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 £> 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 t£ 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 t£ 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®o£ge 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

-------