt to be most beneficial in
combating the particular problems would be a greater degree of
guidance and technical assistance from EPA, especially in the
area of sedimentation. It was also felt that a clearer
delineation of where regulatory power exists in present State
and Federal agencies would enable a better understanding of
what actions are being taken and what they are concerned with.
Virginia
Virginia expressed similar concerns as the areas of
sediment control, animal wastes and pesticides are the major
ones the State activity has been concentrated in. The problem
of strip mine salvation has also received State interest. The
State has done extensive work on sediment control relating to
corn production? has developed State guidelines on erosion
control? and worked on strip mine programs in the southwest
area of the State. The delegates expressed the need for more
of a coordinated effort between all agencies involved and
would like to see a greater degree of State input into
guidelines being developed by EPA on non-point source
problems. As in .Maryland, they felt an identification of all
organizations involved in working on these problems and what
they are responsible for would be beneficial.
West Virginia
Representatives from West Virginia detailed the State
involvement in numerous non-point areas. These included
animal wastes, strip mine revegetation, sedimentation,
pesticides, solid waste runoff and the complex problems
associated with flooding in the State. Among the State
activities are preparation of a manual containing guidelines
and standards on livestock wastes? programs on pesticide
application in reference to the pesticide law? a soil erosion
and sediment control handbook has been developed? and
reclamation of strip mine lands.
1G6
-------
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania similarly has had a long involvement with
non-point problems. Major areas of emphasis have been sewage
sludge, mine drainage, and sediment control. In terms of
sewage sludge, guidelines for on-lot disposal have been
developed and investigations of the use of sludge on mine
spoil tanks have been made. The need for more technical
expertise in sediment control was voiced as the State sediment
control law does not exclude agriculture as the ones in
Maryland and Virginia. Work also has developed in pesticides
as the State has a grant on developing a training course for
pesticide applicators. The need for greater coordination with
the State Department of Environmental Resources was expressed.
The idea was forwarded to have an agricultural coordinator in
the department and it was hoped that a lessening of the
emphasis on point sources would be soon forthcoming.
Problems;
Recommended areas for immediate attention focused on the
question of sediment control, the consensus major problem in
the Region. The questions involving standards for sediment
control, monitoring problems, definition of what excess
sediment is and the issue of best practices versus effluent
standards were areas that the State representatives felt
needed immediate concern, other areas of regional concern for
immediate needs included the problem of sludge disposal,
possible air pollution effects on agriculture, and the
question of land use policy.
Other problems identified were largely institutional and
concerned the information coordination between the different
agencies. Time-lag problems on getting information that is
available to the people who need it were expressed. It was
felt that a better system of distribution could be developed,
especially on the Federal to State transfer lines.
Conclusion;
As a follow-up to the discussions that have ensued during
the workshop, it is hoped that a series of meetings can be
arranged between EPA and State Extension personnel to continue
an exchange of present activities and develop and identify the
areas where work is needed. It is felt that those meetings
will continue the thrust of the workshop in reducing the
coordination problems involved in non-point source work.
167
-------
Through these meetings, EPA can draw upon the extensive
experience that various State organizations have in dealing
with non-point source problems and a continuing working
relationship between EPA and the States can he developed to
deal with agricultural non-point source pollution.
REGION IV - David Hill
I. Critical Evaluation of Institutional Coordination with EPA
The bigest problem the Agricultural Extension Service and
State Unitersity people have with EPA is that, even when good
communication is achieved at the regional and laboratory
level, little results are seen and this communication often
appears totally ineffective in determining what the agency
finally adopts as policy. These agricultural personnel are
very concerned that no matter what is said, the agency will
come out with a unified, across-the-board set of guidelines to
be universally applied. Feedlot guidelines are a case in
point. The EPA published a document that did not address
regional or State differences-~and all this talk of
cooperative efforts at arriving at non-point source guidelines
appears to be following the same pattern — will their input
be ignored again this tine? The EPA should set some basic
standards and let the individual States determine the
particulars for specific geographical areas within each State.
The results of workshops such as this, if seriously used
by Headquarters personnel before final policy is determined,
should go a long way in alleviating this particular complaint.
There is still the opportunity with non-point source pollution
control efforts to avoid rush programs, which often ignore
input from others.
II. Agricultural Cost-Sharing Programs
There was a very strong concensus among all agricultural
personnel present, and several EPA personnel, that
agricultural cost-sharing dollars are some of the most
effectively spent in the Government. The ACP, REAP, RECP
Programs have proven extremely effective for involving the
farmer in cost-sharing solutions to environmental problems.
Farmers have frequently spent considerable sums of their own
money to be able to take advantage of federal assistance.
Joint EPA-Agriculture support for these programs might help to
ensure that they receive higher administration support than
168
-------
they have over the past few years. However, these programs
should not include a progressively larger percentage of cost-
sharing from year to year (as the Construction Grants Programs
have) or the farmer — like the municipalities — will choose
to sit and wait while the federal ante rises.
III. Regional - State Coordination
The EPA Regions must coordinate with the State
agricultural agencies and not just with the State pollution
control agencies, to achieve significant agricultural
pollution control. Joint meetings with all State agencies
involved in a given program would certainly be far more useful
than meetings only with the State pollution control agencies.
IV. Agricultural Non-Point Source Problems by_ Category
A. Water Erosion and Sedimentation
The greatest problems with water erosion and
sedimentation cone from construction sites: buildings as
well as highways and rural roads. Cultivated fields are
next in significance. Where grass or tree covers are
maintained relatively little erosion problems result.
B. Erosion and Sedimentation
In the Southeast, large cultivated fields on the
coastal plain are often subject to wind erosion and
sedimentation.
C. Animal Waste
The need for proper handling and ultimate disposal of
animal waste is in the following priority order: (1)
poultry, (2) swine, (3) dairy and finally (4) bee as a low
priority. Terminal disposal of animal wastes to the land
in accordance with good fertilization practices should be
approved as "Best Available Treatment Economically
Achievable" (BATEA). A formal statement of this, by the
Department of Agricultural and adopted by EPA as policy,
would greatly help the Extension Service in convincing
farmers to adopt this practice. Probably the most
pertinent criteria for animal waste would be a COD-
Mitrogen limitation on run-off, if a run-off requirement
is necessary.
169
-------
D. Plant Nutrients
Here, as with animal waste, the main problem appears
to be nitrogen. Most streams in North Carolina, and to a
large extent in the rest of the Southeast, are already
sufficently high in phosphorus so that phosphorus is not
the limiting factor in supporting aquatic weeds. The high
price of nitrogen fertilizers may cut down on the tendency
in some very intensive agricultural practices, to use
larger amounts of nitrogen and than is necessary.
E. Pesticides
There was a fair mix of opinions on the significance
of pesticides. Some of the evaluation appeared to be
based on the operator's environment and the relative
safety to the handlers or to humans accidently exposed to
the treated areas. The increasing cotton acreage as the
price of cotton increases has resulted in an increased use
of toxaphene, which is a relatively hard pesticide. The
use of herbicides has also been greatly increased, but the
significance of these for the environment is probably less
than for such insecticides as toxaphene,
V. Unique Problems Particular tŁ Given Areas
The single largest agricultural environmental problem in
North Carolina is likely to be created by the clearing and
start-up of the 350,000 acre McLean farm in the outer coastal
plain of North Carolina. Most of this area is in trees at the
present time, but is being cleared for the production of corn
and soy beans; and the rainsing of approximately 200,000
cattle per year, approximately 1 million or more hogs per year
and possibly, also, a large poultry production. This is in
Tyrrell, Hyde and Beaufort Counties located between the
Albemarle and Pamlice Sounds. The land consists of low lying,
poorly drained soil; generally the worst type for agricultural
use.
The sandy soils of Florida, and perhaps to a slightly
lesser extent-of the coastal plain in the other Southeastern
States, often present severe leaching problems for fertilizers
or animal wastes applied to the ground. Farming around Lake
Okeechobee and Lake Apopka presents some of the worst problems
for leaching of nutrients into the ground water. These
170
-------
problems are made worse by irrigation, which tends to wash the
nutrients on through the soil.
VI. Extension Service Projects Relating tŁ the Environment
A list-of a -variety of- projects was submitted Indicating
that most Extension Service projects relate in one way or
another to the environment. Effective screening of those
lists could not be made.
REGION V - Carl Wilson
1. U.S. EPA organizational structure outlined
2. Legal authorization for U.S. EPA
(a) PL 92-500 Sections 106, 208, 303 and 305(b)
(b) Section 108
3. Region V called their first meeting with Extension
Directors June 3, 1973
(a) Set in motion pesticide program
4. Subsequent meeting to be called in Region V by a
letter to the Extension Directors. (Mayo to Extension
Directors)
(a) First meeting latter part of October or early
November, 1974.
(b) Meeting to be held in Chicago at our new
location.
(c) Suggestion - Meet every 6 months.
5. State EPA's or Department of Natural Resources will be
notified and asked to send a representative for the Nonpoint
Source meeting in Chicago, October - November, 1974.
6. Topic of first meeting will be Nonpoint Source
Pollution which will include 305(b) guidance.
7. Information needed
171
-------
(a) Who will represent or be in charge of 305(b)
reports in each State? Action - Letter to the States
will request this information.
(b) Who in US-EPA will be in charge of 305(b) report
coordination?
(c) States asked for who is in charge of nonpoint
source program in Region V or 305 (b) .
Subject Matter to be Covered in Future Meetings
How can Extension participate with their present
program?
1. Erosion - Sediment Control
(a) Urban
(b) Rural
2. Sludge and Wastewater Application to Land
(a) Extension and EPA have called a meeting for
the 10 midwestern States which will be a work-
shop on sludge and wastewater application to
land.
3. Hoise
4. Forestry
5. Strip Mining
6. Plant Nutrients
7. Septic tanks
8. Air pollution
9. Underground water pollution
10. Feedlots (animal waste)
11. Pesticides
12. Radio activity
13. Solid waste
Current Prrgrams on
Honpoint Source Pollution
Region V by State
Indiana
1. Black Creek Project, Allen County Indiana, Maumee
River Basin. (Implementation Project)
172
-------
(a) 5 year program on 12,000 acre watershed
US-EPA input $1.8 million to access the
Environmental Impact of Land Use on
Water Quality. Work Plan given to
participants of workshop. This also
include the Operations M an u a 1. Sec-
tion 108 funding.
Ohio
1. Maumee River Basin Study in Ohio, US-EPA input
$370,000. Section 108 funding
Wisconsin
1. Menomonee River Basin Project, US-EPA input $2.2
million, Section 108 funding.
2. Menomonee R. Basin study $2.1 million IJC funding.
Minnesota-Wisconsin
1. Western Lake Superior Project (Nemadji River Basin)
US-EPA input $2.7 million, Section 108 funding.
Michigan
1. Michigan Sub-basins studies, US-EPA input $953,000.
IJC funding.
Discussion & General Comments
1. Illionis Proposed Plant Nutrient Regulation Hearings.
(a) Region V Submitted a position paper.
2. Federal Register
(a) Can a cross reverence be obtained by Sections of
PL 92-500?
3. Minnesota presentation on feedlot permits and
delegated authority to County Commissioners to carry out the
law. But no application rate to land for guidance.
173
-------
4. Feedlot and Nonpoint designs in general carried out by
Soil Conservation Service! Design criteria should be reviewed
by State and US~EPA for changes that are needed.
5. Comment by Carl Wilson. For fifty years or more
Agricultural Scientist have been advocating increasing organic
matter content of soils for soil stability and production. But
when it comes to applying sludge to land the Agriculture
Universities are silent. Why?
6. Comment by several participants on heavy metals in
sludge.
(a) EPA (CDW) In the long run effluent discharge
limitations may solve this problem. If it is «a
problemI
7. Forest soils could be a major place to apply sludge and
wasterwater.
8. Strip mine land could be a place to apply sludge and
wastewater. Approximately 12 million acres in the USA with 40,
000 acres in Illinois.
(a) Project in Illinois that treats effects of strip mine
drainage instead of cause.
9. Nitrate problems
(a) Over 2 million dollars of private funds allotted to
study this problem after Illinois Plant Nutrient Hearings.
(b) High NO in some well waters
(c) High cost of fertilizer may push farmers to a
rotational system to obtain nitrogen. Example beans doubled
cropped into wheat stubble.
10. Feedlot systems being sold by the private sector with no
guidance. A critical problem.
11. Wisconsin - Are regulations really needed?
(a) Comment by CDW Ohio's approach seems to bee most
acceptable. Such as:
174
-------
(1) inspector will be hired to ask the farmer
or rancher to make corrections. Soft sell by
Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
(2) If no results are obtain by this methods
Ohio EPA will do the enforcing.
12. Comment and generally agreed upon by the committee 305(b)
reports that address themselves to nonpoint source pollution
should be brought to public hearings for the land owners
input. This would include farmers, ranchers and urban.
(a) US-EPA comment? the Water Bill 92-500 requires
this approach to the problem.
13. Discussion on the Governor's Conferences on Erosion
Sediment Control. Region V participated in 4. Ohio will
inact a law by July 1, 1975. Mich. had one but retracted it
for farmers.
175
-------
REGION VI-Osborne Linguist
Task I - Identify Non-Point Source Activities of State Extension Services:
Extension representatives from four states in Region VI — New Mexico, Texas,
Arkansas, and Louisiana — reported similar types of activities on-going in
non-point source pollution control. For example, Arkansas listed the following
types of program areas:
1) Poultry litter disposal
2) Small cattle feedlot waste disposal systems
3) Soil and plant analysis to guide producers on manure application
rates that will minimize pollution
4) Pesticide use and container disposal
5) Safe use of pesticides
6) Soil erosion control (in conjunction with Soil Conservation Service -
US DA)
7) 4-H Land Judging contest
8) A new Extension Animal Waste Management Specialist.
Much the same work is apparently on-going in Texas, Louisiana, and New Mexico.
Louisiana emphasized its work in dairy waste management systems and land disposal
of effluent and manures. In Texas, a county agent workshop on non-point source
pollution will be held this fall; a new Soil and Water Conservation Specialist
has been hired; a multi-faceted program on land disposal of cattle feedlot
manure has been on-going for 1% years.
Task II - Identify Needed Joint Extension - EPA Activities and Means of Imple-
menting These Activities:
1) The regional EPA non-point source coordinators should get in touch with
directors of state water pollution control agencies to recommend that their
staff contact appropriate Extension personnel for help in compiling the Section
305 and 206 reports.
2) In each state conduct a meeting of researchers, Extension personnel, state
and EPA non-point source personnel to become acquainted and share information
and ideas for technologies and regulatory strategies.
3) The State Extension Directors need to be made aware of the forthcoming
non-point source programs so they can stimulate Extension activity on a multi-
disciplinary front within their states. This could perhaps be accomplished
through briefings by high-level EPA officials at the upcoming Extension Director!
Southern Region Meeting or in committee at the National Association of Land Gran
Colleges and Universities.
176
-------
4) Exchange personel lists between state Extension services and EPA to
foster direct contact between specialists and EPA officials most directly
involved on a given question.
5) Consider holding multi-state Extension seminars for specialized interest
or commodity groups to focus on regulatory mechanisms and technologies for
abating specific types of non-point source pollution.
6) In an atmosphere of close cooperation between regional and state NPS
staff, Extension specialists should establish timely, well-coordinated multi-
faceted programs to educate, through county Extension staff, agricultural
producers and associations as to the requirements for and methods of non-point
source pollution control. Program needs and directions may vary tremendously
from one state to the next.
7) Extension specialists should take the initiative to transmit pertinent
research information, particulary that generated within their own states, to
federal and state non-point source personnel to educate these regulatory officials.
Task III - Critical Evaluation of How EPA Can Be More Responsive:
1) Based on past experience with the EPA point source program, the NPS regional
coordinators should be kept more closely informed by Washington - based personnel
of pending developments and policies, however tentative they may be.
2) EPA should provide Extension specialists a long-range "roadmap" as to
expected developments in regulating and controlling non-point source pollution.
This is absolutely essential to (a) satisfy the sometimes rigid scheduling and
programing contraints of State Extension Services, and (b) to preserve the
credibility of Extension informational programs.
3) EPA should send out capsule summaries of pertinent deadlines for both point
and non-point sources.
4) Anything affecting agricultural non-point sources should be passed from EPA
Washington - based staff to interested Extension specialists as quickly as
possible.
Task IV - Critical Evaluation of How Extension Service - USDA Can Be More Respon-
sive;
1) Better communication between Extension Service - USDA staff and pertinent
Extension specialists in the states should be achieved. The four-week lag time
between issuance of ES administrative letters and their receipt by affected
Extension specialists should be reduced.
2) The mailing list for the Extension Service's Environmental Quality News
Notes need to be expanded if it is to effectively serve as the "house organ" in
reporting environmental quality developments at the Washington level. By re-emphas:
and re-thinking of its mission, this newsletter can provide the vital link between
fragmented Extension educational programs in non-point source pollution control.
177
-------
REGION VII - Don C. Drapper
Representatives from Extension present from Kansas, Missouri
and Iowa. Nebraska absent except USDA, ERS person - complete
list of attendees available.
Highlights of Discussion Itemss
1) Any controls or recommended practices imposed on
agriculture must be on an assured level for several years.
2) Controls hard to assess on lessee or tenant with only a
year to year lease„
3) High priority for food production could result in
constructive or destructive agricultural practices.
4) High "N" prices may well result in under fertilization
resulting in higher erosion rates.
5) Iowa has only sediment control legislation in Region VII.
They have established allowable soil loss values or "T"
rates. The alternative is to establish a Be s t Preventive
Technology approach and prescribe tillage practices,etc.
Extension is not in favor of this idea.
Major Recommendations:
1) EPA should re-define policy on non-point pollution with
respect to 77 - 83 - 85 goals, especially "zero discharge".
Include some basic answers with regard to permits on farms
and enforcement strategies.
2) EPA should clearly define short and long range strategy
for nonpoint management.
3) Future program action in Region VII will provide for
individual State meetings involving State Mater Pollution
people, USDA, University Extension, U. Research, State Agency
and Conservation Agencies. Region VII will not attempt
another meeting with the four State extension directors and
the R.A.
4) Better coordination of research activities between EPA and
all agricultural agencies is needed.
5) EPA should explore financial resources for funding
agricultural research, demonstration, etc.
6) Technology is available to reduce soil erosion - How do we
institute it?
17E
-------
REGION VIII - Bob Haqen
Erosion control and irrigation management programs are
existing activities of Extension that can be utilized in
Region VIII to addressing major regional problems.
Significant impacts on the agricultural community, as well as
on the rest of the regional environment are occurring from
development of regional energy resources, principally oil
shale ane coal. Such problems as transfer of agricultural
water rights to industrial users and restoration of mined
areas to support agricultural and other effects from mining on
domestic and ranch wells, impacts of power plant emissions on
plant and animal life, impacts on community services, and
local institutions from increased population are among the
major energy related concerns throughout most of Region VIII.
There is a real need for Extension to provide advice on such
matters as the rights of property owners and expected
environmental impacts. This is an area in which Extension is
beginning to respond, but additional program emphasis is in
order.
Another area where Extension can be most helpful is
providing advice to county and municipal governments on the
impacts of recreational development. Throughout the mountain
areas of Region VIII, tremendous changes are occurring in land
uses as ski facilities, second homes (condominiums and cabins)
and other recreational facilities are being developed at a
rapid pace. Consultation on such technical matters as soils
and water resources are necessary in order that county
commissioners, city councils be properly informed of potential
environmental impacts.
A third major area of need is to provide advice on urban
water conservation. The major metropolitan areas of Region
VIII are the Wasatch front in Utah (Salt Lake City - Provo
areas) and the Frong Range in Colorado (from Fort Collins
through Denver and Colorado Springs, to Pueblo). Both areas
rely heavily on trans basin diversions from the Colorado River
System and any savings in water use will benefit the salinity
problems of the Colorado River. Minimization of water use
will lessen impacts on the water use area as well, e.g.
excessive irrigation of urban and suburban lawns not only
saves water, but subsurface returns carry significant amounts
of salts leached from the soils and surface returns carry
fertilizers, pesticides, etc.
179
-------
Institutional Problems;
It should be noted that in many cases, the technology is
available to correct rural environmental problems. The need
is for implementation, not technology development. Likewise
the machinery presently exists for delivering the programs,
e.g. REAP. Close coordination with USDA is essential in the
provision of environmental services. It should be recognized
that correction of some problems may create others, e.g.
increasing irrigation efficiency could affect recharge and in
turn affect shallow ground water supplies; automation of
systems could create erosion problems. Institutional problems
associated with coordination and provision of services appear
to be significant, i.e. how can the Extension Service best
serve the people in the State on environmental issues? South
Dakota pointed out that their environmental specialist is
supported by and works closely with the substate planning
districts. This has been particularly successful in getting
consideration of environmental issues in intergovernmental
decision making. Other opportunities exist for getting
involved in the planning process through the 208 and 303
planning programs. The importance of the 305(b) reports was
emphasized. It was stressed that State interagency
coordination is essential to the formulation of the 305(b)
report and that this should be viewed as an opportunity to
review existing programs as to the adequacy of the program and
funding level to correct and prevent nonpoint problems.
EPA-Extension Service Accomplishments;
Entension/EPA coordination and communication was
repeatedly emphasized as being very important. Region VIII
has accomplished this by;
(1) Having State Directors in to meet the Regional
Administrator and staff and to be briefed on EPA
programs;
(2) EPA staff have gone to the States and explained EPA
to the Extension staff;
(3) Region Vlll/state agreements have been executed to
formalize communication, coordination and transfer of
information. EPA/Extension counterparts were
identified as an attachment of the agreement.
(4) Region Vlll/State Extension Service agreements for
provision of services by Extension, i.e.
130
-------
(a) assessment of nonpoint problems
(b) certification of pesticides applications
(c) develop and test educational programs
(irrigation management).
Conclusion
Major areas for Extension involvement include the
traditional agricultural functions, especially irrigation and
erosion control and the merging areas of energy development,
recreational facilities development and urban water conser-
vation. Although it is not clear whether Extension has
adequate authority to become involved in areas other than
agricultural, it is clear that an expansion of activities
cannot be carried out without additional funding. EPA should
support Extension in requesting a greater role in matters on
mutual concern. It should be clearly understood that Ex-
tension would be an educational arm, not a regulatory arm.
Extension could lose their credibility with their clients if
they are asked to aprticipate in regulatory activities, e.g.
providing data on pollution sources, etc.
Region IX - Arthur Jenke, Hugh Burrows
The Region IX meeting had four representatives from
California, one from Arizona? and none for Nevada or
Hawaii. The meeting was led by Arthur Jenke of the
Special Sources Control Branch as the regional nonpoint
source coordinator was unable to attend.
State Assessment
The initial discussion centered on listing the acti-
vities that the Extension specialists were aware of in
their States. Arizona currently has agricultural engineers
designing and implementing facilities for confined feeding.
The emphasis have been placed on dairy farms over the past
two years. In one instance a city council passed legislation
that led to the eviction of feedlot as a public nuisiance.
Arizona has an acute problem of topsoil erosion by both
wind and water. State standards have been drafted, but were
found to be inapplicable on Federal lands, highways, and
Indian reservations. A major social problem to be solved
here is that of the Indians' traditional feelings toward
the land. There is an unwillingness, particularly amongst
the Navahos, to fence their property in order to protect
vegetation from cattle.
181
-------
In the area of pesticides Arizona has several on-going
programs. Mentioned were the Scouting Programs that educate
the farmers on the use of pesticides when and only when neces-
sary. These programs also involves a pesticide registration
program along with certification of the user and written ap-
proval for the proposed application.
In the irrigation area, the Extension Service has been
involved in the Wellton Mohawk Project, helping to maximize
water efficacy on croplands.
California
In California, the Extension Service has been actively
associated with the environmental issues for several years.
Back in 1969, the Extension Service started holding Staff
Training Conferences on environmental awareness. From
these, the Committee on Resources and Environment was formed
to deal fcith agricultural/environmental needs and concerns.
This has led to a comprehensive educational program toward
the agricultural community with the California Extension
Service spending 67 man years on agricultural education last
year.
There are on-going research programs in wind and water
erosion in the delta area. The Extension Service has
recently met with contract representatives of the EPA Region
IX, pilot project in groundwater protection. The primary
ground water pollution here is due to irrigation. In the
animal waste area, the Extension Service has extensive infor-
mation programs to the agricultural community. They feel
education is superior to regulation. They supported this
view with a recent survey that indicated that 99% of the
dairies surveyed by the California Water Quality Control
Board had implemented best practicable technology while
only 90% were in compliance a year ago.
Initially, the California Resources Control Board ignored
the entire field of agriculture in their Section 209 basin
plans. Now, however, the Extension Service has developed a
system of providing technical expertise to the basin planners.
In the pesticide area, the Extension Service has a series
of monitoring programs in 24 study areas. Specific Extension
programs have dealt with the effects of pesticides on endangered
species, the drift problem, and minimum safe waiting periods
between application of pesticides and planting of crops.
132
-------
Problems and Needs
The Extension specialists from both Arizona and
California agreed that there was a need for closer liaison
between EPA and Extension. They also cited the need for
faster and more decisive responses from the EPA regional
office when requests are sent in for an interpretation or
assessment of a law.
The discussion shifted to the ways in which EPA and the
Extension Service could improve their working relationships.
One suggestion was that EPA start coordinating their actions
more through the State Environmental Agencies as this is the
Extension Service's primary contact in dealing with environ-
mental issues. The first step proposed was an invitation to
the Directors of the State Environmental Agencies to meet
with EPA Regional officials to delineate common goals and
policies.
Following this representatives of the nonpoint sources
program in Region IX should go to each State Environmental
Agency to meet and discuss with their counterparts, the im-
plementation of programs and policies for nonpoint source
control.
103
-------
REGION X - Gene Viers
The meeting with Extension Service representatives from
the States of Region X was attended by Don Harter, and Roy
Taylor from Idaho, Arlen Davison from Washington, and Ted
Willrich from Oregon. Dr. Harter and Mr. Davidson were also
attending the program planning meetings of the Extension
Service as well as the nonpoint source workshop. Don Smith
from Special Sources Control Branch sat in on the session.
Considerable time was spent in explaining the
responsibility of the States in point and nonpoint programs,
emphasizing the State responsibility and time frame for
Section 305(b)E.
It was the Extension Service's view that there was a need
for better communications and distribution of information.
Extension Service Activities;
The rundown on Extension service activities was somewhat
limited. Idaho and Oregon were represented by the Agriculture
Engineers. Principal programs are directed to animal wastes.
(Other specialists such as agronomists or migation engineers
would have had other activities to report.) It was reported
that Idaho, Oregon, and Washington approach their problems and
programs cooperatively in a Tri-State approach. The following
are some reported ongoing activities:
(1) A Tri-State training meeting February 18-19, 1975 for
county agents on waste management.
(2) A Tri-State meeting reporting the status of
establishing application rates of manure to crop
lands to be held February 26-27, 1975 at Pendleton,
Oregon.
(3) EPA has a contract of $114,000 with Washington State
University to produce training material for pesticide
education.
(4) There are ongoing studies of how to dispose of
pesticides containers and wastes.
(5) There is a seminar on Land Use and Energy September
24, 25, 26, 1974.
184
-------
(6) A symposium will be held on "Animal Wastes Management
in Rainfall Areas of more than 40 inches
Precipitation".
(7) Idaho is assisting in development of education
material explaining the irrigation return flow
permits.
(8) There are ongoing studies of land disposal and
utilization of sewage sludge.
(9) Studies of recycling and reuse of resources.
The Extension Service people pointed out the areas of
their activities were in research, education and teaching.
General Discussion;
The extent of the agriculture nonpoint source compared to
grazing or silviculture was discussed and the amount of lands
under Fed* , State or private ownership was discussed.
Overall, 83% of the lands in Region X are in Federal
ownership. In the Tri-State area, Federal ownership is over
50%. This workshop apparently involved only agriculture. In
our Region the Extension Service has silviculturists. (It is
unknown whether EPA silvilculture project personnel have been in
contact with the Extension).
Conclusion;
Present contacts and programs with the Extension Service
in Region X has 'been on an "as needed" basis and it probably
will continue that way. However, with a new Regional
Administrator it may be advisable to meet with the Extension
Service State Directors to have an opportunity to review or
develop Region administrative procedures to facilitate
operational cooperation.
185
-------
List of Speakers
Charles Ellington
Director of Cooperative Extension
Service, Extension Building
University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602
James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Grant J. Merritt
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 W. County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Paul Heitzenrater
Office of Research & Development (RD-680)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Francis T. Mayo
Region V Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Robert E. Thronson
Office of Program Operations (WH-448)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Kenneth M. Mackenthun
Acting Director
Technical Standards Division (WH-445)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Introduction
Keynote Address - The National
Water Quality Strategy and
the Role of Agriculture
Agricultural Water Pollution
Control: State and Local
Operations
State of the Art in Identifying
and Controlling Water Pollution
from Agricultural Activities
Research and Development
Agricultural Water Pollution
Control: A Regional Perspective
State of the Art in Identify!na
and Controlling Water Pollution
from Agricultural Activities.
Water Program Operations
Land Management Effects on Water
Quality: An Ecological Perspective
186
-------
Nei.1 Woodruff
USDA, ARS
c/o Agronomy Department
Waters Hall
Kansas State University
Manhatten, Kansas 66506
Minora Amemiya
Iowa State University
117 Agronomy
Ames, Iowa 50010
Harold R. Casper
Dept. of Agriculture
Economic Research Service
Lincoln, Nebraska
Frank Humanik
Extension Biological & Agricultural
Engineering
Box 5906 North Carolina State Univ.
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Ed Johnson
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Pesticide Programs (WH-570)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Robert Walker for Sam Aldrich
Assistant Director
College of Agriculture, AES
109 Mumford Hall
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Wind Erosion and Sedimentation
Water Erosion and Sedimentation
Economic Implications for Wind
and Water Erosion Control
Animal Wastes as a Source
Pesticides as a Source
Plant Nutrients as a Source
187
-------
WORKSHOP
ON
AGRICULTURAL NON-POINT
SOURCE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
(Attendees List)
Richard A. Spray
Clemson University
176 P&A Bldg.
Clemson, South Carolina
29631
Lawrence Wallace
National Academy of Sciences
2100 Penn. Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20418
Dr. David R. Zoellner
National Academy of Sciences
2100 Penn. Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20418
F. J. Humenik
Biological & Agr. Engineering
Box 5906
N. C. State University
Raleigh, N. C.
Donald F. Smith
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
John Kundt University of Md.
Dept. of Horticulture
College Park, Md. 20742
H. O. Vaigneur
University of Tenn.
605 Airways Blvd.
Jackson, Tenn. 38301
Richard D. Wootton
University of Md.
4109 McKeldin Library
College Park, Md. 20742
13C
Herbert L. Brodie
Dept. of Agr. Engineering
University of Md.
College Park, Md. 20742
James A. Lindley
University of Conn.
Agri. Eng. Dept. U-15
Storrs, Connecticut 06268
Velmar W. Davis
ERS, USDA
6813 Murray Lane
Annandale, Va. 22003
Larry M. Boone
Economic Research Serv.
Dept. of Agriculture
134 South 12th St., Rm. 618
Lincoln, NE 68508
Gerald Horner
USDA - ERS
University of California
Davis, California 95616
R. H. Hagen
EPA - Region VIII
Denver, Colorado
R. Q. Light
Food & Agr. Engin. Dept.
University of Mass.
Amherst, Mass. 01002
Arthur L. Jenke
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M St., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
-------
Bart Hague
EPA - Region I
2203 JFK Federal Bldg.
Boston, Mass. 02203
Ed Williamson
S. D. State University
Plant Science Dept.
Brookings, S. D. 57006
Donald L. Miles
Colorado State Univ. ES
P. 0. Box 190
Rocky Ford, Colorado 81067
H. G. Geyer
ES - USDA
14th & Independence Ave., S.W,
Washington, D. C. 20250
J. S. Krammes
U. S. Forest Service
Washington, D. C.
Don Barter
Morrill Hally Rm. 225
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Roy Taylor
University of Idaho
735 East 6th Avenue
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Theodore B. She1ton
N. J. Cooperative Ext. Serv.
Cook College - Rutgers Cl.
New Brunswick, N. J. 08903
Richard R. Nagel
USDA - SCS
43521 Hartwick Bldg.
College Park, Md. 20715
Burton R. Evans
Ga. Cooperative Ext. Serv.
University of Georgia
Athens, Ga.
Ray Krueger
EPA/Office of Pesticides
4th & M Sts., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Ernst Lutz
EPA (WERC)
4th & M Sts., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Richard K. Schaefer
EPA (WERC)
4th & M Sts., S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
James C. Barker
Biol. & Agri. Engin. Ext.
N. C. State University
Raleigh, N. C. 27603
George M» Leonard
U. S. Forest Service
Washington, D. C.
Donald L. Funking
U. S. Forest Service
14th fit Independence Ave., N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20020
Larry Merrill
EPA - Region III
6th & Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
F. R. Hore
Engineering Research Service
Agriculture Canada
Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC6
David A. Lauer
Cornell University
Dept. of Agronomy
Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
G®oŁge easier
Cornell University
441 Warren Hall
Ithaca, N. Y. 14850
189
-------
Osborne Linguist
EPA (Dallas)
1600 Patterson St.
Dallasf Texas 75201
L. B. (Barry) Baldwin
University of Florida
Ag. Eng. Dept.
Gainesville, Florida 32611
D. W. Jones
University of Florida
303 Newell Hall
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Harold R. Cosper
Dept. of Agriculture
NRED
Lincoln, Nebraska
Min Amemiya
Iowa State University
117 Agronomy
Ames, Iowa 50010
Ann E. Carey
EPA - Ofc. of Pesticide Prog,
401 M St., S. W. (WH-569)
Washington, D. C. 20460
Edward B. Snyder
EPA - Diffuse Sources Br.
401 M St., S. W. (WH-449)
Washington, D. C. 20460
Follett Hunter
Kansas State University
Water Hall
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Peter M. Ashton
Va. Water Resources Res. Ct.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
James J. Jacobs
USDA - ERS - NRED
Cornell University
455 Warren Hall
Ithaca, N. Y. 14853
Dr. James M. Stewart
Water Resources Res. Inst.
124 Riddick Bldg.
Raleigh, N. C. 27607
Joseph A. Phillip
N. C. State University
Soil Science Dept.
Raleigh, N. C. 27606
Randy D. Burnyeat
Minn. Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Austin W. Nelson
Natl. Comm. on Water Qual.
1111 - 18th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Carl D. Wilson
EPA - Region V
1 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60004
Charles Carry
National Comm. on Water Qual.
1111 - 18th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Hugh D. Burrows
EPA - Diffuse Sources Br.
401 M St., S. W. (WH-449)
Washington, D. C. 20460
Lee Miller
Miss. Cooperative Ext. Serv.
Box 5405
Mississippi State, MS 39759
Earl E. Fenton
Soil Conservation Service-USDA
6121 South Agriculture Bldg.
Washington, D. C. 20250
T. C. Darril
Univ. of Wisconsin, Soil Dept.
1525 Observatory Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
190
-------
Lawrence L. Heffner
ES - USDA
Washington, D. C. 20250
Ronald Bielen
University of Maryland
71 Maryland Avenue
College Park, Maryland 20740
Neil Woodruff
USDA - ARS
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
01 en D. Curtis
LSU Cooperative Extension Service
Knapp Hall, LSU
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70808
William E. Chappell
Dept. of Plant Pathology &
Physiology
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia
Edward B. Hale
V.P.I. & S.U.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061
Ted Loudon
Michigan State University
Agricultural Engineering Dept.
E. Lansing, Michigan 48823
Paul S. Dunn
Soil Conservation Service
Morgantown, W. Virginia
Arthur W. Selders
West Virginia University
118 Agricultural Engineering Bldg,
Morgantown, W. Virginia 26506
Yoram Avnimelech
Israel Institute of Technology
Tec hn ion City
Haifa, Israel
Martin D. Openshaw
University of Arizona
Department of Soils, Water
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Engineerino
Talmadge Balch
Alabama Cooperative Extension Service
Extension Cottage
Auburn, Alabama 36830
C. M. Hohn
Cooperative Extension Service
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Surendera Kumar
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62704
Grant D. Wells
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Larry R. Prewitt
Michigan State University
Department of Dairy Science
E. Lansing, Michigan 48823
Robert E. Anderson
Extension Service
West Virginia University
Morgantown, W. Virginia 26506
Raymond F. Shipp
106 Agricultural Administration Bldg.
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
191
-------
Robert L. Cunningham
Pennsylvania State University
311 Tyson
University Park, Pa. 16802
Leo T. Wendling
Ext Agric Engr
Kansas State University
Manhattan, Kansas
Ron (Rolland) Wheaton
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
47907
J. Benton Jones
University of Georgia
Department of Horticulture
Athens, Georgia
R. C. Barnes
Soil Conservation Service
South Building - USDA
Washington, D. C. 20250
Phillip K. Holdaway
University of Maryland
Jull Hall
College Park, Maryland 20742
David W. Hill
EPA, Region IV
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
Wilber E. Ringler
Kansas State University
Umberger Hall, Room 115
Manhattan, Kansas
Jack W. Carroll
Mississippi State University
P.O. Box 5406
Mississippi State, Ms 39762
John Sweeten
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77840
N. Henry Wooding
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pa. 16802
Gayle L. Worf
University of Wisconsin
285 Russell Laboratories
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Jerry V. Mannering
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, Indiana
47907
Leonard R. Massie
University of Wisconsin
460 Henry Mall
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Donald J. Brosz
Extension Irrigation Enqineer
University of Wyoming
Box 3354
Laramie, Wyoming 82070
J. L. Calhoun
Agr. Engr. Dept., V.P.I.fc.S.U.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24601
George W.
Southeast
EPA
Athens, Georgia
Bailey
Environmental
30601
Research Lab
Ted Will rich
Agri. Engr. Dept.
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Harlan E. White
Virginia Polytechnic Inst.
Blacksburg, Virginia 24060
State llniv,
John P. Hoskin
Cooperative Extension Service
1201 McAlmont Box 391
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
192
-------
Coy G. McNabb
University of Missouri
Columbia, Mo. 68201
Victor P. Osterli
Cooperative Extension Service
University of California
Davis, California 95616
George J. Buntley
Extension - Univ. of Tennessee
Plant Science Building
Knoxville, Tennessee
Theresa Ann Faber
EPA - Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Berlie L. Schmidt
Ohio State University
Dept. of Agronomy
Ohio Agricultural Research &
Development Center
Wooster, Ohio 44691
Donald C. Draper
EPA
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Mo. 64106
John R. Churchill
EPA
Washington, D. C. 20460
Woody N. Mi ley
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Arkansas
P.O. Box 391
Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
Gene Veirs
EPA, Region X
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Jesse Lunin
USDA - Agri. Research Service
Beltsville, Maryland
Fred P. Miller
Univ. of Maryland
Department of Agronomy
College Park, Md. 20742
L. S. Button
USDA - Soil Conservation Service
400 N. Eighth Street
Richmond, Va. 23240
James Stingel
Soil Conservation Service
9 E. Loockerman St.
Dover, Delaware 19901
Robert D. Walker
Extension Specialist
Natural Resources
Cooperative Extension Service
Urbana, Illinois 61801
193
------- |