• V - • "
ifc.
«v
^
k'A ^;
1 v»
X,-VV
.>> i^'
'-i
•^^w^-
/*
idwest Research Institute and
U.S. Environmental Protect for Agency
Thursday, April J, 1975
Hotel Muehlebach
^**** * !^
Kansas City, Missouri
s. -' -^.' .
-------
EPA 600/9-75-005
August 1975
AGRICULTURE AND CLEAN WATER
Proceedings of a Conference
to Explore Control Strategy for
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Hotel Muehlebach
Kansas City, Missouri
April 3, 1975
Sponsored by
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
and
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 64110 • 816561-0202
-------
FOREWORD
The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
very clearly mandate that nonpoint sources of pollution shall be assessed
for significance, and shall be controlled in manners commensurate with sig-
nificance. However, the law is nonspecific about controls, both in the
technical/engineering sense and in the political/regulatory sense, except
that the states are given ultimate responsibility in both areas, subject to
federal approval.
Agriculture is a major source of nonpoint pollutants—nutrients,
pesticides, sediment, and organic matter, in particular--and it is evident
that agriculture will be identified as a prime candidate for development
and imposition of controls. However, the control problems are complex and
their resolution can have far-reaching impacts on agricultural economics,
production capacity, agribusiness, and even the sociology of the farm com-
munity.
Against this background, Midwest Research Institute with the co-
operation of the Environmental Protection Agency, planned and developed
this "Agriculture and Clean Water" Conference. The purposes of the con-
ference were:
* To assess the state of the art on nonpoint source pollution
related to agriculture.
* To explore the elements of control strategy for nonpoint
pollution from agricultural sources.
* To promote discussion of the development of a practicable
agricultural pollution control plan.
The topics of the presentations were selected on the basis of
their potential to aid in the understanding of the control problems facing
the agricultural sector and the technical/management possibilities that
can be utilized by the regulatory agencies in the formulation of control
plans.
The conference brought individuals from many disciplines and in-
terests together to mutually discuss technical, regulatory and economic
aspects of the nonpoint source pollution control problems facing agricul-
ture.
iii
-------
Over 175 individuals from 20 different states representing local,
state, regional and federal agricultural and environmental agencies attended
the conference. Also included in the 75 different organizations represented
at the conference were attendees from fanner associations, educational in-
stitutions and agribusiness.
These proceedings are the product of the presentations and comments
recorded during the conference. It was edited and published by Midwest
Research Institute with grant assistance from the Environmental Protection
Agency .
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Cecil C. Chappelow, Jr.
Coordinator, Industrial Programs
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Morning Session
Introduction of Speakers. .....: 1
H. M. Hubbard, Director
Physical Sciences Division
Midwest Research Institute
Opening Remarks and Welcome ..... 3
John McKelvey
Executive Vice-President
Midwest Research Institute
The Regional Point of View 7
Jerome H. Svore
Regional Administrator
Region VII - Environmental Protection Agency
Agricultural Sediment Control for Water Quality Protection 19
William C. Shilling
Chief, Special Sources Control Branch
Office of Air and Water Programs - EPA
Technical Basis for Agricultural Water Pollution Control 33
Thomas A. Murphy
Director, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Division
Office of Research and Development - EPA
Conservation Districts and Pollution Control . 45
David G. linger
Executive Secretary
National Association of Conservation Districts
Soil Conservation and Pollution Control 59
R. M. Davis
Assistant Administrator
Soil Conservation Service - USDA
Perspective on Plant Nutrients 69
Samuel R. Aldrich
Assistant Director
Illinois State Agricultural Experiment Station
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Afternoon Session
Introduction of Speakers 81
Jerome H. Svore
Regional Administrator
Region VII - Environmental Protection Agency
State Role in Formulating Control Strategy 83
Dwight F. Metzler
Secretary of Health and Environment
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
A Positive Approach to Soil Conservation 95
Dale M. Cochran
Speaker of the House
Iowa Legislature (read by)
Dan Lindquist
Iowa Department of Soil Conservation
Des Moines, Iowa
Control Planning - The Farmer and Agribusiness 109
Earl W. McMunn
Editor
The Ohio Farmer
Panel Discussion 119
Participants: Conference Speakers
Moderator: Dr. A. D. McElroy
Midwest Research Institute
Appendix I - Pollution Control: Economic Problems and Opportunities. 131
John A. Schnittker
President
Schnittker Associates
Appendix II - 1975 Agricultural Conservation Program Information. . . 141
Appendix III - Conference Registrants 143
vi
-------
MORNING SESSION
-------
INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKERS
H. M. Hubbard, Director
Physical Sciences Division
Midwest Research Institute
1:
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
Good morning - I'm Hub Hubbard, Director of Physical Sciences of
Midwest Research Institute, and it is my privilege to chair the morning
session of this Conference. Let me start by introducing you to my boss,
the Executive Vice-President of MRI, Mr. John McKelvey, and by asking John
to welcome you to Kansas City and to the MRI/EPA Conference on Agriculture
and Clean Water.
-------
OPENING REMARKS AND WELCOME
John McKelvey
Executive Vice-President
Midwest Research Institute
-------
Mr. McKelvey:
Thank you.
Good morning. On behalf of MRI and the Environmental Protection
Agency I want to welcome you all to the Conference this morning and to
Kansas City.
The objective of this Conference is to provide an opportunity to
explore the elements of a reasonable and effective plan for control of
nonpoint source pollution. Evidence is increasing that agricultural activi-
ties as an industry may be a significant factor in nonpoint pollution. Thus,
the emphasis of this Conference has been placed on the development of a
practical agricultural pollution control plan.
The formulation of such a control plan is a real challenge, and
I think it illustrates the complex nature of many things in today's world.
This plan has to satisfy the demands for achieving maximum food production
and efficient energy use and yet within the same framework must also be
responsive to the necessity of insuring sound environmental quality and
valid resource conservation, and these are pretty tough tasks.
The formulation and implementation of this plan are appropriate
topics for discussion. Their resolution can have effects ranging from
relatively small technical changes in crop-growing procedures to far-
reaching impacts on agricultural economics, agricultural capacity, agri-
business, and even the sociology of the farm community.
Some of the specific issues as we see them are:
How well do we really understand the fundamental aspects of agri-
cultural pollution?
Do we really have enough basic data on pollutant generation?
Do we understand the mechanisms of transport and generation
well enough to formulate control techniques and strategies?
Do we have the ability to estimate with reasonable accuracy the
various impacts on water quality?
What are the technical and energy options for control?
What are the technical and economic requirements of such control
options?
-------
What are the political and regulatory options and their impacts?
And what are the socioeconomic impacts?
I don't think anyone expects that a 1-day conference can be ex-
pected to cover all these areas in detail nor is it likely to lead to any
type of a consensus on what should be done, particularly on any of the more
controversial issues, but we do hope that the conference will provide the
opportunity for stating and clarifying some of these issues, and perhaps we
can gain some consensus in some of the areas. In any event, I hope that
through this Conference all of you will achieve a greater appreciation of
the complexities of the problem.
I suspect that through our discussions today we will be able to
lay out some of the technical and engineering controls in general, though
probably not in any great detail, and also that we will be able to discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of various controls.
I hope that the political and regulatory aspects of the problems
will be discussed along with the sensitive socioeconomic issues. Probably
these latter areas will tend to remain controversial and unresolved, ex-
cept through actual experience.
In short, I hope the conference will make a real contribution
to a general understanding of the problems and will serve as the takeoff
point for positive action which involves the very many activities of the
organizations and individuals that are represented here today.
We are most grateful to all of you for taking the time to be with
us. We particularly appreciate the cooperation of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, the Soil Conservation Service, and the state governments for
supplying today's well-informed speakers. I know I'm personally looking
forward to their presentations.
Thank you.
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
Thanks, John.
Midwest Research Institute regards itself as regionally concerned.
I always like to say we are regionally concerned, but nationally competent;
I think we have to be that way. We tend to look, therefore, at nonpoint
source pollution as a regional problem. It is that; but it is a national
one too.
I joined MRI in 1970, and the second day I was here I went down
to the conference room where three or four of the bright young people on
our staff were making a presentation to representatives of the EPA about
the importance of doing a baseline study of nonpoint source pollution in
the Missouri Valley. It was the first time I had ever head the term. It
was a very impressive presentation--you see, I can say that because I didn't
have a damned thing to do with it--and the EPA people seemed to think it was
also. I expected in my naivete that in 2 months we would have the program
going. It took 2 years, but it did get going.
Shortly after that first meeting, the lead-off speaker this morning,
Jerry Svore, came out to see me. We talked about nonpoint source pollution
and the necessity of knowing its impact on water quality in order to judge
the efficacy of point source treatment in this area. We're still talking
about that subject today, but we are considerably more knowledgeable.
Jerry, you know, is the Regional Administrator for the EPA in
Region VII.
Jerry is indigenous to the region, as is the problem, i don't
think he's part of the problem; I think he's part of the solution. He was
born in Norway, Kansas, on the banks of the Republican River, and I under-
stand that is the place to be born, if you are a senior official in the
EPA these days. It gets you started out with the right orientation, at
least.
He was educated at North Dakota and Harvard; he is a commissioned
officer in the Public Health Service. I'm an ex-sergeant in the Signal Corps,
so when I find somebody who is a Rear Admiral in the Public Health Service,
I'm a little awed and don't quite know how to react.
But at any rate, it's a real pleasure to have Jerry here today as
part of the solution.
Jerry Svore.
-------
THE REGIONAL POINT OF VIEW
Jerome H. Svore
Regional Administrator
Region VII - Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Mr. Svore:
Thank you.
I appreciate all your fine comments, and I do appreciate the op-
portunity to see as many of my friends in the audience as have shown up
here today.
I hope that as a result of this meeting during the day that we
will make some progress towards what we consider probably the most important
pollution control problem we have in this region, and I certainly don't have
to tell this audience that we are discussing a very complex subject.
I do not have to tell you that erosion control is a very complex
subject. There are so many variables, uncontrollable inputs and sociologi-
cal considerations that many of the individuals discussing this issue now
prefer to use the word "reduce" when they speak of sediment pollution rather
than the word "control." This difference over words seems indicative of the
difficulty we experience in applying control techniques to nonpoint sources.
Even so, I would like to compliment the individuals who developed the agenda
for this Conference for placing the emphasis on the development of a practic-
able agricultural pollution control plan.
As control of point sources becomes more effective, the extent of
nonpoint pollution can be more readily determined. It is already apparent
in many areas that management of nonpoint sources is necessary to meet the
water quality goals of Public Law 92-500.
EPA is committed to the management of both point and nonpoint
sources. Section 208 of PL 92-500 requires the states "to control to the
extent feasible. . ." nonpoint sources such as surface and underground mine
drainage, agricultural and silvicultural runoff, construction activity re-
lated sources, saltwater intrusion and drainage from disposed wastes or
pollutants. Management of such sources will be the states' responsibility.
Today, we will be concerned with only one of the nonpoint problems--agri-
cultural runoff.
Nonpoint source management has not been emphasized by EPA previ-
ously, as the Act itself places greater emphasis on control of point sources
and establishes no mechanism for federal funding or sanctions for nonpoint
control. In many areas of the country, however, nonpoint sources are a
greater threat to successful water quality restoration than point sources.
EPA's responsibility, although not well defined in the Act, is to provide
encouragement and guidance to the states to initiate planning and implementa-
tion of nonpoint control so that the 1983 goals may be reached.
-------
EPA's guidance to the states will strongly emphasize the impor-
tance and value of preventive approaches as opposed to capital-intensive
efforts. States will be encouraged to institute their own set of Best
Management Practices tailored to their particular problems and environmental
conditions. In most cases, these practices will be land management tech-
niques. Many of these are either already practiced on a limited scale or
are being developed through EPA, state, and other federal agency research
and field projects.
We have known for a long time what to do, but how to get these
practices adopted down on the farm has always been the real problem. Hope-
fully, everyone at this Conference will have a lot to say about the practi-
cal side of erosion control. I would like to take the lead by pointing out
a few of the practical problems I think will confront state and local of-
ficials and landowners — regardless of what type of control program is
finally adopted. But first, I have been asked to say a few words about
the regional view on nonpoint pollution.
As I have said, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires
the states to develop a statewide plan to control nonpoint pollution.
Federal guidelines and basic requirements are being developed to determine
the character of these state programs. This agency would like to see
realistic and workable state programs developed which are capable of re-
ducing agricultural pollution in time to effect 1983 water quality goals.
An ambitious undertaking!
It is very important that the states assume the leadership role
in establishing land use management programs that they are convinced are
both proper and workable.
EPA has received a substantial amount of adverse criticism from
members of the agricultural community concerning our position on agricul-
tural pollution. Here is a rather typical comment made by the editor of a
farm publication. This gentlemen asked ". . .rather than have non-ag people
such as EPA officials develop new and expensive programs to solve the problems
of agricultural pollution, why not shift authority and financing of these
'conservation' efforts from EPA to USDA where Extension and the Soil Con-
servation Service have excellent track records." I answered this gentlemen
by telling him I was not aware of any non-ag EPA people developing new and
expensive programs for nonpoint agricultural pollution. In fact, I quoted
a section from the Agricultural Pollution Control Policy for Region VII,
". . .since the destruction of our land resources constitutes the primal
cause of agricultural water pollution, it is accurate to say that at least
in the area of agricultural pollution control, EPA and USDA goals coincide.
The support of programs designed to promote soil stabilization can, there-
fore, legitimately demand the attention of both agencies.
-------
"In pursuit of this joint EPA-USDA goal, it would be self-defeating
for EPA to create rival programs. Soil stabilization efforts of Soil Conser-
vation Service, the Extension Service, and the State Agricultural Experiment
Stations will result in the most rapid and efficient movement toward the con-
trol of agricultural pollution."
This has been our regional policy and position on agricultural
pollution for more than 3 years. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the
merits of this particular policy, one thing is quite clear—our policy on
the control of agricultural pollution reflects the important contributions
that various USDA agencies have made and are continuing to make to reduce
sediment pollution.
Initially, state responsibilities will involve assessment of the
nature and extent of agricultural sources of pollution and establishment
of a set of priorities for planning and implementation purposes. Some
states may choose to deal with several problem areas simultaneously, while
others may have the resources to deal with only one type of nonpoint source
at a time. If resources are limited, nonpoint sources which are most readily
addressed should be dealt with first.
Once priorities have been determined, states can initiate programs
to plan for the management of nonpoint sources. Regulatory programs for
nonpoint source management should be implemented at the lowest effective
governmental level. Regulation of nonpoint sources in most cases will re-
quire additional legislative authority to implement the best management
practices for pollution control on a statewide basis. Those states without
adequate legal authority to adopt such a regulatory program will need to
acquire it. The states that already have the necessary authority are en-
couraged to move forward with planning and implementation of a regulatory
program.
I assume the majority of states will base any erosion and sedi-
ment control legislation on the Model Law. If this assumption is correct,
the vast majority of states will give local soil and water conservation dis-
tricts the responsibility of writing and enforcing farm conservation plans.
I suspect that the majority of farm plans already written under a voluntary
conservation program reflect fairly well what the landowner intends to do
because the landowner has already demonstrated his interest in conserving
his soil and water resources. So there should be few enforcement problems
with these people. But what about those landowners who have remained un-
interested in soil and water conservation? When plans are written for these
people, will the primary emphasis be on what is needed to reduce erosion,
or will they reflect what the farmer can be persuaded to do? In short, will
district activities begin to gradually shift from the conservation of soil
and water resources to a primary emphasis on compliance with the law?
10
-------
The problem is aptly illustrated by the results of a study by
Professor Earl R. Swanson of the University of Illinois entitled "The
Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sedimentation in the Mendotta West Fork
Watershed." This report attempts to evaluate the effects of crop rotation,
tillage systems, and conservation practices within this watershed, based
on two parameters: (a) net farm income and (b) off-site sediment damage.
The estimated net farm income and the corresponding off-site sediment
damage are then combined to develop a total cost-return analysis of the
consequences of erosion and sediment damage. This is certainly the type
of information required for policy decisions even though, in this instance,
we are talking mainly about one watershed.
In researching the relationship between net farm income and soil
loss, two types of analyses were carried out in this study: (a) a single-
year analysis of income and soil loss rates per acre, using selected crop
combinations and land treatment practices and (b) a 20-year period analysis
of the same variables with the results shown in terms of annual rates of
income and soil loss. The work by Swanson produced some very interesting
conclusions. He points out that if we assume a farmer is either uninformed
or not interested in the loss in farm productivity he will experience from
soil erosion, he would probably choose to raise continuous corn, plant up
and down hill, and use a conventional tillage system.
But what if the farmer is interested in and informed about erosion
and its consequences? This report clearly indicates that even if he is both
interested and informed, there is still little reason for the farmer to be
conservation-minded if he is motivated by strictly monetary goals. This
conclusion holds true if the cost-return analysis is extended over a 20-
year period. Mr. Swanson points out that it is difficult, if not impossible,
to demonstrate to the individual farmer during his lifetime that soil and
water conservation is profitable farm activity.
A glance at the data collected by Mr. Swanson on off-site sedi-
ment damage shows an entirely different cost-benefit ratio: where off-site
sediment damage is considered, the total damage from soil erosion increases
more than tenfold. It would appear that the overall cost of soil erosion
is sufficiently large so that if it were considered by the farmer along with
all other costs, he would be forced to select a different crop rotation, con-
servation practice, and tillage system.
What conclusions can be drawn from this study of erosion and sedi-
ment problems on one watershed?
One, already mentioned, and supported by other research, is that
it is next to impossible to sell conservation to the farmer as a profitable
agricultural activity. In the words of one Missouri fanner to his County
11
-------
Agent, "Why should I listen to your advice when I already know how to farm
better than I am." In addition, research shows the big costs of erosion
and sediment damage are borne by the general public. And finally, accord-
ing to current research, the cost of on-farm erosion and sediment control
is many times less than the cost of repairing off-site damage. In short,
dollars-and-cents economics would lead one to conclude that legislation
is a necessity, and yet dollars-and-cents economics cannot be our only
consideration for proposing legislation.
One can easily see that the complexity of the decision-making
process escalates rapidly when we add political, social, and environmental
considerations to an economic analysis.
We are aware that some states are placing much of their conserva-
tion emphasis on a wider adoption of better tillage practices rather than on
mechanical structures. Of course, purchasing any piece of conservation til-
lage equipment requires a major capital outlay. If such production inputs as
fertilizer, fuel, seed, etc., continue to climb in cost without a correspond-
ing rise in farm prices, can we require the farmer to make such a major
capital outlay? Or will modified conservation tillage be an acceptable
alternative until the farmer is willing to purchase new conservation tillage
equipment? Is it true that most farmers are already moving toward some
form of conservation tillage within the limits of their equipment capability
in order to farm more acres and to conserve fuel costs?
I would like to conclude by repeating an earlier statement that
the primary concern of this Conference is the development of a practicable
agricultural control plan.
By exploring the many aspects of these questions, this Conference
will hopefully result in an outline of a practical proposal for solutions
to erosion and sediment problems.
12
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
We have some time for questions. If you have questions for Jerry,
I would appreciate it if you identified yourself and your organization.
Would you mind answering questions, Jerry? Let's see if you have
any. Why don't you come back, up here.
Are there any questions or comments at this point?
Mr. George E. Dissmeyer (U.S. Forest Service, Atlanta, Georgia):
You made mention of the dollars-and-cents evaluation that cpnser-
vation is going to return to the farmer versus the cost in sediment damages
and then you made a statement that I missed. Did you say that the cost in
damages is more than--I didn't follow you there.
Mr. Svore:
Well, the point was that when you make a cost analysis and just
stick to the farm and the damages there, you come up with an entirely dif-
ferent analysis than you do if you take into consideration the off-site
damages resulting from the erosion from that farm. If that was the point
that you were questioning, the economic balance when you take into account
the damage to society, there is no question but what controlling it on the
farm is economically justified.
Mr. Bob Schultz (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of
Arkansas):
If we follow Dr. Swansea's research and we know that the externali-
ties, the external costs associated with the sedimentation, are greater than
the on-site costs of control, is EPA doing anything to establish economic
incentives, either in terms of effluent charges, taxation or subsidies, to
farmers for installing this type of control mechanism?
Mr. Svore:
EPA is not promoting any legislation that would lead to that. The
answer to the question is no.
We did, of course, within the Department of Agriculture have the
weed program which was along the line of the thing that we are talking about,
but that is not operating at a. . .it never did operate at a level to attack
this problem. In this area, if 80%--and I say if--of our pollution problem
is nonpoint source from agricultural runoff primarily, you can see that the
13
-------
ratio of the kinds of monies that we are spending for point source versus
nonpoint source are considerably in balance as far as this region is con-
cerned. But obviously these kinds of things are decisions that Congress
must make and the administration must make as to whether we put our dollars
in the overall aspect of a balanced national budget or an imbalanced national
budget.
Mr. David Nichols (Texas Water Quality Board):
You alluded to utilizing the more local level governments rather
than, perhaps, the state government in controlling nonpoint source pollution
in agriculture or whatever. In Law 208, as I read it and as other people
in Texas have read it, the water pollution control agency for the state has
to assume the planning role for the state. Were you referring to something
else other than planning?
Mr. Svore:
Well, if you are ever going to put anything into effect, someday
somebody is going to have to do something, and I was merely referring in
that case to the fact that the doing comes down to the lowest level of
government in this if you are going to make it a success, and I was express-
ing the regional opinion on that part of it. It seems to me that the only
practical approach to it is to get down to the lowest level to actually come
out with the recommendations, the things that should be done and, if it gets
to an enforcement point, even down in that area.
Mr. Nichols:
Are you talking about local level government for implementing
controls?
Mr. Svore:
Right, your soil conservation districts, I'm talking about that
level.
Mr. Nichols:
Would the state still retain the.responsibility?
Mr. Svore:
They would still retain the responsibility, yes.
14
-------
Mr. Nichols:
For seeing that it is done?
Mr. Svore:
Certainly.
Mr. B. L. Harris (Texas Agricultural Extension Service, Soil and Crop
Sciences Department, Texas A&M University):
You commented several times about its being the state's role and
responsibility to assume the control and regulations of nonpoint source pol-
lution. Assuming the state is reluctant in acting, what pressures will EPA
bring on the states to in fact act and establish these regulations?
Mr. Svore:
There are a lot of questions I could answer better than that one,
if you would like to talk about industry.
Well, as I think I indicated throughout the entire talk, we are
plowing a lot of new ground, and no pun intended, in this whole area of
control and as far as EPA's responsibility in this area. There are no clear
lines of legal enforcement authority expressed in 92-500 in this regard.
It lays the problem on the state, obviously, because Congress did not know
exactly which way to go, how firm to be with it, and I think these are the
things that we are faced with in regional operations today. It's a matter
of trying to come up with the right kinds of answers, trying to get the
states to come up with the kinds of answers that they feel are a practicable
solution to the problem, and the kind of influence that EPA is going to have
on the states is one of working with them and trying to get them to push the
program.
I know that's not a clear answer, but Congress didn't give us one
either, you know.
Dr. Hubbard:
Anybody else?
Yes.
15
-------
Mr. Dick Amerman (Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Columbia, Missouri):
You speak primarily of erosion and sedimentation here as regards
nonpoint source pollution. What is EPA's forecast or outlook as far as
dissolved nutrients in runoff is concerned, spreading of manure, use of
fertilizers, and so on?
Mr. Svore:
Of course, obviously, the proper use of pesticides and the proper
application of fertilizers will decrease erosion and sediment runoff by pro-
viding the optimum in crop production, so from the standpoint we are very
much in favor of their proper use. It's one of the means of control that can
be exercised. I wouldn't imagine with the price of fertilizer that there's
going to be an excessive use of it in very many places. It wouldn't be an
economic return that you would be promoting.
But, no, basically I have never heard anyone within EPA talk
against the proper application of pesticides and fertilizers.
Dr. Hubbard:
Any other questions?
Dr. Dale H. Williams (Southwest Kansas Irrigation and Recreation
Association):
Mr. Svore, you made the statement here that it was next to im-
possible to sell conservation to farmers. We work very closely with our
irrigator groups in the sputhwest, and we find that the situation there is
entirely the opposite in regard to the programs and to the means and ability
of the individuals involved. They are very conservation-minded. It's a
matter of economics with them, and in the past recent years they have come
a long way in implementing those conservation practices into their farms.
They work with it very closely.
I would like to see some modification of that statement, if we may.
Mr. Svore:
Well, I think the statement had to do with not being able to sell
the farmer on conservation from a strictly economic standpoint. Obviously
there has been a lot of conservation sold to the farmer. I didn't mean it
in the context of your specific question at all. And you have some social
conscious and long-range economically conscious farmers, of course, who
recognize that in the long run this would pay.
16
-------
What I was using as an illustration was this one watershed in a
20-year limitation on whether or not these kinds of practices were justi-
fied solely from an economic standpoint within the farm. That doesn't hold,
necessarily, everywhere nor does it hold for indefinite periods into the
future. Obviously we have got to sell the farmer on conservation, but for
reasons other than just his own benefits during a brief period of time be-
cause that's going to be difficult to show economically. That was my point.
Mr. Williams:
Thank you.
Dr. Hubbard:
Anybody else?
Thanks, Jerry.
Dr. Hubbard:
One of the things I get to do is go to Washington about once a
month to visit the bureaucrats, and I have to be careful about that term
because places like the Midwest Research Institute exist because Washington
policy-makers and Washington problem-solvers and maybe even Washington
problem-generators need help and we try to provide that. Bureaucrat is an
honorable profession and an honorable term. We need those kind of guys. I
suppose some of you might argue whether we need that many or not, but we
certainly do need them.
As I go through the marble halls of Washington, one of the offices
I get into once in a while is that of the next speaker on the program.
William C. Shilling. That name is really not right. Everybody calls him
Chris. If you go into Chris1 office you'll find he has the problems that
many of the other people in the EPA have. That agency has one of the most
able staffs of any Washington group, but they also have one of the most
horrendous jobs. The offices are stacked high with paper, and they are al-
ways trying to find out what their new phone number is because somebody up
there generates random numbers and makes the staff change offices every 3
months; I don't know why. So you find Chris Shilling working hard. His
head is clearly in Washington.
But if you talk to him a little bit, you find that his heart still
seems to be in Texas and Oklahoma. I think that combination of a head in
17
-------
Washington and a heart in Texas and Oklahoma really is a pretty good back-
ground for dealing with the kind of a problem that Chris has to deal with.
He's Chief of the Nonpoint Sources Branch of the Water Programs
and in that capacity he carries prime responsibility for generation of EPA
policy and tactics relative to nonpoint source pollution.
Chris.
18
-------
AGRICULTURAL SEDIMENT CONTROL FOR WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
William C. Shilling
Chief, Special Sources Control Branch
Office of Air and Water Programs - EPA
19
-------
Mr. Shilling:
You know, there are advantages and disadvantages to being the
second speaker on a program. The disadvantage is that you are going to
be covering somewhat the same territory and maybe saying the same thing
as the previous speaker, and I will be covering somewhat the same territory
in many places. Of course, the big advantage is that the first speaker
gets hit with a bunch of questions that I'm sure glad he got hit with in-
stead of me.
I'm reminded a little bit, too, of an incident that happened in
my house not too long ago. I don't know how many of you are familar with
the book, "I'm Not Much, Baby, But I'm All I've Got." Well, my wife has
tried to get me to read this book and she was giving me a sales talk there
one night about it, and my 15-year-old boy was standing there listening.
Finally he turned around to me and said, "Dad, you should really read that
book." He said, "You're not much, Dad, but you're all we've got."
moment.
Well, I may not be much, folks, but I'm all you've got at the
I'm also reminded of another story. You know, a speaker gets up
and tells stories because he either has not much to say or doesn't have any
substance to what he is going to say. I guarantee, I have some substance
to what I'm going to say. It's just going to take a short period of time,
I hope.
But I*m also reminded of another story. Many of you have heard
this before. I have used it for many years, except it came out in Reader's
Digest not too long ago, too. But it's about an old cowboy who was out in
west Texas, some place close to Amarillo, I'm not exactly sure where it was,
but anyway, he'd been out there a long time. And he happened to pick up a
paper and he read about a revival that was fixing to take place over in
Amarillo. He got to thinking about this. It had been a long time since he
had been to church; maybe he ought to get up there.
So he got himself all spruced up and everything and he got up to
the church where this revival was to take place, but unfortunately when he
got there there was nobody there except the preacher. So he asked the
preacher about this thing and the preacher says, "No," he says, "you must
have made a mistake. That revival you were talking about was last week."
And this old cowboy says, "Oh, you know, I have driven all the
way up here and everything." He said, "What am I supposed to do?"
20
-------
And the preacher got to thinking about this and he said, "Yes,
the Lord says, 'Feed my sheep,1 and I have one sheep here." So he proceeded
to get up on the pulpit and he expounded about an hour's worth of a real
sermon.
After he got through and came down, he said, "Now, what did you
think of that, sir? Did it help you?"
The cowboy said, "Well, preacher, I want to tell you one thing."
He says, "When I go up to the north pasture and haul a load of hay up to
the north pasture and only one old cow comes up, I don't give her the whole
damned load."
I don't intend to give you the whole load this morning, and
actually in terms of the title of this Conference I am probably only going
to touch on one part of it, because what I have titled here on this talk is
"Agricultural Sediment Control for Water Quality Protection." I purposely
did this, simply because I think this is the first place we have to get to.
The subject of this paper leaves me a great deal of latitude. The
paper could easily be consumed with a number of aspects of agricultural sedi-
ment control. However, most of these aspects are covered in papers by in-
dividuals far more expert in the field than I. I do not wish to infringe
on any of their material so I will not attempt any unlearned specific dis-
cussions.
What I would like to do is proceed with a general discussion of
the subject area. With this in mind, I would briefly like to discuss three
major areas. These are:
1. Impact of agricultural sediments on water quality and the
control of these sediments.
2. Nonpoint control features of Public Law 92-500.
3. State and local control programs.
The impact of agricultural sediments on water quality generally
falls into three categories. First, there are the direct effects of the
sediments.
The greater portion of these sediments eventually settle to the
bottom of some body of water. They thus form a bottom sediment blanket
that can smother the bottom organisms that form a part of the life chain
of the water body. They also reduce the penetration of light into the water
body which in turn affects the photosynthesis processes. Finally, they have
an aesthetic effect.
21
-------
Secondly, the sediments act as carriers of potentially pollutional
materials. Many of the pesticides and nutrients reach waterways adsorbed
to soil particles.
Third, and perhaps of lesser importance in terms of sediment, is
the oxygen demands placed on the water body. Animal wastes and crop resi-
due that form a part of the sediments in a total sense are organic materials
and will utilize oxygen in their decomposition. In some few cases there
can be a chemical reaction between the sediments and the water that will re-
move oxygen from the water.
Now, if we accept that the foregoing can happen, we must accept
that agricultural sediments have an impact on water quality. The control
of agricultural sediments must be a part of the total program to protect
the quality of the nation's waters.
However, there seems to be a problem with the use of the word
"control." At least in some agricultural quarters, there has been much ado
about this word. I fail to understand this since agriculturists have been
talking about erosion control throughout my lifetime. I would pose the
question to you--is there any real difference between "erosion control"
and "sediment control"? Really, I think they are the same thing.
Mud in the bottom of a reservoir certainly is not growing corn.
Neither is fertilizer that is no longer on the field. Pesticides, in-
tended to control insects, fungus, or plant disease on a farm, are killing
the wrong things when they are in a stream.
I think the problem lies with the connotation some people place
on the word "control" when it is used in connection with water quality
protection. They immediately picture extensive collection systems and
massive treatment works. While the collection and removal of agricultural
sediments may be necessary in some critical water quality problem areas,
agricultural sediment control primarily rests with what I call "manage-
ment of the source." The agriculture land must be managed in such a way
that the sediments do not exist in the runoff water.
In other words, agricultural sediment control and soil conservation
are almost identical. If we recognize this, I believe we can jointly get
about the business of Agricultural Sediment Control for Water Quality Pro-
tection without being hung up on the meaning of words.
Now, I would like to turn to the "Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972" or Public Law 92-500. This Act, I believe, recognized
several of the items I have previously covered and provides us with a gen-
eral plan for the control of agricultural sediments.
22
-------
Public Law 92-500 delineates national goals and policy in Section
101. I would like to partially quote these goals and policies.
"101(a)(l) It is the national goal that the discharge of pol-
lutants into navigable waters be eliminated by 1985."
This goal is often misquoted as saying, "no discharge." It
actually says "no discharge, of pollutants." There is a major difference
between "no discharge" and "no pollutants."
"101(a)(2) It is the national goal that wherever attainable,
an interim goal of water which provides for protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation
in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983."
"101(a)(5) It is the national policy that areawide waste treat-
ment management planning process be developed and implemented to as-
sure adequate control of pollutants in each state."
"101(b) It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve,
and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of states to pre-
vent, reduce, and eliminate pollution,. . . etc."
If you will store these in your memory for a moment, I would like
to turn to several sections of the Act that have particular bearing on the
control of nonpoint sources. Because of their length, I will only partially
quote these sections or paraphrase them.
Section 102 provides that, "That Administrator shall . . . prepare
or develop comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminat-
ing pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters ..." It fur-
ther provides that such programs give due regard to fish, aquatic life
and wildlife, recreational purposes, aid withdrawals of water for public
water supply, agriculture, industrial, and other purposes.
Comprehensive programs would, I believe, have to include nonpoint
source controls if we are to prevent, reduce, or eliminate pollution of
navigable and ground water.
Section 104 states, "The Administrator shall establish national
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution . .
This section deals principally with research, investigations, training,
and information. One subsection in particular, 104(p), deals with
agriculture.
23
-------
Section 304(e) provides that the Administrator shall issue infor-
mation on (1) identifying and evaluating nonpoint sources of pollution
and on (2) processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution from
seven specific source categories. One category is, "(A) agricultural
and silvicultural activities, including runoff from fields and crops,
and forest lands."
It is important to note that in this section the words, "runoff
from fields and crop lands," are used along with the words, "nonpoint sources
of pollutants." The required 1-year information has been issued treating
agricultural runoff as a nonpoint source.
Section 208 provides for the development and implementation of
areawide waste treatment management plans. 208(b)(2) of this section reads
in part, "Any plan prepared under such process shall include, but not limited
to ..." If you skip to 208(b)(2)(F) you find "a process to (i) identify,
if appropriate, agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of
pollution, including runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used
for livestock and crop production, and (ii) set forth procedures and method
(including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such
sources."
This section is even more specific than 304(e) in that it uses the
words "agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources." It is
also important here to note that this refers to state and local areawide
planning.
Finally, Section 305(b) covers annual state reports dealing with
water quality and water pollution control. 305(b)(l) states in part, "Each
state shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by January 1, 1975, and
shall bring up to date each year thereafter, a report which shall include . .
Skipping again, 305(b)(l)(E) states, "a description of the nature and extent
of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs
which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including
an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs." 305(b)(2) states,
"The Administrator shall transmit such state reports, together with an analy-
sis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and annually there-
after."
Here we have state recommendations for nonpoint source control con-
tained in a state report or more accurately in some 50 state reports. While
EPA will provide an analysis, the state reports themselves go to the Congress.
This to me is a marvelous opportunity for the states, or shall we say the
people, to make their wishes known to the Congress.
24
-------
There are, of course, a number of other sections of PL 92-500
that have a bearing on the control of nonpoint sources or in the content of
this paper, agricultural sediments. However, I believe these are of great
importance. They mandate certain actions, but of more importance, I believe
they set out goals and lay out the intended program for the control of non-
point sources. The program that unfolds is:
Federal Information and Guidance (102), (104), (304e)
Cooperative Federal/State/Local Planning (208), (305b)
State and Local Management (106), (208)
The first two elements of the program are under way. Research is
being carried forward not only by EPA but by several other federal agencies.
The initial 304(e) information has been issued in the form of general reports.
Actions have been initiated to develop and issue 304(e) reports dealing with
specific aspects of nonpoint sources. Section 208 planning agencies are being
designated and states are preparing their initial 305(b) reports.
I would like to turn now to the last element--State and Local
Management Programs--which I consider the determinant in water quality im-
provement. While I have categorized these programs as a separate item, I
believe that local expertise must be involved from the very beginning in
the planning, development, and implementation of these programs. To illustrate,
I would like to briefly cover four items I believe to be extremely important.
First, if a control program for agricultural sediments is to be ef-
fective, it must be tailored to local conditions. Rainfall, soil types,
topography, crop types, and even legal and institutional structures vary con-
siderably around the country. Who else is more familiar with the conditions
of an area but the agriculture and water quality specialists who work daily
with that area.
Second, we must determine our priorities and develop and implement
an effective control program. I would like to make four points in connection
with this item.
1. Adequate assessments of the problems must be made. It is futile
to spend money to solve a problem that does not exist. It is just as futile
to short change a real problem.
2. Control measures designed to fit the local condition must be
planned and implemented to solve the identified water quality problems.
25
-------
3. The control measures must be cost effective. In other words,
it must be insured that we are getting our money's worth in terms of water
quality protection.
4. Some means must be established that insures that the needed
control measures are systematically applied. Much as it may be distasteful
to all of us, this implies the establishment of regulations. Volunteer
actions have, and will go a long way. However, unless there is a means to
insure that nonvolunteers also put in the control measures where needed, the
good water quality we all desire will not materialize.
My third major item rests with a matter of interpretation. I in-
dicated earlier that soil conservation and water quality protection are al-
most the same thing. However, I think it is important that we recognize
there are differences when we get into a specific situation. In most cases,
soil conservation measures will be the effective method of preventing agri-
cultural sediments from reaching the water courses. Nevertheless, there
are many areas where soil conservation measures are needed for conserving
soil but not for water quality protection. It would be a mistake if we
fall into the trap of trying to sell any and all soil conservation programs
on the basis of water quality protection.
Fourth, I would like to point out that the 208 planning and 305(b)
state reports preparation are either on-going or being initiated. Those
with the specific knowledge in the control of agricultural sediments should
make their expertise available for these efforts. This knowledge and ex-
perience cannot only insure the technical reliability of the control pro-
grams, but also insure that these control programs are realistic and have
hopes of being accomplished.
In summary, let me say we all have a very large job ahead of us.
We must recognize that agricultural sediments do affect water quality. We
have a national pollution control law that indicates the broad program to
control these sediments. Now, we must get about the business, at all levels,
of planning, developing, and implementing the control measures and programs
that will insure the minimum impact of agricultural sediments on the quality
of our waters.
26
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
Thank you, Chris. There will probably be questions.
Mr. Ronald A. Michieli (American National Cattlemen's Association,
Washington, B.C.):
One question comes to my mind in particular on this discussion
that Chris had, in what context do you place the recent NRDC-Russell Train
lawsuit that the courts ruled in favor of NRDC, and what impact will this
have with regard to nonpoint sources? As I understand the ruling, and
just an immediate and sketchy runby of the judge's decision on this thing,
this does in effect broaden EPA's authority under the point source category.
What effect and impact will this have on nonpoint considerations?
Mr. Shilling:
Well, first I don't think we have seen the final opinion or the
final order. This I believe is still under preparation. I have read the
opinion. I have not analyzed it and I have not discussed it with our legal
people yet. So I'm not going to be able to give you a very straightforward
answer.
Of course what the judge ruled--for those of you that are not
familiar with thing, EPA cut off a permit, put a permit limit at a 1,000
animal units or above and irrigation units at 3,000 acres or above and, I
guess, said we were not going to permit storm sewers at this time. I'm not
quite sure how silviculture got mixed up with the lawsuit, but it got mixed
up in there some way. The opinion of the judge, as I understand it, is that
EPA cannot establish these cutoff points, that they have to permit the point
sources and cannot establish a cutoff and say above this is the point and
above this is not to be permitted.
But the opinion also, as I read it, leaves a number of openings or
gives EPA some latitude in, oh, categorizing these things or developing
some sort of a program. Now, actually we are not that far along to give
you a straight answer on the thing, but I think what we will have to do, one
of the things we will have to do, is determine what is point and what is
nonpoint; and then the second thing probably will be develop a program
which will certainly have to be resource-oriented, I'm sure, in terms not
only of EPA but the states who are taking over the permitting program of
how fast you are going to proceed down the line to the ones that are point
sources. But as I say, the first thing that will probably have to be done
is really to determine officially some way or the other what is point and
what is nonpoint and then proceed to develop some sort of a program.
27
-------
As Jerry mentioned earlier, Public Law 92-500--let me back up just
a little bit. In the law, point sources are defined, and I have read that
definition a number of times, and I really haven't figured out anything that
they left out of it. I mean, you know, it is just about everything, really,
if we look at it that way. But certainly, realistically, you are not going
to go around in this country and try to put a permit on every ditch, you
know, crevasse or whatever you have. I mean that's just physically im-
possible.
But the other problem we have is that nonpoint sources are not de-
fined in the law. All you have is various implications you can draw or
deduce from the language of the law what is meant by nonpoint sources.
And then secondly, as Jerry mentioned, Public Law 92-500 does not give EPA
authority to go out and implement some control on nonpoint sources, not in
the same sense that you have with the permitting program for point sources.
I mean the states are supposed to take it over, but if the states do not
take it over then EPA has to do it. Now, you do not have that sort of
authority in the nonpoint source area.
But what it does indicate, as I tried to indicate in my paper, is
that under this state planning process and state implementation process and
the 208 process or total process, you not only have to have a plan but you
have to come up with a management agency that is going to take care of im-
plementing that plan, and I think the implication in the law pretty much is
that the nonpoint source controls, the regulations, requirements, imple-
mentation will rest with the state and local agencies under that particular
process.
I hope I have given you enough but not been too vague.
Mr. Jim Frank (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield,
Illinois)
From your comments I would surmise that you are going to resign
yourself to this opinion and neither yourself nor the joined-in party, as
I understand it, the National Livestock Feeders Association, is going to
appeal. Or, if that is not correct, are you thinking about legislative
relief? And if the answer to both of those is no, I would assume that
this does not preclude that less stringent effluent guidelines on the
smaller feed lots could be developed by the U.S. EPA so that it may not be
quite as bad as what it would appear from face value.
28
-------
Mr. Shilling:
I will try to take your questions in order, if I can.
I did not mean to indicate that EPA was not going to appeal. I
don't know whether they will or will not. There were several intervenors
in the case, of course, the State of Washington, the State of Colorado,
National Forest Products Association, and several others. I do not know
whether it will be appealed or not. As I said, I have not had an op-
portunity to discuss it with the lawyers in depth or anything along this
line.
Now, I was merely trying to answer the question over here, trying
to look at the alternatives regardless of whether it's appealed. Certainly
I think we will start looking at all those options regardless of what the
problem is.
Now, when you are talking in terms of smaller feedlots, at the
moment I cannot directly answer that thing, but I don't know whether I
see a great big problem. The effluent guideline for the cattle feeding,
if you want to put it this way, simply relates to a retention of a 10-
year storm or a 25-year storm and adequate disposal of the collected mate-
rial. Now, then, it gets to be a matter of degree when you get down to
the smaller and smaller type of thing. How much change there will be from
this I really don't know.
But when you look at it, I mean if you are talking about diversion
around the feeding area where some big operator like these hundred-thousand-
head outfits might have to have a consulting engineer and a contractor come
in and do the work, at least the small operation, the real small operation,
can probably do it with a shovel and equipment they have around the farm.
They could certainly dig a hole down there at the end of the lot that would
trap this stuff, and certainly I'm sure SCS would help with the design of
it.
But the object overall is to keep the stuff from running off to the
stream directly and getting some adequate disposal of it. You may have a
mild period in there where there is some economic type of thing, but it just
gets to be a matter of degree of how sophisticated you are going to be about
the thing.
Dr. Hubbard:
Time for one more question.
Yes.
29
-------
Mr. J. H'. Ebbinghaus (Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute,
Chicago, Illinois)
Could you give some indication of the magnitude of agricultural
sediment control; the lack of, I guess, would be the better statement?
And secondly, related to that, what's the highest priority work
program that you see in controlling of agricultural sediment?
Mr. Schilling:
The answer to your first question is no. I cannot give you a broad
picture. I keep hearing these different--you know, they say that there are
4 million or 4 billion tons or something like this coming off the land, and
only a certain portion of this actually gets out into the stream. Certainly
a great deal of it does get into the stream. How much of a problem this
actually is in terms of the overall nation, no. I cannot give you an answer.
We are hopeful that we will get this type.of information through all these
so-called 50 state reports, if these state reports do come in and address
this particular thing. Perhaps someone from the Soil Conservation Service
might give you a little better answer in terms of the conservation needs,
inventories and things of this nature.
So to answer your first, I cannot give you a direct answer on that,
no.
What was the second one?
Mr. Ebbinghaus:
In terms of priority at work, what's the most critical need in the
sediment control program?
Mr. Shilling:
Well, I think it's your conservation measures and being sure that
these things are applied on a systematic basis. There is no question there
has been a great deal done. The soil and conservation districts around the
country, the work of the Soil Conservation Service, the Extension Service
have accomplished a great deal, yet we still have certain places and certain
people that do not have these conservation measures on, and I think that the
systematic approach to a conservation measure, whatever the most viable is
for that particular farm management unit, is best. Now, it may be no till
cropping, it may be terraces, it may be contour farming, or it may be digging
a hole down there at the end some place to stop it all, but getting the con-
servation practices in where they are needed for keeping the stuff out of
the creek.
30
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
One more.
Mr. Min Amemiya (Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa):
I would like to ask Mr. Shilling if EPA has made any effort to pro-
mote helping farmers put conservation on the land. Every year we go through
budgetary restrictions on cost-sharing programs. If EPA is sincere about
putting conservation on the land, what influence can it exert on Congress
to get these things on a more permanent basis?
Mr. Shilling:
I'm not sure what influence we could exert. As Jerry answered the
question earlier, we have not attempted any legislation ourselves, this
type of thing. You do have a program resting over in USDA, and I would say
that any support that we would have would be through that type of a program.
Now, as to what the future holds in that regard, I cannot answer that ques-
tion at the moment. I think as the program gels—certainly EPA is going to
support the USDA. We have no intention whatsoever of trying to duplicate
or replace or anything else the programs that are already existing or trying
to duplicate out in the field the structure that SCS Extension Service has.
How many people have you got out there, 30,000 or something like that? I
have a hard time getting one position much less 30,000 of them. So our
support would be through the support of these other programs, at least at
the present time. I mean we have no plan at the moment that I know of of
creating a different type of a thing or something along this line.
Mr. Amemiya:
My reference wasn't to any competing programs. I'm asking what
EPA can do to complement this funding process. It's a frustrating thing
for SCS people each year.
Mr. Shilling:
I realize that. It's frustrating to us too.
Mr. Amemiya:
But I think the EPA has monies to get these things done, more than
some of the other agencies.
31
-------
Mr. Shilling:
EPA has a lot of money, but it's in construction of sewage treat-
ment plants, not in these other areas.
Mr. Amemiya:
That's all right, but can't some of these monies be diverted to
what we feel is a prime priority in this country?
Mr. Shilling:
I'm not going to comment on that.
Dr. Hubbard:
I think that's a good question, but I don't think anybody here
can really answer it.
And so at that point maybe we had better go to the next and last
EPA representative.
What we are trying to do as we set up the program is get balanced
representation. I don't know how many of you understand the EPA organiza-
tion. I don't know if anybody anywhere would claim to, but generally
speaking we have three EPA segments represented. Jerry represents the
regional organization, Chris represents the Office of Water Programs, who
to a first approximation are charged with devising planning strategy and
that sort of thing. Our next speaker is Dr. Tom Murphy, from the EPA Office
of Research and Development. I guess to a first approximation Tom is charged
with developing the data base so Chris can do what he needs to do.
Dr. Murphy is a native of Illinois. His undergraduate degree is
from Knox College in Galesburg. He started life as a biologist and chemist.
He went off to Yale and his M.S. and Ph.D. are in biology from Yale. He
spent some time at Glasgow University in Scotland where he studied animal
physiology. Not satisfied with that, he decided to go to law school at
George Washington University. He served as medical service officer in the
Army for 2 years, and since 1967 he has been with the EPA or its predecessor
organizations. He is now the Division Director for the Nonpoint Pollution
Control Division of the Office of Research and Development.
Dr. Murphy is also one of our sponsors, so clap loud for him.
32
-------
TECHNICAL BASIS FOR AGRICULTURAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Thomas A. Murphy
Director, Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Division
Office of Research and Development - EPA
33
-------
Dr. Murphy:
Thanks, Hub.
Now you know why I'm on the program.
I have got to say I learned more about how things really work
back home in Illinois and in the Army than I did all those other places.
Gee, I thought by the time I got up here Jerry and Chris would
have all the questions answered, but it looks like it's just wanning up a
little bit.
Of all the water quality problems facing the nation today, pol-
lution from agricultural sources is technically one of the most complex.
Not only do the systems by which we produce our food and fiber involve
highly complicated living processes, but these processes vary enormously
with location. This variation is readily apparent among the major climatic
and land resource areas of the nation. However, it can be equally signifi-
cant on a local scale. The conditions of soil, crop, topography and hy-
drology and, therefore, the type of pollution controls required, may differ
greatly between the fields at the upper fringe of a watershed and those in
the bottom but a few miles or 100 yards away.
Even the term "pollutant" is not simple to define as it applies
to agricultural sources. Some of the major substances involved, sediment,
nutrients and salts, are natural components of the ecosystem which become
"pollutants" only when they exceed levels which impair water quality or
beneficial uses of our waters.
Nor are these substances discharged in a continuous, easily pre-
dicted manner. Usually their discharge is the result of rainfall or snow-
melt and runoff, which are processes which can be dealt with only in terms
of probabilities and, therefore, can be predicted with only limited ac-
curacy. Since these discharges are intermittent and often diffuse, there
is usually no distinct effluent which can be easily collected or monitored
for its volume and content of pollutants. This means that in most cases
it is not feasible to measure directly the pollution load, which is one
of the most essential pieces of information needed for environmental manage-
ment purposes. Because of this, we are forced to use less direct means for
assessing the contribution to water pollution of agricultural sources and
for determining the effectiveness of methods for controlling this impact.
In dealing with a problem as complex as water pollution from
agriculture, it is very tempting either to make the problem more under-
standable by trying to reduce it to a few generalizations or to bog down
completely in its details and diversity.
34
-------
Oversimplification is apparent in attempts to come to broad con-
clusions, such as equating agricultural water pollution control with erosion
control or in efforts to press for general solutions such as the application
of uniform control practices over broad areas, such as an entire state. Un-
fortunately, agricultural pollution problems are too diverse and complex
to be solved by simple, uniform remedies.
The other extreme is to overcomplicate the problem by unduly em-
phasizing its complexity and the uncertainties of its solution. This ap-
pears in pleas to do nothing until we fully understand the nature of the
pollution problem and can fully justify the means for its control. The
fallacy of this approach is in the degree and precision of technical in-
formation which is demanded before action can be taken.
Let's face it—many, if not most, of the important decisions we
make in our personal, public, and business activities are based on far less
information or certainty than we would like to have. Usually, the degree
of certainty required for a decision is related to the severity of the
problem, the benefits from its solution, and the cost and time required to
obtain more information.
With regard to agricultural pollution control, one of the key
public decisions we face is what level of technical information is needed
to justify action. No doubt, those who will pay the cost of control will
demand more technical data, and those who don't pay, will demand less.
What I would like to discuss today is how these decisions are
likely to be made and what technical information will be needed upon which
to base them.
It seems to me that the decision-maker will need the answers to
six basic questions:
1. How much of the pollutant or potential pollutant leaves the
site where it is generated?
2. How much of the pollutant reaches a location where it degrades
water quality or results in some other environmental damage?
3. How much water quality degradation or damage occurs as a re-
sult of this exposure level?
4. What options are available for reducing the pollutant load
from the source, and what is their relative cost and effectiveness?
5. How feasible is the implementation of these control options?
35
-------
6. Are the benefits resulting from control worth the cost?
It is all but the last cost/benefit question, which can be solved
only through the political process, that we must deal with from a technical
standpoint. We must also consider who this decision-maker will be and when
he will be making these decisions. In this regard, it is clearly the intent
of EPA's current policy that these decisions be made on a state and local
level. It is also clear, if we are to carry out the mandate of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, that these decisions will have to be made dur-
ing the next 5 to 6 years.
Where do we stand today in our ability to answer these questions,
and what is the probability that we will have adequate answers available
when they are needed?
1. Measuring source loads; As I mentioned earlier, the problem
here is one of the lack of an effluent which can be easily or economically
measured. This means that in most areas, we need techniques for measuring
something which can be measured, such as soil type, rainfall pattern,
cropping procedures, etc., and from these measurements be able to predict
the resulting load of pollutants on the nearest body of water. Currently,
for some substances, such as sediment, we know a great deal about what
leaves the source, but considerably less about predicting how much reaches
the nearest stream. Similarly with other substances, such as nutrients or
pesticides, most of our available data also relates to what leaves the source
rather than what reaches the watercourse.
As with most of these questions, we at EPA are approaching this
question in two phases. The first phase is to compile, evaluate and pub-
lish what is known now in order to make the current knowledge base widely
available, and to stimulate and open discussion of its adequacy and utility.
For source loading data, an initial effort is being conducted for us by
Midwest Research Institute as the first step of a project on the "National
Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources." This consists of a
manual of loading factors or functions based on available data for all non-
point sources, including agriculture. We currently have a draft of this
manual under review and expect it to be published sometime this summer.
The second phase, which is also underway, is the development of
more sophisticated loading functions or models which will become available
for general use during the period of 1977 to 1980. Most of these are being
developed jointly with other federal agencies. Included are:
a. A model for determining salt loads from irrigated agri-
culture in the Colorado River Basin being developed in cooperation with
the Bureau of Reclamation.
36
-------
b. A cropland runoff model for nutrients and pesticides being
developed for four major crop regions of the country in cooperation with
the Agricultural Research Service.
c. An initial determination of the feasibility of develop-
ing a runoff model for silvicultural activities in cooperation with the
Forest Service.
2. Measuring pollutant delivery and damage: This is the problem
of determining how much of a pollutant gets to a place where it will do no
harm and how much damage results. Technically this is probably the most
critical problem we face and the one for which useful answers are most dif-
ficult to obtain. It is complicated by the fact that many of the substances
we have to deal with, such as sediment, nutrients and salts, are natural sub-
stances and become pollutants only when in excess of acceptable levels.
Moreover, the damages resulting from agricultural pollution depend greatly
upon what type of body of water is being impacted.
The dilemma we face is the enormous complexity and diversity of
biological systems. To understand fully the dynamics of all types of waters
in all parts of the country is clearly beyond our current means and the
time available, and may not be worth the cost. This problem is a critical
one for determining what level of technical information is adequate for
decision-making. We do have some very useful information on sediment dam-
ages and on acceptable levels of nutrient enrichment in nonflowing waters.
However, we need a clearly defined set of measures for decision-making at
the local level. One option we are just beginning to examine is the pos-
sibility of determining background levels of natural substances such as
sediment and nutrients in our waters as a measure of acceptable levels.
This might constitute for nonpoint sources a more realistic reference point
than the often confusing concept of "no discharge." How one defines and
measures "background" is not straightforward. However, if it can be done,
the concept may have utility in helping to determine acceptable pollutants
levels and consequently, how far we have to go with agricultural pollution
control.
3. Cost and effectiveness of source controls; In this area, we
face the interesting dilemma of knowing a large number of control options,
but not having very much information on their effectiveness in terms of
overall water quality improvement. For instance, there are indications that
soil erosion measures such as no-till farming practices could significantly
reduce the pollution load from cropland. However, we do not know with ac-
curacy how much this load would be reduced under most conditions. More-
over, we have not yet adequately assessed the significance of possible
environmental side effects from these measures, such as increased infiltra-
tion to groundwater or impacts from the increased use of herbicides.
37
-------
Recent experience with such issues as the catalytic converter for automobile
exhausts and past experience with such issues as phosphates in detergents
is teaching us that these decisions can involve very difficult and complex
environmental tradeoffs.
We believe that our initial emphasis should be directed not so
much to the development of new control options but to the evaluation of
the cost/effectiveness of controls that are now available. It seems prudent
in doing so to capitalize on current knowledge. For instance, if we could
relate water quality impact to average annual soil loss we could tap the
vast base of knowledge on soil conservation techniques.
Our approach to this area at EPA is varied, but it is aimed both
at immediate compilation of known data and longer term demonstrations of
cost/effective source management methods. One near-term effort I'd like to
mention is a manual on management of pollution from agricultural chemicals,
nutrients, and sediments being prepared for us by the Agricultural Research
Service.
This manual, which is keyed to land resource areas, is a guide to
selection of agricultural pollution management systems for either a farm or
a drainage area. It does not specify what has to be done. What it does do
is to describe what data are needed, how and where to get the data, and how
to use these data in estimating both pollutant loads and the effectiveness
and costs of available controls. The document is aimed at the state and
local environmental regulatory official and is not intended to supplant
existing information or data, or to discharge the use of local agricultural
expertise, where appropriate. Rather, it is intended to guide the regulatory
official in making use of available agricultural information and expertise.
We are very interested in determining both the utility of this document in
providing helpful information and the effectiveness of the format in order
to guide us in future efforts. Current plans are for publication this
summer.
4. Implementation of controls; Sometimes knowing technical solu-
tions to problems is not enough. An example of this occurs with the manage-
ment of salinity in irrigation return flows from agriculture in the Colorado
River Basin. We are rapidly coming to the conclusion that water management
methods which involve a substantial reduction of water use while maintaining
current crop production will prove to be a very cost effective control mea-
sure for salinity. However, the implementation of appropriate practices is
severely inhibited by existing laws, institutions and traditions. How to
overcome these constraints is not clear at this time.
Assuming we know what needs to be done, how do we go about getting
the controls implemented? Certainly changing the way a farmer farms is a
38
-------
far more complicated matter than requiring the installation of a treat-
ment system at the end of a pipe by an industry or municipality. It seems
clear to me that our experience with education and persuasion is such that
the probability is sufficiently high to conclude that some degree of regula-
tion may be required in some areas to achieve water quality goals.
A major problem in regulating nonpoint sources is the lack of a
defined effluent to measure. With point sources the quality of the effluent,
or the pollution load, can be specified as a measure of performance for con-
trol systems. By specifying only performance, freedom is provided to se-
lect the control system appropriate to the specific source. However, for
agricultural sources there is no distinct effluent which can be regulated
and monitored for compliance. Therefore, the source activities or practices
themselves must be regulated. Because of this, it has been suggested that
some basic set of common practices be applied to agricultural sources, as a
rough equivalent of Best Practicable Treatment for point sources. This con-
cept can be seriously misleading. Agricultural conditions and water quality
requirements vary with location to the extent that I feel it is impractical
to attempt to apply uniform practices over large areas. I think the key to
understanding this concept is to realize that although the farming practices
may in some cases have to be regulated, they will not likely be prescribed
by a regulatory agency. Let me try to explain how I see this process work-
ing, as described in the following sequence:
a. An initial determination would be made in a drainage area,
possibly to the level of the farm, of an environmental source performance
level, such as the maximum soil loss rate or comparable measures;
b. A set of practices would then be developed, presumably by
the farmer or some local unit such as a Soil and Water Conservation District,
assisted by local experts. These practices would be specifically tailored
to the conditions of each area or farm to meet the specified performance
level, and hopefully would be consistent with an overall land management
plan for the area;
c. This specific set of practices for each area or farm
would be reviewed and approved by the appropriate regulatory agency; and
finally;
d. The approved practices would then be monitored and en-
forced.
Thus, the practices are regulated, but not specified by the
regulatory agency, and considerable leeway is allowed for tailoring con-
trols to local conditions. For such a system to work at the local level
there is a critical need for technical guidelines which relate control
practices to pollutant loading or performance levels.
39
-------
Conclusions
From this analysis we can see that the technical aspects of agri-
cultural pollution control are complex indeed. Our challenge in providing
the technical base for these critical decisions is made more difficult by
the pressure of time. With the lead time required for this type of research,
we literally have to decide now and commit ourselves to the work needed to
produce results 3 to 5 years from now. The key to doing this effectively
is to understand, as best we can, what technical information the decision-
maker will need. I hope this Conference can substantially assist us in this
understanding.
Dr. Hubbard:
Thank you, Tom.
Questions? Yes.
Mr. Dwight Hamilton (National Association of Wheat Growers, Olney, Texas):
I would like to know how much input farmers are having in the
decisions that are being made by EPA.
Dr. Murphy:
I'm going to have to—and Dr. Hubbard tried to explain EPA's
organization and did probably as good a job as anybody—say, as I have often
told my colleagues in USDA, I'll explain EPA's way of doing business if they
will tell me how USDA does it.
I can't answer that from a policy standpoint. Maybe Jerry and
Chris can help out there. From a technical standpoint, which is my area
of responsibility, we are trying to work very closely with the agricultural
community. Now, the agricultural community is not a simple or uncomplex
group of people.
The way we tried it, and this is sort of an example of how we
are trying to do it, in this user's manual, is we went over to USDA, our
sister federal agency, and said, look, we want to work with the agricultural
community in developing the technical base on which these decisions would
be made; our hope is not in telling the farmer what to do but in giving him
the technical information to make those decisions, so that the state water
pollution official and the county extension agent and the SCS man all tell
him the same technical information, so he has a common base. And we said,
how can we do this?
40
-------
And the way we decided was to set up essentially a working group
within USDA spearheaded by ARS, but with involvement from the Extension
Service, cooperative state research service, and the people involved in these
areas to put together this national manual, which is a manual that tells you
what data you need, how to use these data in making the decisions on sediment,
nutrients and chemicals from cropland.
Now, where this stands right now is we have a draft in hand that
is being revised by a number of state extension groups; it's being revised
by ARS groups around the country, by SCS, and so forth. Our problem is,
working on agricultural research, we have got about 25 people. ARS alone
has 8,000 or so. And there are so many people we can talk with in a day.
We felt with these limitations, the most effective way to go is through our
sister agency to the farmer.
And I think that's the best explanation I can give you right
now. If you have got some suggestions on how we can do it within the re-
sources we have got available, I would.sure appreciate it. We want to do
it in as open a way as possible, and I am speaking right now of just develop-
ing the technical use, and we will, I think you will find, cooperate with
you to the extent of our time and ability.
Dr. Hubbard:
Jerry, do you have a comment?
Mr. Svore:
No. I just wanted to add a little bit to what Tom said.
There is another way, incidentally, that the farmer has a lot to
say as to what EPA's policies and regulations are. I think a good example
is the feedlot regs when they first came out. When they were published in
the Federal Register there was a lot of response to that and EPA did listen.
Now, we have a court case which we lost, and I am not so sure that we probably
weren't closer to what the interpretation of the court case was the first go-
around.
But the point is, there is an opportunity to take a crack at the
regs when they are published in the Federal Register, and we have proven in
the past that we do listen to that.
Dr. Hubbard:
Time for one more question.
Yes.
41
-------
Mr. Dick Amerman:
You refer to the fact that there are no effluents to measure, and
so forth. You must mean that there are so many farm boundaries and so many
streams that you can't do it exactly.
Dr. Murphy:
Yes.
Mr. Amerman:
But your programs which will be developed locally must also have
some sort of a guideline for the local people to get out and spot-check the
adequacy of their programs; is this true?
Dr. Murphy:
Yes. I didn't mean to say there is no effluent. You know, you
could go out and measure what comes off the draw of every cornfield, if you
wanted to, it would be very complex, and when you are dealing with these
probability rainfall events you have got to be there at the right time. If
you are 2 min late you may miss 90% of the load going down.
What I meant to say is I think it's economically technically im-
practical to deal with the effluent, and I think what you need is to estab-
lish defined relationships between something you can measure. In other
words, this practice is within a certain probability range likely to re-
duce the loading in nutrient or sediment in this area by this much and
establish these general relationships and then apply the practice and
monitor the practice itself.
Now, of course you have to have some overall base in water quality
monitoring to verify that your predictive relationships are really valid,
but I think there's no other way to go because it's just too complex and too
expensive to try to get out there at the right time and get the right measure-
ment. A sampling station for a rainfall event is a very expensive and very
complicated device, and there is just no way I can see this could be applied
generally.
Does that answer your question?
Mr. Amerman:
Well, I suppose part of it is.at what level do you expect to do
your model checking to verify your model? Do you expect the local units
to do this, do you expect the state level to do it, or the regional office?
42
-------
Dr. Murphy:
It's probably going to have to be done at several levels. You
know, the difficulty is, if you develop some sort of data on how much
practice, say terracing, or something, to reduce loading of nutrients, how
broad an area is that applicable to? Do we need data on every watershed
around the country? We can't do that either, so we are going to have to
do it within a probability range.
Now, at the federal level we will try to do it by major areas.
It will probably have to be a combined effort at the state and local ef-
fort to optimize these to the local conditions. There is no way we could
do it here. And there are a lot of people out there in the agricultural
community who have the capability for doing this. What we are trying to
do is put a little pressure on them from the federal level to join us in
this effort. It has got to be both of us.
Dr. Hubbard:
There will be an opportunity this afternoon in the panel discus-
sion for more questions. You will be here, will you not, Tom?
Dr. Murphy:
Right.
Dr. Hubbard:
So let's adjourn now for coffee. We are only 1 min behind schedule.
When you come back in, do not be shy about the front row. There are chairs
up here. We have too many people crowded in the back.
We will resume in 15 min.
- COFFEE BREAK -
43
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
The Environmental Protection Agency had their inning and now we
are going to shift keys a little bit. It seemed to me there were several
themes that ran consistently through the statements this morning. One was
the close interrelationship between environmental concerns and soil con-
servation. Another that seemed to come up was the mismatch, so to speak,
between the resources and people and dollars available to the EPA and the
much larger organization and resources, so the EPA people said, and I be-
lieve it, that the Agriculture Department and the Soil Conservation people
have. So the soil conservation establishment gets the next inning.
The first speaker is David Unger, Executive Secretary of the
National Association of Conservation Districts. We have been working
across the country, you know. We started out with a sociologist from
California, then we moved to a sanitary engineer from Kansas and North
Dakota, we dropped down to Texas for a livestock expert, we picked up a
biologist from Illinois, and now we are shifting to Pennsylvania.
David Unger, who has been with the National Association of Con-
servation Districts since 1964, was Director of the Pennsylvania State Soil
and Water Conservation Commission and he helped organize some 32 new soil
and water conservation districts in that state. He's a good bridge because
he's a Michigan native. He went to college in Ohio, then he moved to study
in Political Science and Public Administration at the University of
Pennsylvania and Harvard University.
The topic of Dave's talk is Conservation Districts and Pollution
Control.
Dave Unger.
44
-------
CONSERVATION DISTRICTS AND POLLUTION CONTROL
David G. Unger
Executive Secretary
National Association of Conservation Districts
45
-------
Mr. Unger:
Thank you.
I would be less than honest if I didn't say I stand here with some
reluctance because of the difficulty and complexity of the subject that we
are dealing with this morning. I'm reminded of the time when Johnny woke up
and decided he didn't want to go to school and told his mother. She said,
"Johnny, you have got to go to school." And he said, "I don't want to go
to school."
He said, "The building is in terrible shape, the kids are fighting
in the halls, the walls need painting, nobody likes me, the students don't
like me, the teachers don't like me, the janitor doesn't like me, and I
don't want to go to school today."
And his mother said, "Johnny, you have got to go to school. You're
the principal."
It is fair to say, I believe, that we would not be discussing the
problem of agriculture and clean water at this Conference had not the Con-
gress responded to widespread concern over the state of the environment by
enacting the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. Yet, in at
least one aspect of this total concern, we have come full circle.
It was 40 years ago that the Congress enacted another law that
set in motion a vast program dealing with environmental quality. This was
Public Law 46 of the 74th Congress, and it was declared national policy to
"provide permanently for the control and prevention of soil erosion and
thereby to preserve natural resources, control floods, prevent impairment
of reservoirs, and maintain the navigability of rivers and harbors (and)
protect public health. . ."
That law established the Soil Conservation Service, and the
problems faced by that agency in dealing with erosion on millions of farms
and ranches throughout the country eventually led the states to enact laws
under which a network of 3,000 local soil conservation districts was created.
These districts, managed by 17,000 elected and appointed officials,
are the members of our Association. Their work has been concentrated on the
prevention of erosion, preservation of the soil, better management of land
and water, and wise use of land and its resources. They have promoted the
concept of soil conservation as a public duty as well as a sensible business
practice. They have aided farmers and ranchers by coordinating technical,
financial, research, and other services available from cooperating agencies.
46
-------
The districts have relied on scientific conservation planning as
a foundation for this effort, and this approach has been maintained as their
work has gone beyond simply saving soil to more sophisticated programs in
watershed management, flood prevention, recreation enterprises, economic
development, and assistance to towns and suburban communities.
The program is a successful one, and it has been conducted wholly
on a voluntary basis.
In recent years, however, there has been a tendency to look at the
consequences of soil erosion, and related problems, from a different vantage
point. Increasingly, the runoff that leaves farms and ranches has been viewed
as a pollution problem, and the detached soil, along with nutrients, pesti-
cides, and other chemicals, have been considered from the water quality stand-
poing—rather than solely as evidence of poor land management that degrades
an essential resource at the source.
Our districts, charged by state law with the control and prevention
of soil erosion, have been naturally concerned most with the role of sedi-
ment as a pollutant. They have noted that despite progress that has been
made, some 4 billion tons of soil materials are washed into tributary streams
each year. They have studied research reports which indicate that at least
half of the total sediment delivery originates from agricultural lands, with
the rest coming from forests and associated rangelands, streambank erosion,
construction sites, roadbanks, surface-mined areas, and geological erosion.
Sediment has been one of the last pollutants to be recognized as
such. It is, of course, a widespread problem and most difficult to deal with.
And the nation has concentrated its greatest efforts, and rightly so, on
sources of pollution that can be more easily controlled and which have more
clearly defined health hazards.
As the importance of sediment control has come to be recognized
in this more recent context, our member conservation districts have aided
in a number of approaches to the problem. Several years ago, it became
evident that it would be useful to respond on a national basis to the actions
being taken locally and in the states. Among the developments that NACD
participated in actively were these:
First, a National Conference on Sediment Control in the fall of
1969; We sponsored this in cooperation with the National Association of
Counties and the Soil Conservation Society of America. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, and the Department of Agriculture cooperated.
47
-------
One of our objectives at that time was to create an understanding
of sediment as a water pollutant. We were pleased when Senator Jennings
Randolph of West Virginia, our keynote speaker and Chairman of the Senate
Public Works Committee, described sediment not only as a pollutant but as
the "world's greatest pollutant" in terms of volume. The proceedings of this
conference, published by HUD, and the conference's working paper, published
by the National Association of Counties, remain valuable sources of informa-
tion today.
Second, the Symposium on Environmental Legislation held in 1972
by the Council of State Governments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
NACD participated actively in the soil erosion workshop of this symposium
which resulted in a recommendation that responsibility for an erosion and
sediment control regulatory program be placed in the conservation districts
and that suggested legislation be drafted along these lines in the form of
an amendment to district enabling laws.
Third, the development of suggested state legislation; A task
force was established, with membership from conservation districts, state
government, the Department of agriculture, and the Environmental Protection
Agency to draft such a model erosion and sediment control act. Mr. Dale
Cochran, one of the speakers this afternoon, served as chairman of this
task force. The act was approved by the Council of State Governments and
distributed to the states in their volume of 1973 Suggested State Legisla-
tion.
And fourth, the sponsorship of a series of state sediment con-
trol institutes (see Table I); With financial support from EPA, our As-
sociation conducted a series of over 40 state conferences, many held as
governors' conferences, on this subject. The emphasis was on communica-
tion with the individuals and interests most directly concerned, such as
farmers, ranchers, builders, developers, planners, state legislators,
foresters, county and municipal officials, soil conservationists, environ-
mentalists, and representatives of local, state, and federal agencies. Our
state associations of conservation districts and the state soil and water
conservation commissions and departments were key participants in these
sessions.
We had several major purposes in mind. First to awaken, or per-
haps we should say reawaken, interest in the matter of erosion and sediment
control. Second, to report on what has been done in Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Iowa, the Virgin Islands, and other jurisdictions to cope with the problem.
Third, to consider the use of regulatory as well as educational and incen-
tive approaches. Fourth, to consider the provisions of the model act re-
ferred to above. And finally, the most importantly, to encourage the states
to take action in this field, especially in view of the processes set in
motion by PL 92-500.
48
-------
TABLE I
STATE SEDIMENT CONTROL INSTITUTE DATES AND STATUS OF STATE LEGISLATION
vo
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado*
Connecticut*
Delaware
Florida.
Georgia*
Hawaii!/
Idaho*
Illinois
Indiana*
Iowa
Kansas*
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine*
Maryland2-/
Massachusetts*
Michigan
Minnesota*
Mississippi*
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Institute Date
12/9/74
4/11/74
5/8-9/74
9/13-14/73
5/31/73
7/22-24/73
5/14-18/73
1/22-23/73
7/28-30/74
12/2-4/73
8/28-29/72
1/25-26/73
12/15-16/72
7/16/74
10/17/73; 10/3/74
10/9/74
11/30-12/1/72
9/18/73
12/13-14/73
12/15/72
12/12-13/73
11/29/73
Proceedings
Law
Drafted
Law
Introduced
Law
Enacted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
5/
X
X
-------
TABLE I (Concluded)
Ui
o
Institute Date
10/10/74
3/75
3/22/74
12/10/74
4/24/74
1/17-18/73
9/12/72
12/11-12/72
10/30/74
9/18/74
3/26-27/73
7/24-25/74
3/28-29/74
2/28/74; 7/18/74
11/27/73
12/12-13/72
4/26-27/73
5/29-30/73
7/26/74
Proceedings
Law
Drafted
Law
Introduced
Law
Enacted
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
State
New Hampshire*
New Jersey
New Mexico*
New York 12/10/74 X
North Carolina* 4/24/74 X
North Dakota 1/17-18/73 X
Ohio
Oklahoma*
Oregon 12/11-12/72 X
PennsyIvaniaP./
Rhode Island 10/30/74 X
South Carolina
South Dakota*
Tennessee
Texas
Utah*
Vermont*^'
Virginia
Washington-^'
West Virginia
Wisconsin*
Wyoming*
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
* Governor's conference.
_!/ Four institutes held. "if Two institutes held. ^/ Held by Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources. 4_/ Preliminary conference. J5/ Governor's Executive Order assigns sediment
control responsibility to conservation districts.
-------
It will be obvious to all familiar with the conservation district
program that the issue of a regulatory approach was of tremendous interest
to the institute participants. Many did not realize the extent to which
such programs had already been developed, first by town, city, and county
governments, and later by state governments. In most of these cases, which
primarily dealt with controlling sediment resulting from the construction
of homes, shopping centers, highways, and other facilities, conservation
districts had been instrumental in the development of the programs and had
responsibilities in connection with them.
Institute participants were also intensely interested in the newer
laws enacted in Iowa, the Virgin Islands, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and later--
Hawaii—that provided for the control of sediment originating from agricultural
as well as other lands.
The question of whether regulation is necessary to achieve goals
in this area is important. Those who favor regulation raise the questions:
-- What are the prospects for dealing adequately with prevention
of erosion on agricultural lands? A great deal remains to be
done and only a regulatory program will provide the necessary
acceleration.
--Do changing farming practices and ownership patterns require
a different approach? Is the ethic of soil stewardship and
voluntary use of soil-conserving practices adequate in today's
highly organized agri-business context?
-- How can voluntary compliance in the agricultural sector be
squared with mandatory standards in the construction and de-
velopment fields? Is it fair to expect some to comply by law,
and others not?
-- How can the nation deal with the potentials for extraordinary •
erosion hazards, such as those that are created during times
of expansion of agricultural production? Erosion reached 20 to 30
tons per acre per year in some sections of the cornbelt last
year, and 50 to 200 tons per acre in parts of the western high
plains.
-- And finally, isn't it clear that some kind of regulatory program
for nonpoint source pollution control--including sediment con-
trol- -is a foregone conclusion in view of the requirements of
PL 92-500?
51
-------
At this point in our institutes, we discussed the model act. This
draft bill, prepared for the purpose of stimulating discussion, combined
many of the features of state laws existing at the time. Let me review its
features briefly.
It calls for control of sediment originating from all land-
disturbing activities--agricultural, forestry, and construction. It calls
for a state sediment control program and guidelines to be developed by the
state soil and water conservation commission or department, and local pro-
gram and guidelines to be developed by conservation districts. There are
provisions for the cooperation of the state water pollution control agency
and for public hearings. There are provisions for inspection and enforce-
ment and for funding of the program.
The basis of the model act is that prevention is the key to solu-
tion of the problem. Conservation plans, approved by the local districts,
are required for all land-disturbing activities. They must be implemented
in order for landowners to comply with the act. The plans, based on stan-
dards established by the district, would call for those measures—management,
vegetative, and structural--that are needed to hold erosion and consequent
sedimentation within reasonable limits.
What has this educational program achieved? Most importantly, we
believe, a new awareness of the extent of the problem. The information
presented and the discussions that took place have helped enormously to
achieve a greater realization of what is at stake in preventing erosion and
sediment damages.
A second major consequence has been to energize leadership and
action. In almost every case, active follow-up has resulted from the in-
stitutes. Task forces have been formed to study the. problem, and programs
to deal with the problem are being formulated.
A third benefit has been the exchange of information between
many individuals and organizations that had not been aware of the others'
programs and interests.
Finally, and more concretely, five additional state laws in this
field were enacted during the period while the institutes were in progress,
and about 15 additional laws have been drafted for introduction in state
legislatures. One governor issued an Executive Order dealing with the
matter.
At the conclusion of the institutes, we made several recommenda-
tions based on what we had learned. These are:
52
-------
1. Continue to place emphasis on the preventive approach in
dealing with sediment and related nonpoint source pollutants.
2. Continue to utilize the Model State Act for Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control of the Council of State Governments as an educational tool in
the discussion of the principles of regulatory programs for sediment control.
3. Cooperate with concerned organizations in the preparation,
evaluation, and dissemination to the states of additional legislative and
program implementation materials deemed adequate to meet the objectives of
PL 92-500 that are directly related to sediment control.
4. Exert every effort to encourage close cooperation between state
water pollution control officials, state soil and water conservation agency
leaders, conservation district officials, and the heads of other concerned
state agencies in the development of nonpoint source control programs in
connection with Sections 305(b), 208, 304, and other provisions of PL 92-500.
5. Cooperate with concerned organizations in the preparation and
utilization of effective training materials and programs to aid in the de-
velopment and implementation of state and local erosion and sediment control
programs.
6. Cooperate in research, education, and demonstration programs
related to erosion and sediment control and related nonpoint source pollu-
tion abatement.
The report on these institutes is being published by EPA and will
be available soon, and I have attached to this paper a summary of the salient
facts about the institutes and consequent legislative action.
There are many unanswered questions in this field. The states,
which are now preparing reports to EPA on nonpoint pollution and proposed
solutions will find the task to be extremely difficult. The enormous scope
of this problem, dealing with hundreds of millions of acres of land, escapes
many people who are concerned about water pollution. Yet substantial progress
has been made, and will continue to be made.
There are some matters that need further attention at this time,
in our opinion, in developing sediment and related pollution control pro-
grams, in implementing existing programs, and in carrying out educational
work.
1. Getting expertise and authority together; Those with experi-
ence in sediment control and those with regulatory or advisor responsibilities
need to consult with each other thoroughly. There are many gaps in communica-
tions that need to be bridged at every level of government and between levels.
53
-------
2. Delineation of opportunities for acceleration of existing
voluntary approaches as well as consideration of mandatory programs;. In
some cases, decisions to use regulatory approaches are made without full
recognition of what might be done by accelerating existing educational,
technical assistance, incentive, and other noncompulsory techniques. It is
significant, in our view, that there are substantial backlogs of requests
for technical and cost-sharing assistance under present voluntary conserva-
tion programs. And there are authorities for accelerating land treatment
under long-term contracts that have simply not been funded or implemented.
Furthermore, it is curious that at the very time that there is a greater
perceived need for erosion prevention and sediment control, the profes-
sional staff of the key agency in this fieId--the Soil Conservation Service--
has been progressively and sharply reduced.
3. Assignment of priorities; It became evident to us in the prog-
ress of the institutes that additional information on the severity and sources
of sediment problems is needed so that priorities can be established.
4, Integration of sediment control programs with related nonpoint
source programs; There are significant interrelationships between sediment
control, the control of watershed runoff, and the control of nutrient and
chemical runoff.
5. Money and manpower; In our view, no effective program in this
field can be carried out without meeting manpower and funding needs for
administration, technical assistance, training, enforcement, and, in some
cases, cost-sharing.
As I said in the beginning, we have come full circle in 40 years.
In the 1930's, we made a national commitment to the prevention of erosion
in order that all could benefit from the land. Today, a new environmental
consciousness demands a similar commitment in the interests of cleaner air
and water, healthier streams, better recreation, and improved fish and wild-
life habitat.
The nation's conservation districts stand ready to do their share
in this total effort.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Hubbard:
Are there questions for Mr. Unger?
Yes.
54
-------
Mr. Oren Long (Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII):
In response to a recent poll taken by Representative John Vogel
of Lawrence, Kansas, on how conservation district supervisors feel about
the proposed Kansas erosion control legislation, one supervisor replied,
"The situation in farming is desperate with energy shortages, unfavorable
weather conditions and inflated prices all pressing the operator. Conserva-
tion may soon go out the window in a do-or-die existence in farming. For
example, the trend toward larger farm equipment is in no way compatible with
soil saving and conservation. Most operators with big equipment are farming
up and over existing terraces or around the quarter section the simple way
in an attempt to cut costs. Also, speed is important in today's agriculture,
but speed is another enemy of the soil, creating the fine texture that adds
to all types of erosion."
Question: Would you please comment on this supervisor's sugges-
tion that some conflicts exist between current trends in agricultural
economics and conservation at the farm level? And if you agree that some
conflicts do exist, do you think erosion control regulations can help re-
solve these conflicts, or will such regulations impede progress toward an
expanded food-producing capability?
Mr. Unger:
Well first of all, I think it's obvious as technology changes,
as agricultural practices change, in view of the economics of the situation
and new developments, that we are going to have to keep up with the kinds
of conservation measures and practices that will meet environmental goals
properly. I think that the history of the work of the soil conservation
movement has been one of trying to adapt to technological change as it occurs
and to find those practices that will continue to conserve soil and water and
meet the new technological developments.
But obviously, too, it's possible for technology to outstrip some
of this effort, and there has to be a constant readjustment that goes on in
the development of the right kinds of technical practices.
The second part, as far as whether erosion and sediment control
regulations are going to impede progress, is that your point, Oren? And I
knew you would come up with some kind of a nasty question.
If the regulations are not practical, if they are not designed
with reason in mind, if they don't accord with the technological development,
certainly there would be problems. I think that the point is that we need
to have, if we are going to have regulations, if a state, if a district, if
a county, if a locality decides that it wants to have a regulatory approach,
55
-------
it's going to have to make sure that those regulations are going to meet
the problem and not exacerbate it.
Dr. Hubbard:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Rex E. Jones (Indiana State Board of Health, Water Pollution Control,
Indianapolis, Indiana):
I think that enforcement is probably a big problem here with the
local soil and water conservation districts. Have you had any or do you
have any feedback from some of the states who have implemented these pro-
grams? And if so, what is it?
Mr. Unger:
Obviously because districts have based their entire approach on a
voluntary program over the years, they have been reluctant in many, many cases
to be involved in the enforcement of regulatory programs once they have been
established, even in some cases when they have led in the legislative and
other work to create the regulatory program itself.
I think an interesting case is in Pennsylvania, which has gone
quite far in developing its plans for erosion control on agricultural as
well as other lands. When they began, the way in which the state program
has developed gives the option to the local conservation district to take
either a certain number of steps in terms of planning and approving the
conservation plan, or going farther and actually taking over enforcement
of the program beyond that first level; and many, many districts have been
involved in the first set of these responsibilities, and there were very
few to begin with that wanted to have anything to do with the enforcement
responsibility.
But just in the past several months the reports are that an in-
creasing number of districts have requested and have been given the en-
forcement power because they want to be involved in the program from begin-
ning to end. They feel that they can do a better job, and it will be a
more consistent program.
So I'm not saying that by any means conservation district of-
ficials around this country are eager to get into the enforcement of sedi-
ment control regulations. Where this has been going forward they have
shown some signs of adjusting to this in some cases. I'm sure there are other
states where this would not be the case.
56
-------
Mr. Jones:
Does the NACD then go along with that?
Mr. Unger:
The NACD's position is that the state and the districts are going
to have to decide what they need to do to accomplish their goals of sedi-
ment and erosion control state by state and district by district. If this
can be done by acceleration of voluntary programs, more technical help, educa-
tion, incentives such as have been mentioned here earlier by Min Amemiya,
and other work of this kind, fine. If they decide they want a regulatory
program, why, that's fine too. Our major concern is that conservation dis-
tricts be a part of whatever kind of program that's developed because this
is their responsibility under state law.
Dr. Hubbard:
Thank you, Dave.
The next speaker, Mel Davis, who is Assistant Administrator of the
USDA Soil Conservation Service, may—depending on what program you have seen,
you may have Kenneth Grant in that slot. Mr. Grant several weeks ago said
he would be unable to make the commitment and he asked Mel Davis, as the
best qualified alternate, to come in his place. We are glad to have him here
today.
He has been Assistant Administrator of the Agricultural Soil Con-
servation Service since April of 1974. He's another bridge. He grew up in
North Dakota. There seem to be a lot of those kind of people here today.
He moved to Pennsylvania in 1963 as Assistant State Conservationist, and he
and Mr. Unger were associated there.
In 1972 he became Director of the SCS Technical Service Center in
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania. I thought Upper Darby was all rich suburbanites.
I didn't know they had any agriculturists around there. He is responsible
for legislative liaison and for program planning.
Mel Davis.
57
-------
SOIL CONSERVATION AND POLLUTION CONTROL
R. M. Davis
Assistant Administrator
Soil Conservation Service - USDA
59
-------
Mr. Davis:
Thank you, Hub. And good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
First I should make it perfectly clear--and that's not a phrase
anybody from Washington should be using any more--that the administrator
did not come because you had him listed in your program as the acting
administrator. That didn't offend him. The reason he is not here, he is
just recently recuperating from a gall bladder operation that he underwent
just 3 weeks ago. He did appear back in the office on Monday morning and
is on the way back to good health or perhaps I should even say better health
than what he has been in for the past several months when he has had this
particular affliction.
The topic assigned to Mr. Grant and the one I will use is "Soil
Conservation: Pollution Control," and I will talk about this, of course,
primarily from the viewpoint of the Soil Conservation Service, but more
broadly the United States Department of Agriculture in total. I hope, Hub,
when I get through that you will not allude to me as one of the bureaucrats
who are part of the problem in Washington, but, rather, one that could be
part of the solution to the problem that we talk about today.
I'm happy to join Dave Unger on the program and to further re-
late pollution control efforts to the soil and water programs that conserva-
tion districts help put on the land.
First, soil and water conservation is pollution control.
Sediment is the nation's largest water pollutant by volume. Ad-
sorbed on sediment particles or in solution with them in runoff water are
a number of plant nutrients, agricultural chemicals, waste materials, and
harmful pathogens that materially affect water quality. Soil and water
conservation practices, in controlling the flow of water across rural
and urban land, reduce soil erosion that is the source of sediment pollu-
tion.
The contribution of conservation districts, the SCS and 2 million
cooperating landowners has been to bring soil and water conservation practices
to 3/4 of a billion acres. In the process they have prevented an estimated
25 billion tons of sediment from reaching America's waterways. The contri-
bution of districts and the SCS, along with the Agricultural Research Service
and on-the-land innovation by property owners, has been to develop a tre-
mendous technical capability for preventing or solving many land-related
pollution problems.
60
-------
We can suggest many practices that will keep materials in place,
move them safely off the land, or treat them. All of us are working to
adapt our programs and technical standards to find further answers.
Conservation practices have not stopped all the sediment, nor
would they if every acre were tied down as best we know how. Some soil
erosion will take place no matter what we do. It's a rather necessary evil
that some sediment be produced to help streams operate properly; to slow
down the rush of nutrients to the sea in order to support stream life; and
to replenish our beaches with sand particles. Therefore a zero tolerance
for soil erosion or sediment production is not possible, even under optimum
conditions.
The new Iowa law that you will hear about this afternoon recognizes
this by having conservation districts set acceptable limits for soil losses
rather than branding all soil loss as criminal. As new laws are written or
interpreted, as regulations and guidelines are issued, I think it is important
to look for and set acceptable minimums for all forms of nonpoint source
pollutants—based on specific locations, land uses, and community objectives--
and to guide land use and treatment to see that these minimums are met.
The way that farmers and ranchers have achieved best results in
soil-erosion control over several decades has been through the use of a
conservation plan for the whole property rather than a collection of in-
dividual efforts to solve a problem. SCS has helped landowners do total
conservation planning, based on:
-- The kinds of soil and other resources present.
-- The inherent capabilities and limitations of resources.
-- The conservation practices that will fit.
-- The land-use techniques or farming operations that are compat-
ible with the resources and the landowner's interests.
-- Standards and specifications that have been developed to make
sure conservation practices do their job well.
This approach to conservation needs developed many years ago is
exactly what "us moderns" would now call a "systems approach" for solving
problems and meeting objectives. It works. It can be adapted to any unit
of land, in any use. It is flexible--when a change is made in any part of
the system, the system can be adapted to take care of the new situation
and still be effective.
61
-------
This total conservation planning approach is being put to good
test right now as America gears up to produce more food and fiber to meet
urgent domestic and international needs. At the recent World Food Con-
ference, our nation made a commitment to contribute to a badly needed food
reserve. Exports for profit have increased considerably over the last few
years, creating a surplus in our agricultural balance of payments that has
offset a real imbalance in our other international trade. Population here
at home has grown and moved and changed its preferences for agricultural
goods. So the pressures for higher food production here will likely con-
tinue for some time.
The result has been millions of acres coming back into crop produc-
tion or being put to the plow for the first time, and present acres being
used more intensively. A concern was widely voiced at the beginning of the
full-production effort that the increased fanning activity be accompanied
by an increased soil and water conservation activity. Otherwise any produc-
tion increases achieved would not likely be sustained, conservation work
of several decades might be negated in one rush for profit, and air and
water pollution problems might be materially worsened.
The concern was justified where farmers did not take effective
conservation measures or where new investors had not had a conservation
upbringing. In many parts of the country, there were farmers who ignored
the lessons of history—not to mention the data contained in soil surveys —
and who planted crops where it was practically impossible to protect soil
from washing or blowing. Some farmers lacked the time, money, or incentive
to protect their fields with appropriate techniques of soil and water con-
servation. It was a year in which too many fanners gambled with their basic
resources--and lost. An SCS study for the 1973 to 1974 season showed that
of 8.9 million acres brought back into cultivation, 4 million acres had in-
adequate soil erosion control and suffered additional soil losses of 60
million tons.
But many farmers did heed the warnings. They knew from experi-
ence that higher production and conservation are not mutually exclusive goals
but rather mutually supportive. There has been a new surge of interest in
conservation measures such as stubble mulching, minimum tillage, terracing,
and field windbreaks.
Just one example — in fiscal 1974 SCS helped install almost 2.5
million acres of various forms of conservation tillage that allow planting,
weed control, and harvest with a minimum of land disturbance, for a total
now on the land of more than 32 million acres. These techniques were
virtually unknown a decade ago. They have saved countless tons of soil
from washing downstream.
62
-------
These farmers and ranchers realize that they simply cannot af-
ford to let up on conservation, and we need to redouble efforts to assist
them. We need to help them use soils information to select the right
kinds of acres for crops and help them protect those acres from erosion.
We want to help farmers make their acres as productive as possible, but we
want to make sure that the cropping systems leave the land resilient enough
to bounce back.
We want to make sure that the cropping systems continue to do
their part in maintaining air and water quality, but with full considera-
tion of America's need for food and fiber.
Good conservation aids air and water quality by keeping soil
and nutrients on the land. It aids per-acre crop yields and lowers produc-
tion costs by keeping nutrients within the reach of plants. It also saves
energy:
-- Energy that otherwise would be needed to make the extra trips
across the field with farm machinery.
-- Energy that would be needed to manufacture nutrients to replace
those washed away.
-- Energy that would be needed to remove sediment and other par-
ticles downstream.
Conservation work has been applied, as I said earlier, to 3/4
of a billion acres—virtually all of it by purely voluntary effort. That
is what has made soil and water conservation districts such a valuable
ally of SCS and other agencies that want to improve the environment.
SCS doesn't have any acres under its control. We have helped
transform the American landscape strictly through motivating people to
do what is in their own best interest as well as their country's. We
have to rely on others for policing, for regulations, for permits and so
on.
There are landowners we haven't reached or convinced. There are
changes in land use or technology or ownership that create a new challenge.
There are laws and standards at all levels of government that affect land
use and treatment in other than a voluntary way, and there will likely be
more. Where America's environmental programs fit best along the continuum
between pure voluntarism and strict regulation depends on how well we can
continue to motivate individuals and how closely regulatory agencies can
work with districts and other volunteer organizations at the local level.
I think it's clear that the more we can accomplish because people want to,
the easier it will be to enforce compliance from the rest of the people.
63
-------
I think it's important, too, that standards be set as closely to
the local level as possible rather than uniform standards over wide geo-
graphic areas--because of differences in soils, climate and landforms, because
of types of agriculture and other land uses, because of the wide variation
in kinds of stream systems and contributing watersheds.
I'm encouraged by the cooperation thus far between the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency and USDA Agencies at the federal, regional and state
levels; between EPA and districts through the sediment-control institutes,
and in several specific studies.
EPA is helping support a multi-agency, multi-district sediment
control project in Minnesota and Wisconsin that will cost about $4 million.
In the Allen County SWCD in Indiana, Purdue University under con-
tract with EPA is studying the impact of accelerated conservation land
treatment on the quality of water in Black Creek. This is part of the in-
ternational Great Lakes study. They are monitoring the sediment-reducing
effects of various combinations of soil and water saving practices. My
associate Norm Berg of SCS visited the area, called the Black Creek Water-
shed Study Project, last summer. He said as the tour progressed, the good
influence of conservation work in helping clean up Black Creek became more
and more apparent, more and more impressive.
SCS and EPA have joined in Task-force groups on some specific
efforts:
-- Relating the 208 planning process of EPA to resource conserva-
tion and development projects and other broad efforts of USDA.
-- Discussing permit problems related to construction of large
facilities and other forms of land disturbance.
-- Monitoring air and water quality as related to nonpoint source
pollutants.
-- Finding approaches to dealing with nonpoint source pollution
problems off the farm, such as urban development, roadside
and streambank erosion, and surface-mined land.
-- Using SCS and extension service standards to meet water-quality
standards of EPA and state pollution control agencies.
-- Coordinating the environmental impact statement process for
federally assisted major projects.
64
-------
The result of these and other similar studies will be facts to
guide both voluntary programs and local and state regulation. They will
aid the development of what is the theme of this conference—a reasonable
and effective agricultural pollution control plan for every farm.
The role of the Soil Conservation Service will be to redouble its
efforts to obtain all kinds of natural resource information and develop
meaningful interpretations; to improve its monitoring capability; to put
resource facts in understandable form; to get the facts to those who need
them in making land-use decisions for one farm or a whole state; and to be
a continuing strong advocate of soil and water conservation for the benefit
of land and people.
These efforts are part of an overall USDA. goal dedicated to im-
proving patterns and policies of land use, as stated in Secretary's
Memorandum 1827. Pollution problems, like many others, often are symptoms
of overall problems in land use.
We recognize that major responsibility for land use planning and
regulation rests with local and state governments, and with land owners and
users. We want to aid them by continuing to be a source of natural resource
facts second to none in the land use field through:
-- Soil surveys and interpretations
-- River basin studies
-- Watershed surveys and investigations, and flood hazard studies
-- Forest and rangeland inventories
-- Snow surveys and water supply forecasts
-- Every conceivable sort of agricultural statistic
-- Conservation needs inventory
-- Aerial photographs and maps
-- Information on rural housing and water supplies and many more
Many of these facts can be useful in pollution control programs.
Their inclusion can aid in making those control programs broad enough to
encompass the needs of people and the health of our environment. They can
help balance objectives among all kinds of land users so that effective
tradeoffs can be made.
65
-------
In addition to providing these facts, we see it as our respon-
sibility in USDA to be concerned about the impact of federal policy or
programs on the ability of farmers and ranchers to meet food and fiber
needs. If we don't speak up on behalf of rural America, who will in the
federal government?
I believe that environmental tradeoffs can be made in a way that
each of us can achieve the major part of our goals for America. Our goals
are not that dissimilar. In a systems approach to the use of land and water,
I believe our goals coincide.
Translating these goals into effective aid to people in improving
their lives is a job in which Conferences like this one will make a real
contribution. I hope all of us can take a usable idea home today and put it
to work.
Thank you.
Dr. Hubbard:
Thank you, MeL And please give my apologies to Mr. Grant for the
error in the program.
Mr. Davis:
I couldn't resist.
Dr. Hubbard:
>«is
I don't quite know how that happended but I can submit a defense
on the following grounds; that it was in fact an accurate statement.
One would like to think that all well-intentioned, able, competent bureaucrats
who are part of the solution are in fact acting, do act and do things. And
I think your speech certainly demonstrates that the Administrator and Assist-
ant Administrator of the Soil Conservation Service are in that category.
Perhaps after the gall bladder operation he is back even better acting and
more acting than he was before.
Mr. Davis:
I can assure you that he's an active administrator too.
66
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
There seem to be no questions, which I think, indicates your re-
marks were thoroughly illuminating, clear and concise.
You introduced some terms we haven't heard much earlier, such as
nutrients. The next speaker will talk about nutrients, and 1 think you set
a good point from which he can pick up.
The next speaker is Dr. Samuel Aldrich, who is Assistant Director
of the Illinois State Agricultural Experiment Station. He worked for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture in his formative years. He taught at Cornell
University for some 15 years, at the University of Illinois as Professor of
Soil Fertility Extension for 13 years. He's a member of the Illinois Pol-
lution Control Board and his subject today is Perspective on Plant Nutrients,
a subject we have not talked much about. It is a controversial subject,
and in my personal view a very interesting one.
Dr. Aldrich.
67
-------
PERSPECTIVE ON PLANT NUTRIENTS
Samuel R. Aldrich
Assistant Director
Illinois State Agricultural Experiment Station
69
-------
Dr. Aldrich:
Mr. Chairman, I commend the organizers of this Conference for
putting it together. I'm honored to be a participant with such distinguished
speakers. I have read the papers with great interest. They are thoughtful
and thought provoking. It is gratifying, but has also led to a feeling of
humility to find ideas, which I believed to be original, expressed by others
and in better language.
An informed citizenry will be willing to allocate some as yet un-
specified amount of resources to the improvement of water quality.
I am concerned that we use up that commitment on the most environ-
mentally productive programs.
In connection with the issues of food, energy and environment,
increasing numbers of nonagriculturists are looking over our shoulders.
They have a new-found interest in decision-making relating to agriculture.
They are asking many of the right questions, but they bring to the decision-
making process little knowledge of the interpretation and implementation of
the data and concepts they generate.
I suggested perspective in the title of my remarks for a specific
purpose. I have an 8-in. file on phosphorus and an 18-in. file on nitrogen
and nitrates. I do not propose to make a literature review, documented with
an extensive bibliography. Many reviews are already available including
some that I have prepared. Neither do I plan to critique the preliminary
document prepared by a five-man team in the Agricultural Research Service
titled, "Contributions of Nonpoint Pollution from Agricultural Sources,
Volume I - A User's Handbook." I have already done that directly to the
authors. Another detailed reference is the Proceedings from a workshop on
nonpoint sources in Washington, D.C., September 1974, sponsored by USEPA
and the Extension Committee on Organization and Policy.
I propose to focus on issues involved in decision-making with
respect to nonpoint sources, especially, though not exclusively, those
where I feel there may be some misunderstanding or there is some risk that
we may be heading in the wrong direction.
My first point in terms of perspective is to urge that we not lose
sight of the fact that though we are considering how to control nonpoint
sources, we do not yet know what standards are required in order to "provide
for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife and to pro-
vide for recreation in and on water."
Second, there is a fundamental difference in the strategy for
point versus nonpoint pollution control. Point source inputs are controlled
70
-------
by setting standards for discharge and leaving the technique for meeting the
standard to the discretion of the person managing the discharge. In case of
nonpoint sources, it will be necessary to impose regulations or standards on
the practices that are allowed. I anticipate great difficulty in developing
a program with adequate flexibility for the multiplicity of ways that farmers
may go about their farming operations. Furthermore, there is a not so subtle
difference between telling a city or an industry the limits on its discharges
to water as compared to telling a farmer how to go about farming his land.
Third, farmers do not intentionally cause or allow plant nutrients
to leave their farms, thus unnecessarily enriching surface waters. Plant
nutrients are production items with price tags and the price has increased
dramatically in the past 2 years. This will increasingly be a deterrent to
profligate application of fertilizers and animal wastes.
Fourth, when we consider strategies for controlling nonpoint sources
from agricultural land, we must not overlook the fact that constraints adopted
that lower yields within the midwest will export the problem to other areas,
notably the feed importing areas of the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and south-
east.
Fifth, principal focus is on the plant nutrients nitrogen and
phosphorus. Other essential elements for plant growth simply do not present
a water quality problem except possibly in some highly unusual circumstances,
none of which come to my mind.
Sixth, when considering strategies for nonpoint pollution control,
we must assure consideration of possible side effects from alternative
strategies that might be adopted.
Seventh, I do not accept without qualification the assumption
which appears repeatedly as justification for the nonpoint source program
that after point source inputs have been controlled, water quality will
still be inadequate because of nonpoint source inputs. No doubt it will
be in some streams and lakes. But point sources add mainly natural sub-
stances for which there really is an assimilative capacity (certain pesti-
cides are exceptions). The load from nonpoint sources coincides with a
large amount of water for dilution which is an important factor in flowing
waters where concentration rather than quantity is of prime importance.
Nitrate concentration is, however, positively correlated with flow volume.
The load from nonpoint sources also tends to be highest in the early spring
when temperature is unfavorable for excessive aquatic growth.
Eighth, the further I am removed from the point of implementa-
tion and application of programs, the more attractive they seem. Dealing
in an abstract way with goals and objectives is quite different than facing
the person being impacted and convincing him that you have an adequate factual
basis for the proposed regulations.
71
-------
Nitrogen Status
The nitrate content of major midwestern rivers has risen markedly
since 1950. For example, the trend line of the Mississippi River as it
leaves the midwest at the cornbelt (having already merged with the Missouri
but not the Ohio River) has risen from about 1.25 mg/liter in 1958 to ap-
proximately 2.75 mg/liter in 1973. That approaches one-third the U.S. Public
Health Service standard for nitrates in drinking and food processing water.
Several smaller rivers (Illinois, Wabash, Kaskaskia, Bnbarras) have been
higher in nitrate content than the Mississippi River since 1958, but have
risen more slowly during the interval 1958 to 1973. Several Illinois rivers
exceed the U.S. Publich Health standard during the spring months. Unfor-
tunately, there are few states that have good data from which to plot trends
in nitrate content. A minimum of 10 years, and preferably 20 years, are
needed.
Much of the increase in nitrates in the major rivers derives from
agriculture. Little purpose would be served in contesting that point. In-
stead, let's focus on what we know about sources within agriculture and what
we can do about them.
We have excellent theoretical information on sources of nitrates
in surface waters but little hard data from which to determine the contri-
bution of each of the main sources: fertilizer, soil organic matter, animal
wastes, and municipal wastes in some cases.
We have still less firm data from which to proceed from cause to
effect. For example, we do not know what the effect would be on nitrate
content of surface waters if we were to impose a limit of 50, 100, or 150
Ib of fertilizer nitrogen per acre of corn.
A common mistake in planning the management of nitrogen is to
consider slowly available forms--legumes, manure, sewage sludge, and slow
release compounds—as substitutes for fertilizers anticipating that this
will reduce the nitrate content of surface waters. Such a substitution may,
in fact, be counterproductive because it increases the amount of nitrate
nitrogen resident in the soil after crops are harvested in the fall. Such
nitrate is positionally and temporally available for movement to tile drains
or into base blow.
It is my view that the amount of N03 from a watershed is governed
mainly by total crop production rather than by the specific source of nitrogen.
Hence, I perceive a difficult choice between food and environmental goals.
I think it possible that our plans and programs for controlling
nitrates have gotten ahead of our data base as to what level is needed to
72
-------
protect aquatic life or human health. Convincing data are available on the
toxicity of ammonia but little ammonia is found in nonpoint sources, ex-
cept animal wastes. Effects of nitrates have been researched very little.
They are relatively nontoxic and would likely influence aquatic life through
shifts in species.
The Illinois Pollution Control Board conducted hearings in 1971 to
consider possible regulations on the application of fertilizers and animal
manures. The board concluded that there was inadequate information on which
to promulgate any regulation. It requested the Illinois Institute for En-
vironmental Quality to attempt to get additional information on which to
reconsider the issues at a later date. The Institute contracted with the
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems at Washington University to con-
duct a study on the nitrate problem only. Their report was published in
February 1975. The report utilized available data, made a number of as-
sumptions, and developed equations from which it proceeded to indicate con-
straints necessary on the combination of acres of corn and nitrogen fertilizer
rates to meet a nitrate-nitrogen standard of 10 mg/liter from 50 to 99% of
the time. They concluded that, with present acreages of corn, a limit on
fertilizer would need to be imposed only in east central Illinois.
An advisory committee of agricultural scientists raised several
important questions about the adequacy of the data base for developing the
models from which the limitations on nitrogen fertilizer and/or corn acreage
were predicted.
I am disappointed that the study ruled out possible effects of
total row crop acreages and of the proportion of land with tile drainage.
The study team arbitrarily assumed that all nitrate was from fertilizer ap-
plication, stating as follows: "In the analysis of limits, nitrogen fertili-
zer was taken as the only source of nitrogen in surface waters; statistical
problems prevented a division between inorganic and organic sources. We
cannot determine the true division." (They point out that if the organic
nitrogen contribution is recognized, then the limits of fertilizer nitrogen
would be lower than is indicated in their tables.)
It is my personal opinion that there have been some unfortunate
mistakes in dealing with the nitrate problem.
-- Much of the concern on nitrate from agriculture was generated
by a paper at the 1968 meetings of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science. The paper indicated that the
nitrate content of the Kaskaskia River in Illinois had increased
threefold from the period 1945-1950 to 1956-1968. A review of
the data revealed that the sampling location was New Athens in
the first period and Shelbyville in the second period; there
was little change in nitrate content at New Athens from 1945-
1950 to 1956-1968. The error is widely disseminated and deeply
embedded in the literature on nitrates.
73
-------
-- The Third Annual Report of the U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality states on page 13 as follows: "The Enviro Control
data show a mixed picture of trends in water quality. The
problem of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) is worsening
dramatically in all types of basins, probably because of in-
creased use of fertilizer." The following quotations from
the Enviro Control report contradict the conclusion of the
Council on Environmental Quality:
Page 16 "In basins where only agriculture is high, the limited
data show no trend at all stations."
Page 17 "Where low agriculture is combined with high population
or high industry, both soluble and total phosphorus got
predominantly worse, but total phosphorus very much worse."
Page 18 (Re: Nitrites and nitrates.) "The nation as a whole
showed dramatic worsening, with the greatest degradation
coming from basins where agriculture is low and popula-
tion and/or industry is high."
Page 18 (Re: NC>2 and NO^.) "As in the case of total phosphorus,
in basins where only agriculture is high the limited data
show no stations getting worse."
-- Four years ago the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems
claimed that 55% of the nitrate in the Sangamon River traced
directly to fertilizers. This conclusion was based upon a
study of the change in natural abundance of the N •* isotope.
The Center has now decided that the technique is, at best,
semi-quantitative.
-- The Environmental Health Resource Service of the University of
Illinois Medical School conducted a literature review on "Health
Effects of Nitrates in Water." The publication has some serious
deficiencies and the Pollution Control Board, for reasons that
I'll not discuss, has on the record questioned the objectivity
of the report.
Phosphorus Status
The phosphorus content of surface waters is of no more than
moderate concern (perhaps minor) for the mid-continent surface waters, the
Great Lakes being an exception. Phosphorus compounds are nontoxic at any
level normally encountered in surface waters (the outfall from a phosphoric
acid or similar plant may be exceptions).
74
-------
A considerable amount of new information will be needed before
we know the levels at which nitrogen and phosphorus contents are unaccept-
able. Because of differences in soil regions, types of agriculture and in
the characteristics of receiving waters, uniform programs over wide geo-
graphic areas seem ill-suited to nonpoint pollution control.
I applaud the suggestion in some recent position statements that
educational programs delivered through existing institutions (Cooperative
Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service) should make up a major thrust
in the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Plant nutrient inputs can be controlled at a price. Until we know
the acceptable levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface waters and the
cost to achieve them, we do not know whether the price is an economic and
environmental bargain.
Dr. Hubbard:
Thank you.
Any questions?
Mr. Oren Long (Environmental Protection Agency, Region VII):
I ask you this question because of some of the practical things
that you said in your speech here. Maybe you read the latest issue of the
Farm Journal magazine. Harold Minor was in there, top corn farmer from
Iroquois County, Illinois, and he was quoted as saying if people want food
as badly in the future as they say they do, they had better give farmers
some encouragement right now, or we won't be here 5 years from now. Some
won't even be here next year.
Cattlemen are even in worse shape. I know that if I fertilize
my pastures according to university recommendations, my fertilizer bill will
run about $30 an acre. At today's cattle prices I can't afford this kind
of expense, but if I don't, my pastures will begin to deteriorate and ero-
sion will increase.
Is legislation an effective tool with which to control on-farm
land management practices and problems you have just mentioned in the face
of these kinds of economic pressures, which I might add are in addition to
the natural uncertainties that are already inherent in farming?
77
-------
Dr. Aldrich:
We just ran out of time.
I really don't think that I can constructively address myself
to it. It's a good question, but it's the kind of question that you
address to the whole audience, not just me.
Dr. Hubbard:
Well, we will adjourn for lunch. We will come back here about
1:30.
(LUNCHEON)
78
-------
(FILM)
Dr. Hubbard:
This beautiful film you just saw about the Flint Hills of Kansas
was a publicity film for the Tall Grass Prairie Park, and it is necessary
that I enter a disclaimer at this point (not a personal disclaimer, I'm for
the Park). Midwest Research Institute and the Environmental Protection Agency
takes no position on the Tall Grass Prairie Park. I think it's an appropri-
ate movie, though, because as Tom Murphy mentioned this morning one of the
things we need to look at is the natural background, the base-line against
which one judges nonpoint source pollution. Surely, when the prairie did be-
long to the buffalo and the Indian, there was nonpoint source pollution even
then.
Another reason for showing it is that it's a graceful way to get
people in after lunch and get the Conference started again.
With that, I would like to turn the podium over to our friend
Jerry Svore, of the EPA who will be your chairman for this afternoon.
79
-------
AFTERNOON SESSION
-------
INTRODUCTION OF SPEAKERS
Jerome H. Svore
Regional Administrator
Region VII - Environmental Protection Agency
81
-------
Mr. Svore:
Thank you. I will say it will be a pleasure for me to serve as
chairman this afternoon and especially to introduce our first speaker.
I have known Dwight Metzler for many, many years, and in going
over his biographical sketch, I found he obviously can't hold a job. He
did start out in Kansas and he finally came back, and it has always been
a pleasure for me over the years to associate with Dwight. He have held
similar jobs a couple of times in our careers and used to work together
when we were both here in the Missouri River Basin before.
Dwight is a Kansan. He went to school in Kansas. He took his
graduate work at Harvard in Sanitary Engineering. He came back and was
Chief Engineer with the State Board of Health as it was known in those days,
and later moved over to the Water Resource Department.
Shortly thereafter Governor Rockefeller decided he needed some-
one to run the water pollution program in the State of New York. Apparently
Governor Rockefeller at that time had floated a bond issue for about $1
billion and he needed a farm boy to run it, so he asked Dwight to come on
in and help him, which he did for the next 6 years.
He got things straightened around back there in New York and came
out to be the first head of the Department of Health and Environment. He
is the only engineer in the United States who holds that job.
It's going to be a real pleasure for us to hear from you at this
time, Dwight.
82
-------
STATES ROLE IN FORMULATING CONTROL STRATEGY
Dwight F. Metzler
Secretary of Health and Environment
Kansas State Department of Health and Environment
83
-------
Mr. Metzler:
Thank you, Jerry, for that nice introduction. It's always a
pleasure to work with you, and certainly one of the attractions of coming
back to Kansas was knowing that we had somebody managing the EPA regional
office out here who know something about midwestern problems and had some
understanding of what it took to solve them.
I want to congratulate Midwest Research Institute and EPA for
having this Conference. It's certainly a very timely one. I hope that
what I will say this afternoon will contribute to the overall objective
of the Conference; that is, promoting dialogue, and toward the end of de-
veloping some reasonably effective plans to control agricultural pollution.
Jerry has already indicated that I am a farmer at heart. I really
might come before you and say that's my avocation, and my job as an environ-
mentalist permits me to afford a farm. My convictions are those of an
environmentalist, my job is that, and I don't pretend to understand all of
the problems that agriculturists have, although I learned at a rather early
age how to pitch bundles into a 48-in. threshing separator and some of those
things.
In the interest of promoting dialgoue and developing reasonable
and effective plans, first we can take a rational approach. Jerry mentioned
Harvard, and certainly Gordon Fair, who was there, was the country's out-
standing exponent of the rational approach. Jerry and I have benefited
from sitting through at least two semesters of listening daily to:
"Gentlemen, whenever you approach a problem, be sure that approach
is rational."
Being a candidate for the presidency or the vice-presidency of
the United States is not as high in our priorities as it was in the drafters
of the law that became Public Law 92-500, and so hopefully we can adopt a
rational approach.
First, what is the problem? In this area, in spite of all the
verbiage, it seems to me the problem is relatively simple to define. It's
a matter of too much sediment and too much nitrogen. There may be some place
in Kansas where phosphorus is a problem. If so, I'm not aware of it. I
certainly wouldn't make that kind of a statement if I was in the State of
New York, for there much lower levels of phosphorus become important. You
take Lake George, which some have compared with Lake Tahoe. You can see a
silver dollar in 20 ft of water in Lake George without any trouble. It's a
very young lake, and with that kind of sunlight penetration phosphorus be-
comes a very important element and perhaps the limiting nutrient if one is
to prevent undesirable algal or weed growths.
84
-------
As far as I know, the problem in Kansas and in general in this
four-state area is not a serious one so far as phosphorus is concerned.
Now, pesticides may be a problem and certainly we need a strategy
for controlling in every way possible the runoff of pesticides. There's
still a great deal that we don't know about the buildup of toxic chemicals
in the environment, and certainly the mercury scare gave us a little under-
standing of how through the food chain coming up to the fish it's possible
to take water with microscopic amounts, very low concentrations of mercury,
and concentrate them in fish flesh as much as 3,000 times. So there's a
great deal that we do not know about the concentration of toxic chemicals
in the environment, and as this may be contributed through pesticides, then
we need to be cautious.
I suppose what we really need, it seems to me, in developing a
strategy which is rational, is to ask does it affect human health, is it
needed because it affects human health, is it needed because it improves
the quality of fish or wildlife, or is it needed in order to control algal
growths or the growths of weeds. If it doesn't meet that test, then I
would say we don't need it. If there are waters where agricultural runoff
doesn't contribute to any of those problems, then I would submit to you
that we could put that on the back burner and not worry about that very
much because there are plenty of areas where it will.
It seems to me that a rational approach is needed, and in a way
we should look at what has worked. We don't happen to be the first people
who discovered 'this problem. One of the things that impressed me, in-
cidentally, the times I've been in the Soviet Union is that the Russians
aren't proud when it comes to seeing what somebody else has done that
works. They took our John Deere tractors and they duplicated them. They
sound just like a John Deere, they are green just like a John Deere, and
they call them by a Russian name. They invented it, but they are using
an American tractor that would be called John Deere in this country. The
same thing is true of the other principal tractor they have there which
they call something else but sounds exactly like an International Harvester
and is painted red like the IHC tractors are.
It seems to me that too often we think we have to rediscover the
wheel, perhaps, and re-invent things that will work. The Ohio Conservancy
District, for example, has done a good deal in this area. The Pennsylvania
Dutch down in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, have had a lot of success at
this for a long, long time. I don't know, a 100 years, maybe. The British
have done quite a job with their river basin authorities.
And so there are some approaches and there are some things, it seems
to me, to be learned when we start talking about controlling nonpoint and
particularly agricultural source pollution.
85
-------
Second, we need to be sure we understand the problem, and that's
why I'm back pounding at the principal concern being that of sediments and
nitrogen plus any toxic materials that are introduced. If there is anything
that we are good at, it seems to me that Americans are pretty good at plan-
ning, and certainly planning how to do this, designing a strategy on a
basin-by-basin basis, makes a great deal of sense. We know a lot about im-
proved practices and controls, and we need to get those in place. This
takes continued education of the American farmer and it won't happen sud-
denly, although we can continue to make improvement there.
We also need to monitor to see what's happened and what improve-
ment has occurred. I am very grateful to Jerry for not telling how long I
have been around in this business because I really wouldn't want to admit to
it. Nevertheless, I have been around long enough to hear people say, well,
primary sewage treatment, if we could get municipal sewer systems to dis-
charge into primary treatment, except along our limited streams, things
would be in pretty good shape.
And then we set secondary treatment as an objective. And certainly
the trend of the Congress and of some of the Federal Administrators has been,
and this applies to a lot of other areas, education, social welfare, health,
not just environment, that each time you move the performance level up
another notch we set a standard that's still higher, which makes it appear
that we are falling behind faster and faster. That's not a technique which
we perfected. Actually, the Egyptians used it and the Romans used it and
a lot of other people have used it. Nevertheless, you need to be aware that
that kind of thing is going on, and we do need to monitor what's occurring
to see whether improvement is really being made on a rational basis.
We need to avoid the temptation to set uniform standards. Ref-
erence was made at least once, perhaps more often, this morning to the
Tunney amendment of the Public Law 92-500. Senator Tunney insisted on his
amendment to the draft which Leon Billings wrote originally. He got it in
committee and he didn't care about any of the other amendments, but he sat
through the long deliberations on that bill to be sure that the Tunney
amendment got in, which said that we are going to put the waters of the
country in a good enough shape--and he had the word "optimum" in there and
that word got struck, except that he had it optimum use, benefit of fish
and shellfish and wildlife, and the phrase which followed. His idea was
that there were industrial and municipal polluters. Particularly the in-
dustrial ones would jump from one place to another, and if we didn't set a
uniform national standard we would never get pollution abated.
Actually, I hope we recognize that every river basin is different
and that it requires a different control strategy to be effective.
86
-------
Now a word about time frame. I have said we need to set some
reasonable goals. We ought to set some reasonable goals for accomplish-
ment both as to the end result and how long it takes to get there. We
need to recognize that time is required and there are a lot of disillusioned
mayors and city councils around this country because of the time limits that
were set and promises made in the passage of 92-500 that have not been kept.
It would be too bad if we undertook a crash program with the agricultural
community and then it took them 5 years to discover that no: one really
takes these seriously anyway except as a matter of statement of principle.
We can't expect instant results, but we need to get moving, we
need to accelerate changes occuring. There are better farming practices;
we are doing things, but we need to accelerate that rate of change.
One more point that I would like to make, and I will tell you a
little bit about Kansas and quit. Change in this area costs money and it
costs lots of money, in spite of what other persons may have said here
today or previously. Again, I watched the estimates. As a matter of fact,
one of my most embarrassing moments was when a governor turned to me with
respect to a program and he said, "Dwight, what's it going to cost?" And
I gave him a figure. It was the best figure I had, and I thought it was so
big that he would flinch. He didn't flinch, but my embarrassment was caused
by the discovery a year or two later that I was only showing him the tip of
the iceberg and that the cost was probably 5 to 10 times as great as I told
him it would be.
This kind of change requires money, and it is either going to have
to come from the private sector, or it's going to have to come from the
governmental side or some combination.
Let's say this is going to come out of the consumer's pocket and
maybe it will only be a half a cent extra per pound of beef per year, I
don't know about that, but I sure have noticed what happened as far as the
air pollution controls on automobiles that were mandated by the 1970 Clean Air
Act. Whether the principal cost of increased operation for cars is really
environmental or whether the cause was inquiries or various other factors I
don't know, but I do know that the public outcry was so great that they
turned Congress around and they have unhooked some of the requirements of
the 1970 Clean Air Act as far as automobiles is concerned. And the reason
for this was that a rational scientific approach was not taken. It was
simply this blind faith. And there was a lot of fault in Detroit, too, be-
cause the big auto makers said, "You tell us what standards you want to
meet and we will meet them."
87
-------
And so this is not all the fault of the legislators. But never-
theless, they mandated an approach that turned out to be so expensive that
people are not standing for it, and people in the cities, anyway, are going
to suffer with poorer quality air than would have been necessary had a
rational approach with a scientific base been taken.
Well, I was talking about financing. If the private sector
finances it, I think we will be seeing some signs of distress. We will
see the general escalation of costs blamed on environmental improvement.
As an environmentalist I don't like that, because that reduces the support
for true environmental improvement.
And let me say that if we are talking about Congress that my im-
pression is that Congress isn't going to put up any money to make this change
occur. Now, Congress has put up a lot of money to try to aid water pollu-
tion abatement for municipalities, but they are looking for ways to get out
of that. And you look at how much they put up for soil conservation dis-
tricts for watershed improvement.
As a matter of fact, I will go back 10 years. In 1965, fiscal
year 1965, Kansas received as much in capital construction from Bureau of
Reclamation and Corps of Engineers projects as the entire 50-state funding
was for capital projects in the soil conservation program. That was about
$65 million. There has never been any real desire on the part of Congress
to provide substantial amounts, and I don't see any now, and as a result
I think we have to decide that the private enterprise part of the system
is going to have to pay for this.
Now a little word about Kansas, actually. I apologize for impos-
ing those somewhat biased views upon you, but it seems to me that that's
the general direction that we must go if we are to really make improvement
and be able to demonstrate it.
We have done some work in Kansas over a long period of time start-
ing back with some water sampling and chem-analysis work. We started about
80 years ago, in the 1890's, and a little bit of that base data is certainly
valuable now when we are trying to determine how much impact man has had
upon the quality of waters. The work that we are doing so far as nonpoint
source measurement is concerned has been limited to identifying the impact
of various water pollutants upon the surface waters, both the rivers and the
lakes. As such, this gives us some measure of background pollution normally
present with surface waters today and gives an indication of the overall
scope of the problem associated with nonpoint pollution.
88
-------
The Department of Health and Environment maintains a statewide
surface water surveillance monitoring system which has over 300 measuring
stations. The present ongoing program measures the traditional parameters,
chemical, bacteriological, physical, biological, and has not been especially
addressed to stream sediment loads other than as suspended in dissolved
solids. This program has been in operation for many years. We have been
fortunate that Kansas has always prized its water, and it's been an activity
that the state legislature has been willing to fund for many years.
It includes, of those 300 stations that I mentioned, 130 for chemi-
cal and bacteriological analysis; 36 of these give a stream monitoring sta-
tion for biological analysis, which, of course, is considerably more dif-
ficult to automate and accomplish; 90 reservoir stream stations for both
chemical and biological analysis; and 110 for recreational water monitoring,
primarily bacteriological analysis. In addition, more intensive water
quality information is collected within each of the state's 16 river basins
and this is done on an intensive basis about once each 3 years and encom-
passes the full range.
The majority of the time all the major streams within Kansas are
in compliance with the standards which Kansas has adopted and which are a
part of our standards filed with EPA, so that they also are national stan-
dards. The total dissolved solids concentration and the fecal coliform
content have the most frequent violations, represent the areas of most
frequent violation. Total dissolved solids violations occur as a result
of highly mineralized stream flows entering streams from geological forma-
tions. We have Saline River, for example, cutting across salt deposits, and
other areas of the state, Also, we have the same phenomena. Most easily
recognized is the chloride phenomenon from the Saline River and then down
in the Arkansas. Fecal coliform violations occur usually as a result of
rainfall and excessive runoff or snowmelt and the accompanying runoff.
This observation is substantiated by a substantial amount of data which are
collected as a part of our regular monitoring program. It's also clear,
from the results of a special intensive water quality study program which
we did on Soldier Creek north of Topeka, that agricultural land makes major
contributions for this area. There really is an absence of human waste
sources.
The fecal coliform standard was violated approximately 25% of the
time there directly as a result of nonpoint source runoff.
The fecal coliform effluent limitation for treated domestic waste-
water discharges are 200 fecal coliform per 100 ml, and this is an extremely
stringent limit; few wastewater discharges in Kansas now meet it. However,
at low stream flow the fecal coliform standards of 400/100 ml in Class A
waters and 2,000/100 ml in Class B waters are rarely violated. These streams
standards are violated, again, during periods of excessive stream flow either
89
-------
from rainfall or snowmelt. Additionally, it's during these periods that
nitrogen, phosphate, and perhaps the pesticide loads are the highest.
Certainly there's a question about the latter.
Runoff from agricultural land is the single greatest water quality
problem in terms of pounds of pollutant, aside from sediments, of course,
that are involved. The control and solution of this problem must be im-
plemented right out at its source. It means local controls have to be put
in effect. We have documented that the vast amount of water pollutants from
nonpoint sources is attached, then, to sediments.
Under the provisions of 92-500, Section 303e requires the comple-
tion of water quality plans for each of the 16 major river basins in Kansas.
Our department will have the first of these plans completed by July 1,
and nonpoint source pollution considerations, of course, are included as a
part of the plan. These will not be contained, however, in the first re-
port.
Section 304 of the Act calls for EPA to provide information and
guidelines. We have heard some about that this morning and are looking
forward to having more of this information to guide our activities in Kansas.
Now, in Kansas, no matter how you organize government--and Kansas
at the moment is trying to make government more responsive by organizing a
relatively small number, by moving from 200 boards, commissions and agencies
down to a manageable number of agencies such as my own with a cabinet level
secretary. This still means that there's a lot of crossover and you have to
do a lot of work, and we are working closely with the Kansas Water Resources
Board, which is the water planning and development agency for the state, we
are working closely with the Soil Conservation Commission, Charlie Bredahl
is here today, the State Board of Agriculture, and, of course, planning
hasn't stopped at all as far as the federal water resource agencies are con-
cerned, and we will be working with them also.
Kansas has had the good fortune of being predominantly an agri-
cultural state, and we had a lot of receptivity among our farmers about
soil and water conservation practices. The State Soil Conservation Com-
mission and the USDA Soil Conservation Service have worked jointly over
many years to reduce soil erosion and sedimentation. The first conserva-
tion districts in Kansas, as a matter of fact, were organized in 1938.
One hundred five conservation districts have been established in the state,
and .each district coincides with the county boundaries and has offices with
support personnel. Substantial results have been realized from these pro-
grams in reducing soil erosion and sedimentation. Over 18 million acres
of Kansas land have received what is judged to be adequate treatment to
minimize erosion. That still leaves us nearly 30 million acres, which re-
quire some additional degree of treatment. There are 80 organized watershed
90
-------
districts in Kansas, and these organized watershed districts cover some
11 million acres. A total of 450 structures have been completed or are
under construction, and there are an additional 300 planned and waiting
federal funds. Additionally, approximately 800 structures have been com-
pleted for floodwater detention and retardation.
The development and implementation of a successful management
plan mandates close cooperation, as I have already indicated, between the
agencies involved. As far as the department is concerned, we are expand-
ing our program activities for identifying problems from nonpoint sources.
It's important that soil erosion and sedimentation legislation,
regardless of form, reflect conservation and environmental considerations,
and the Kansas legislature is looking at that problem now. It studied it,
thinking maybe it would follow the lead of some of the other states, such
as Iowa and Pennsylvania, with an act this time, but, you know, some of
these decisions are hard ones to make, and we keep thinking we will learn
some more from the experience of others, and so we will continue to study
that, hopefully leading to definitive legislation next year.
One last thought that I would like to leave with you. I figured
up as I was sitting down here waiting to take the podium that I have worked
for 10 governors now, and more than half of those have said at one time or
another, "You spent an awful lot of money at this. What do you have to show
for it?" Now, I don't happen to be one of those sanitary engineers that say
that, well, our municipal-industrial waste treatment program was a failure.
As a matter of fact, it wasn't. We spent a lot of money in that area
nationally, and we have cleaned up a lot of water in spite of the General
Accounting Office and others who have thought we went at it the wrong way.
The fact is that there are fish and there are game fish in a lot of streams
today where there were not 10 years ago. They are harvesting shellfish in
areas off of Long Island, for example, where they haven't harvested them
for 40 years, as a result of this kind of program. And you can take that
from New York and Kansas and extrapolate that to most, if not all, of the
other states.
Nevertheless, we simply haven't had very good tools for saying,
here's how much improvement has occurred, because these river systems are
very complex, and a potentially useful, but thus far sparsely recognized,
management tool has been developed to help us do that. It's called the
Water Quality Index, and it utilizes a single empirical number to rate the
relative quality of water over a given period of time and let you know
whether things are getting better or worse. Each time I read those reports
of the CEQ, the Council on Environmental Quality, I keep looking for some
recognition that all this money that we spent really is doing any good.
Well, here's a tool that I think may let us. The value is condensed for
91
-------
water quality data; it uses nine critical parameters. It was developed in
Kansas. As a matter of fact, if it hadn't been for Jerry Svore it wouldn't
have happened. He provided the support for an idea which Nina McClelland
of the National Sanitation Foundation had, and they demonstrated that it
really works on the Kansas River.
The next question was, does it work any place else? And with a
little arm twisting of my staff in Albany I said, you know, if this works
in Kansas it ought to work in New York. We had some first-rate people there
who understand water quality management; and after they had reviewed the
process, they were intrigued enough by it they tried it out. Now they think
it's the greatest thing that's been discovered since green apples.
And so I want to say to those state people who are here and who
will be influencing policy back in your home states: insist on getting into
place some sort of a tool which gives you a feeling for what's occurring,
whether things are getting better or whether they are getting worse. And
you know, I really don't want to be around 5 or 10 years from now if we con-
tinue to spend at the rate of some billions of dollars every year, and people
suddenly discover that we have hoodwinked them and that the water is just
as bad or maybe a little worse than it was before. I don't think that's
going to happen, but nevertheless if we don't get some sort of measurement
system which we can agree on across the country, we will be accused of that.
Well, in quick summary, the solution to this, problem we are talk-
ing about requires careful planning and a rational approach, it requires
major financial commitment on the part of the agricultural industry, and I
think government. There is no doubt that the program will benefit. It is
not competitive with the conservation of soil and water, and those that are
interested in good use of the land and good use of the water can't help but
support environmental controls. We ought to press hard for implementation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Svore:
Dwight, I think we may have some questions. Sitting there listen-
ing to you talk, I couldn't help but think that you were enjoying yourself
more than you would have been if you were talking about medical services or
nursing services or veneral disease control programs, some of the mundane
things that you are responsible for. It's nice to have you back in engi-
neering for a few hours.
Are there any questions for Dwight in regard to the state program
and state activities in this area?
92
-------
They are going to let you off without any questions, Dwight.
Mr. Metzler:
It cost. I bribed each of them as they came in.
Mr. Svore:
Well, we may get at you later on during the panel discussion,
so don't go away.
Thank you very much, Dwight. As always, I enjoyed your very fine
remarks.
Your program says that the next speaker is the Honorable Dale
Cochran, the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Iowa General
Assembly. Speaker Cochran is not here today, but he has sent a pro in
order to present his paper and, of course, to answer any questions after-
wards .
Dan Lindquist is also a Professional Engineer. He has a degree
in Agriculture from Nebraska. He then went back and got a degree in
Agricultural Engineering. He is a registered Professional Engineer.
He is with the Soil Conservation Service now in the State of
Iowa, where he has been for 14 years, Iowa and Ohio, and at the present
time he is developing the water management plan in six of the conservancy
districts specified in the Iowa law.
So it's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce Dan Lindquist,
who will speak to us now on the positive appraoch to soil conservation.
Mr. Lindquist:
Thank you, Jerry.
Formerly with the Soil Conservation Service, now with the Iowa
Department of Soil Conservation.
Mr. Svore:
All right.
93
-------
A POSITIVE APPROACH TO SOIL CONSERVATION
Dale M. Cochran
Speaker of the House
Iowa Legislature
Read by
Dan Lindquist
Iowa Department of Soil Conservation
Des Moines, Iowa
95
-------
Mr. Lindquist:
Soil erosion is the number one water pollution problem in Iowa
and many other states. It is a great loss in every state, but in some
areas it is overshadowed by the problems associated with a great concentra-
tion of industry or heavy population.
Annual soil conservation efforts in the United States total bil-
lions of dollars. The various states have a work force of state employees
assisted by a horde of federal technicians coping with soil erosion problems.
Within each soil conservation district the commissioners or supervisors are
also working faithfully and diligently to control soil erosion.
I will be the first to say "hats off" to these people who have
done an outstanding job over the past 35 to 40 years.
Yet with all these efforts:
We will witness much erosion by wind and water.
We still see deep gullies being cut into farmland, rendering it
worthless.
We still see dust flying through the air, filling ditches and
fence rows.
We still see millions of tons of good topsoil going down the river.
We still see wonderful natural and man-made lakes filling with
silt, greatly reducing the value for recreational and other purposes.
We still see levees being built higher and higher to compensate
for the rise in the river bed due to soil erosion.
We still find bodies of water polluted with fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides and other chemicals.
The net result—a terrible waste of good productive topsoil, an
inexcusable waste of taxpayer's money to dredge our lakes, to build our
levees higher, an environment detrimental to our health and well-being,
and a disgraceful disregard for future generations.
If I have any criticism, it is certainly not with the people who
are carrying on the soil conservation battle, because they have done an
excellent job, but rather with the tools and system with which these people
have had to work. In Iowa, much of this changed and the horizon looked much
96
-------
brighter starting on July 1, 1971. That is the date our new Conservancy
District Law became effective.
A good many states have laws establishing sanitary landfills and
replacing the old rat-infested dumps.
Because of recent legislative action most states have a commission
with strong laws to control air pollution, a commission to control about
every source of water pollution, including feedlot runoff, but without
strong laws to control pollution from soil erosion.
Yet knowledgeable people tell us the number one pollutant comes
from the erosion of the soil--from the millions upon millions of acres of
cultivated land and from road and street projects, housing development
areas and other areas where the barren soil is exposed. Soil erosion causes
700 times more water pollution in the U.S. than all other froms of pollution
combined.
Under past circumstances and laws, authorities in Iowa were hand-
cuffed to do anything significant in further reducing soil erosion and the
resulting pollution of our streams and rivers and lakes. Only 3578 of the
land in our state had adequate conservation practices being applied. We
had hit a plateau. This figure had become rather static because erosion
control had been strictly a voluntary effort.
Other disturbing factors in soil erosion control are the rapid
shifts in land uses from agricultural and rural to nonagricultural and urban
uses and by changes in farm operations and ownership. These changes are
accelerating the process of soil erosion.
First, I would like to relate how the Iowa law was developed and
then briefly cover the development of some model legislation.
The Iowa Conservancy District Law of 1971 gives soil conservation
people authority to mandatorily apply soil conservation practices.
This is an act relating to the conservation of soil and water
resources of the state and to the control of water pollution. It is con-
cerned with erosion by both wind and water.
Keep in mind that the Iowa Department of Soil Conservation is the
state coordinating agency. The department's governing body, which is the
State Soil Conservation Committee, also acts as the governing body of each
of the six conservancy districts or watershed districts that are established
in this bill covering the entire state. The six state soil conservation
committee members, one from each conservancy district, plus an at-large
97
-------
member who represents cities and towns, and one representing mines and minerals
constitute the voting membership of the committee. There are four ex officio,
nonvoting members on the committee, including the Secretary of Agriculture,
Dean of Extension at Iowa State University, Director of the Iowa Natural
Resources Council, Director of the Iowa Conservation Commission, and also
the Director of our newly created Department of Environmental Quality.
The five soil conservation district commissioners in each of the
100 local soil conservation districts in Iowa are responsible for carrying
out soil conservation compliance. One of the basic strengths of the Iowa
Conservancy District Law is the fact that much of the control and authority
is vested in soil conservation districts and their elected governing bodies
at the local level.
When we first drafted our proposal the soil conservation people
on both the state and local level said they couldn't handle it and didn't want
anything to do with it. I told them they were the experts in the field, we
had to have such a law and was going to pass it. If they didn't want it we
would give the authority to someone else.
After some thought our soil conservation people camp, out swinging
for the bill and made its passage possible. Remember our bill was 6 years
in the making. Three years in the study committee. The 4th year it was
introduced in the legislature but got nowhere. The 5th year it passed
the House. The 6th year it passed both Houses.
The soil conservation district commissioners formulated soil con-
servation regulations for their district as were deemed necessary to estab-
lish soil loss limits for the district and provided for their implementation.
This was done with the approval of the State Soil Conservation Committee.
The first public hearings in the districts were held on May 1, 1972, and
all 100 were completed by January 25, 1973, a period of less than 7 months.
There were no official written objections in any of the 100 hearings. The
passage of the bill was made possible and resistance negated because our
district soils commissioners got behind the idea and sold it to the public.
Without them we would have failed.
Soil erosion resulting in or contributing to damage to property
not owned by the owner or occupant of land on which such erosion is occurring
is declared a nuisance.
Any person or agency believing a nuisance is being created because
proper practices are not being applied to adjoining soil to prevent damage
erosion may file a complaint with the commissioners of the soil conservation
district in which the alleged damage is occurring.
98
-------
Let me give you some examples:
1. An individual owner or occupant of land could file a com-
plaint if he felt eroding soil from a neighbor's land was damaging land,
fence, crops or other property.
2. A county board of supervisors could file a complaint if wind-
blown soil was filling a road ditch and causing damage.
3. The State Conservation Commission could file a,complaint if,
soil erosion and resulting pollution was moving into a lake under its
jurisdiction. .
4. A city,could, file a complaint against those in charge of a
construction project, such as a housing development area or a road or street
construction project. ...
If the soil conservation district commissioners find the complaint
is justified and that erosion is causing damage, they declare it a nuisance.
They then inform those responsible to control any erosion by whatever means
they felt would best fit their operation.
In the case of erosion occurring on the site of any construction
project, road project, housing or shopping center development area or similar
undertaking involving the removal of all or a major portion of the vegetation
or other natural or man-made cover, exposing bare soil directly to water or
wind, the commissioners shall state a time not more than 5 days when work
necessary to establish or maintain erosion control practices must be com-
menced, and a time not more than 30 days when the work is to be satisfactorily
completed. As, much as 1,000 tons of eroded soil can come from these areas
per acre per year.
In the case of agricultural operations, no owner or occupant of
,,land shall be required to establish any permanent soil and water conserva-
tion practices unless public cost-sharing funds in an amount equal to at
least 75% of the cost of establishing such practices have been specifically
approved for such land and actually made available. Cost-sharing levels
for temporary conservation practices shall be set by the State Soil Con-
servation. Committee.
The Iowa Commissioners will state a time of not more than 6 months
to begin the necessary soil and water conservation practices, and a time
not more.than 1 year when the wprk is to be. satisfactorily completed.
If an owner or occupant of land fails to take the necessary steps
to control erosion after being notified, the commissioners shall petition
the district court for a court order requiring immediate compliance.
99
-------
We have a plan to help control Iowa's number one pollution problem.
The operators of farms are not able to pass the costs of operation on to the
consumer. Also, conservation is a benefit to society. Thus the reason for
requiring public-cost-sharing in the establishment of agricultural conserva-
tion practices is in this piece of legislation. But unless funds are made
available, little can really be done to cope with our soil erosion problems.
Iowa has recognized not only the need for soil conservation practices
that have teeth in them, but also ample cost-sharing to assist land-owners
in carrying out the work.
The Iowa legislature appropriated in 1973--$1.5 million for fiscal
year 1973, and also fiscal year 1974, for cost sharing purposes. Last year
the legislature added another $500,000 to the 1974 fiscal year appropriation
for a total of $2 million. These appropriations were a first in the history
of our state and possibly in the nation. This year we are suggesting that
$2.5 million be appropriated from state funds for each of the next 2 years
for controlling the erosion of our number one natural resource--soil.
These appropriations from state sources were originally suggested
at a time when Iowa was slated to receive $8.5 million in federal cost-sharing
funds. But the administration impounded $225 million of cost-sharing funds
in December 1972. These funds were finally released through a court order.
This year the President is again recommending that no funds be
made available for cost-sharing to control soil erosion.
Actually we need further financial assistance from the federal
government, not less or nothing. I think it is very disappointing that the
federal government speaks with such a loud voice about controlling pollution
and then fails to put its money where its mouth is.
For over 30 years, the Department of Agriculture allocated cost-
sharing funds to the various states through a program called ACP (Agricultural
Conservation Program). The emphasis was on soil conservation. In recent
years the funds have been reduced consistently.
In line with a great publicity campaign, the federal government
in 1971, changed the emphasis to pollution control and the cost-sharing
funds were disbursed under a program known as REAP (Rural Environmental
Assistance Program).
Sounded great! Washington was going all out for pollution control.
The only hooker in the program was the fact that the funds were reduced
further in both 1971 and 1972.
100
-------
But that was nothing. The administration then took the unprec-
endented slap at the fanners and rural America by cutting out all cost-
sharing funds.
The President backed up the short-sighted decision of cutting out
all REAP funds by stating, "The farmers are making a good income now, so
they can afford to pay for all of their conservation practices."
I have news for the President and Congress. We have had some ex-
ceptional years. You wouldn't expect our level of net income of the last
couple of years to last. History has proven that. On top of that, preserv-
ing our greatest natural resource, soil, is a society problem, not just one
that falls on the farmer's shoulders, no matter what our level of income is.
This is a philosophy that has been around for nearly 40 years, at the time
the Soil Conservation Service came into being along with cost-sharing pro-
grams .
The bureaucrats in Washington have been telling farmers, business-
men and industry to control pollution, and have devised all kinds of penalties
if certain rigid standards are not met.
While they pretend to be the champions of the environment, they
pull the rug out from under the farmers. Soil erosion is Iowa's greatest
pollutant, and very possibly ours too. It doesn't just affect farmers, but
it also affects the people who use our lakes and streams. Eventually these
bodies of water have to be dredged at a tremendous cost to all taxpayers,
rural and urban.
This program has not just been one of conservation, but equally
one of protecting our environment for city, as well as rural people.
I have discussed Iowa's plan for controlling soil erosion. Now
let me point out that a model act on soil erosion and sediment control has
been drafted by a task force committee working on behalf of the Council of
State Governments. This legislation was developed and then approved at the
National Legislative Conference in August 1972.
People on the drafting committee represented legislators, USDA, SCS,
EPA, and the National Association of Soil Conservation Districts.
The act was developed by the use of considerable background mate-
rial such as legislation being enacted in several states, expert testimony
and various pieces of material prepared to deal with the subject.
I will only mention where the model law differs significantly
from Iowa's law:
101
-------
1. A person dealing in agricultural operations must have an ap-
proved soil conservation plan and further must be following the plan. Iowa's
law is weak in this respect because it only states that after damage is
caused and a complaint is filed can action be taken. But as I stated earlier,
sometimes it takes a compromise effort to get anything passed in a legisla-
tive body.
2. A conservation plan must be approved before a building permit
is issued in nonagricultural activities in the model law. Iowa's law,
again, states that after damage is caused and a complaint is filed, an
action can be taken.
3. Compliance with approved conservation practices is not mandi-
tory nor any penalties involved in the model act unless there is available
at least 50% cost-sharing assistance with respect to agricultural and forest
lands. Iowa's level is 75%. This is too high in most instances but it was
a compromise to get the bill passed. Those who wanted to kill the bill
forced this in.
4. An advisory board shall be appointed from such interests as
housing, financing, industry, agriculture, recreation and local governments
to assist the state agency and also the district soil commissioners in the
development of conservation regulations. Iowa's law does not provide for
this intergovernmental cooperation. This is an excellent feature and
should be included.
Everything points to a crying need for controlling siltation. Silt
is like gold when it stays where the Lord put it. It is pollution when it
hits a city water system, or is carried into a lake. Clean, clear water,
always a blessing, could become a rarity as it already has in some areas of
our great nation.
The 1970*s will either be known as the decade when man finally
gained control of his environment or the decade that was the beginning of
the end. Which side do you want to be on?
Let's give Earth a chance and in turn assure mankind of a future.
Mr. Svore:
Thank you, Dan. You have the privilege of diplomatic immunity
or something now in answering any questions. If you don't like them, you
can say it isn't your paper.
Are there any questions or comments?
Yes.
102
-------
Mr. William J. Sallee (Environmental Quality and Land Use Division, ASCS,
Washington, D.C.):
Beginning very early this morning we had references to the con-
servation cost-sharing program, then we had references to it by Dr. Schnittker,
our luncheon speaker, and again in this paper I though this was a good
time to clarify a few points.
The first point to clarify is this: there will be a program
operating in 1975, announced on March 17 at the $190 million level of cost
sharing for the conservation program. The name has been changed back to
Agricultural Conservation Program, ACP.
On the same date there was announced a $25 million Forestry In-
centives Program, commonly called FIP.
As Dr. Schnittker indicated at lunch today, for the past 15 to 20
years the ACP program has had budgetary problems. It's hard to explain. No
one, I guess, really knows why. This program started in the 1930's admin-
istered by Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, ASCS, and pre-
decessor agencies, assisted by the Soil Conservation Service, the Extension
Service, the Forestry Service, and other agencies in carrying it out. It
may be that one of the problems of the budgetary activity is that from the
very beginning, in the 30"s, the theory was that we will have this program
to demonstrate to farmers the good possibilities with conservation measures,
so maybe some of the budget people think that it has been demonstrated. I'm
not sure.
But anyway, for 15 years we have had problems with the budget,
knowing whether or not the program was to be funded, at what level, when
we could carry it out, etc. Some of us thought that in the passage of the
Agricultural Act of 1973, in which Title X provided for a conservation and
pollution abatement cost-sharing program, re-emphasizing that the Soil Con-
servation and Domestic Allotment Act was to be carried out, the matter was
straightened out. In getting that in the Agricultural Act of 1973, some
of the Congressional leaders on the Agricultural Committee from this area
of the country were very influential in getting that in the Act with White
House approval. Some of us felt that this would clarify the problem.
I might point this out, that for the 1975 budget the administra-
tion recommended about $120 million for a consolidated conservation program,
the Congress did not approve the consolidated program, but authorized $190
million for ACP, $25 million for FIP, then with the economy situation it
got caught up in the budget recession problem. Instead of being able to
announce a program last December we had to wait until now to announce a
program.
103
-------
Well, we are glad that we are now able to say that there will be
a conservation cost-sharing program at the $190 million level in 1975.
Mr. Svore:
Is that 1-year money? Does that have to be allocated in 1975?
Mr. Sallee:
Yes, it has to be obligated by December 31, 1975, but not neces-
sarily expended. For example, there are long-term agreements that are a
part of the program now, so it doesn't have to all be expended.
ASCS will be having meetings in the next couple of weeks with the
leadership in our state offices, our state committeemen, the Soil Conserva-
tion Service and the Forest Service in developing the program for 1975, and
many of you in this meeting today will be involved at the state level.
I would like to call on Jack Provin, our state program specialist
for Missouri, to comment regarding program development at the state level.
Jack, do you have anything to add here about what you see in the next few
weeks in Missouri in the development of the ACP program.
Mr. Jack Provin (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Columbia, Missouri):
All agencies in our state with respect to related agency and farm
organization people who are interested in agriculture are invited in to
help develop a program.
The practices that are assigned, there has been some talk about
changing practice specifications. These are developed by the agency that
has the technical responsibility. I feel that we are keeping abreast with
technology for our conservation. Some of the practices that we would like
to see come back into the program; that we have had in Missouri have been
kicked out; some that have been mentioned.
I would only say that any body who could do anything to help get
a little more flexibility and some other practices back into the program
certainly would be appreciated in Missouri.
Mr. Svore:
Thank you.
Are there any questions regarding the program?
Yes.
104
-------
Mr. Jim Frank (Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Springfield,
Illinois):
Does it include livestock waste management system as we do it in
the REAP program?
Mr. Sallee:
I would say now not as in the 1973 REAP. However, let me not go
further into types of practices. Monday and Tuesday there will be some major
decisions made in Washington. There are still some decisions to be made.
We are unable to announce the full details. Some more of these involvements,
you know. Then the program will be out to the field, hopefully by the middle
of next week (see Appendix II for ACP information).
Mr. Svore:
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Oren Long:
I would like to ask a question of this gentleman. Since Iowa
has had more experience with erosion and sediment control legislation than
any other state, are they satisfied with the legislation they have or would
they rather have model legislation? Could you get a few of the Iowa legisla-
ture and would agricultural industry back you up like they did on the other
legislation?
Mr. Lindquist:
I don't know which of the four or five questions to start with,
but I think the current legislation is working quite effectively, and one
of the reasons it is working effectively is because it's a reasonable pro-
gram.
There was a reference in the paper to the fact that the model
legislation required an interagency team to develop the standard, and this
is not required in the law, but I would comment that at the state level
guidelines were developed utilizing people from many agencies and many fields
of expertise to develop standards or model standards based on the soil types,
the topography and the other factors associated with erosion. These guide-
lines were used then by the other 100 districts to develop their own standard
and, as stated, there was not one formal complaint filed at any of the 100
hearings.
105
-------
So we feel we have got a workable program. It is functioning,
it is serving the purpose. The means are there. The one disadvantage,
to some people, perhaps, is the fact that damage must first occur before
action can be taken. But up to this point any compaints that have been
filed have been taken care of without the need to go to the District Court
and seek its assistance.
Mr. Svore:
A question here?
Mr. Bob Schultz (University of Arkansas):
I have a question for Mr. Lindquist.
Given that damages have to be proven, I would like to know, first
of all, how are damages proven and in the case that we do prove that a given
amount of damages have taken place, is there any comparison of the cost of
corrective mechanisms relative to the cost of damages? Let's just say that
the costs were greater than the decrease in the damages which would result,
would they still go ahead and make the correction, or is there any leeway?
Mr. Lindquist:
Okay. The requirement of being in compliance is not related to
the value or the amount of the damage. The fact that you are being damaged
is sufficient to file a complaint.
The complaint having been filed, the Soil Conservation District
Commissioners are duty bound to investigate and see if the land is being
utilized in a proper fashion. In other words, if the particular soil type
and topography and the cropping is such that it exceeds the allowable limit
on the site where the fanning is being done, for example, exceeds that al-
lowable limit, then this operator must come into comformance with the pre-
scribed soil loss limits and then it may be a matter of going to minimum
tillage, it may be a matter of terraces, whatever. It's keyed toward pre-
serving the resource in place.
Mr. Schultz:
How do they evaluate the damage? That's what I want to know.
106
-------
Mr. Lindquist:
The monetary value of the damage that occurred?
Mr. Schultz:
Yes.
Mr. Lindquist:
It is not evaluated. The mere transport of sediment from one
property to another property is sufficient cause to file a complaint, the
presumption being, see, that the resource is worth preserving on-site and
if it's pointed out that it is not being properly utilized, then you are
in violation.
Mr. Svore:
A question back there.
Mr. Warren Kester (Farm Journal Magazine):
Where have most of your complaints come from and how extensive
have those complaints been?
Mr. Lindquist:
They have been pretty well scattered across the state, probably
more across the southern and western part. I can't give you specific cases.
It runs in my mind that about 75, I believe, have been filed by individuals.
We don't have a true measure, but we are certain in talking with the Commis-
sioners-- and we don't at the state level get too involved in the day-to-day
operation because this is a locally administered program, but we feel like
there are a number of cases where just the fact that one neighbor pointed
it out to another neighbor, they worked it out and voluntary compliance re-
sulted. Of course we are quite certain, but I couldn't give you any statis-
tics on that.
Mr. Svore:
Any other questions?
Mr. Russell T. Odell (Illinois Pollution Control Board, Chicago, Illinois):
Does the sediment have to move across the property boundary under
your Iowa law to be a potential violation?
107
-------
Mr. Lindquist:
Yes, sir.
Mr. Svore:
It seems to me that one of the problems with that law is that
the farmers that live next to each other may be friends and they don't like
to file a complaint against their friend. Do you feel that this is a
deterrent to make the law work the way it should?
Mr. Lindquist:
Well, I'm sure that has affected some cases. Nonetheless, it
focuses attention on the problem and it is perhaps one of the reasons why
state cost-sharing funds became available, which certainly helped a number
of conditions.
We think it works real well.
Mr. Svore:
Any other questions?
Thanks a lot, Dan. Appreciate your comments.
Our next speaker this afternoon was born on a farm in Ohio. In
fact, I have a feeling that most of the people here in this room were born
on a farm, and maybe that's why we still have an interest in the agricul-
tural p rob1ems.
Earl McMunn is the Editor of The Ohio Farmer and he is Director
of Public Affairs for the Harvest Publishing Company. He holds many posi-
tions, directorships in the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, he's on the Ohio State
University College Alumni Board, he's a member or was a member of the Ohio
Air Pollution Control Board, and belongs to many associations which are almost
too numerous to mention. I noticed also that he has various awards from some
10 or a dozen different associations and organizations.
It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce Earl McMunn,
Editor of The Ohio Farmer.
108
-------
CONTROL PLANNING - THE FARMER AND AGRIBUSINESS
Earl W. McMunn
Editor
The Ohio Fanner
109
-------
Mr. McMunn:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that introduction. That was
much more encouraging than one that I had one time when I went out to speak
at a service club and as I was getting ready to speak the Chairman leaned
over and said, "You know, I can't take a bit of time to talk about you today
in giving my introduction." He says, "I have got to build up the speaker for
next week's program who is from Cincinnati." And he said, "Gosh, I hope the
tickets sell better for next week than they did for this one."
Well, I noticed in looking over this program that there were nine
people listed on this program before I got up here. I used to play some
baseball and when we were playing baseball we always had the pitcher, who
couldn't hit, as the ninth man on the program. Well, I don't know, I won't
tell you much, I'm pretty sure of this, but at least I can be quick.
A little like a football coach we had back in Ohio who went to the
coach's convention and he was boasting about this tailback he had. He said,
"This boy is the quickest one I have ever seen." He said, "When the ball is
snapped, he's gone. There has never been a tackier ever lay a hand on him."
He said, "They just can't touch him."
Well, one of the other coaches said, "Well, if you had a ballplayer
like that you'd be winning all your games and you haven't been."
He said, "Yes, that's just the trouble. He has one fault." He
said, "He's always gone before he has the ball."
So whether I tell you anything, at least I can be quick.
Also I noticed when Dwight Metzler was talking here about these
increased demands, always putting the demands a little bit ahead of you,
made me think of a fellow we had, in fact he was a lawmaker, in Ohio. He
also had some race horses and he entered these horses in a race, or one
horse in a race, and he thought the horse could win but he didn't. After
the race was over he went to the driver and he was awfully mad and he said,
"As you came up around that upper turn there," he said, "that big hole
opened up ahead of you." He said, "Why didn't you drive your horse through
the hole and win the race?"
And the driver said, "Mr. Powell, did you ever try to drive a
horse through a hole that was going away from you?"
Well, I'm glad we finally got around to the point in this program
where we are talking about the farmer and agribusiness. You know, this is
the place where it happens and we seem to spend a lot of time before we get
to that point. I guess this is what we have to do, but all I have to say,
110
-------
I'm going to--I think it can be said in a very few simple words, and if you
don't remember anything else just remember this.
There are at least three basic needs if we are to make pollution
control a success. We must have REASONABLE GOALS, ABLE LEADERS, and EF-
FECTIVE COMMUNICATION. I believe many of today's troubles trace directly
to early deficiencies in these areas.
Most of our pollution control goals are desirable. Many are at-
tainable, although not always within the time limits some would like. Others
are found to be less desirable when the public understands the cost. Then
there are those of little or no benefit which should not have been estab-
lished in the first place.
We are committed to a massive program of environmental improvement
and the people are not yet fully aware of the cost. But they are starting
to learn. As an example, just two scrubbers for the Ohio Edison Company will
cost more than the 250-mile Ohio Turnpike. They may be environmentally de-
sirable, but contribute nothing to the supply of electric power.
Over-zealous environmentalists claimed that utilities and other
businesses "could afford the cost." Their slogan was: "Make the polluters
pay." They didn't admit that all costs must be paid by customers. For some,
it is a rude awakening.
Not many question the need for reasonable controls. These must
not be so unworkable or expensive as to stifle our economic system. Unwise
environmental regulations can seriously hamper our ability to produce.
Rabid environmentalists who would ban or severely curtail almost all insecti-
cides, herbicides, antibiotics and fertilizers aren't dealing with reality.
Many activists have been long on emotion and short in their under-
standing of basic economics. They ignored the basic principle that "you
can't do just one thing." They wanted to change the face of the earth and
to do it overnight. They demanded standards designed to attain a high degree
of pollution control with little regard for the cost. Now we are getting a
clearer look at the cost side of the picture.
A basic environmental consideration is the need for an adequate
food supply. We in agriculture shouldn't be forced to defend against ir-
responsible attacks which make farming more difficult. The people who will
really suffer are consumers who want an adequate supply of wholesome food
and at reasonable cost. This is what they have been getting. Ill-informed
environmentalists should be their problem, not ours!
Ill
-------
Many things are desirable. The question is how many are worth
the cost to the people involved. And, what are the people willing to pay
when they realize it's their money that is being spent?
We must have "environmental impact studies" before many new
projects are started. These include such things as nuclear power plants,
oil pipelines and many others. Environmental impact deserves consideration.
Of equal importance is economic impact. A bankrupt company or individual
can do nothing to improve anything.
The time has come to demand ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES before granting
new power to agencies of government. These studies should spell out the cost
to the people involved—not just the tax cost for another item in the budget.
If we are to have a program of enduring value, we must take another
look at our priorities. Some types of pollution pose serious threats to the
health and welfare of people. Others are minor in nature. Still others are
no more than speculative and may not even exist.
Some have been blown out of all proportion by faddists and extremists.
Some dedicated to the destruction of our economic system have seized upon
pollution control as a handy weapon. They speak in scathing tones of "dan-
gerous chemicals" produced by agribusiness "to enrich already bloated business
profits." Thus, they engage in a frantic witch hunt, trying to find an enemy
to destroy. At the same time, they ignore other threats which are wide-
spread and massive.
In many respects pollution control has been "to meet public demand"
rather than to eliminate the most serious threats to health and wellbeing.
Too many of us are great at solving problems for others. We are quick with
proposals to regulate "the other guy."
We have no shortage of help in cleaning up agricultural pollution.
Some of it comes from those who gained "expert" status because of their re-
moteness from the agricultural scene. Admitted, an expert should have per-
spective. One way to gain perspective is to look at things from a distance.
When we really have trouble is in solving problems as close as
our nose. Imagine the dismay if we were here to talk about controlling a
really massive and widespread threat to human health. For instance,
cigarettes, cancer and heart disease. Then we would be in trouble. Our
experts would be few and gifted with little fervor. We would have no com-
pelling majority. We would be unable to throw the mass of public opinion
against a feeble minority.
112
-------
They didn't admit as much, but lawmakers understood this quirk of
human nature when they passed our present pollution control laws. Many are
willing to control other polluters. But, what we do is our business.
Congress in its wisdom set out to eliminate some forms of pollu-
tion. Slated for attack was an impressive list of "bad guys." We didn't
necessarily dedicate ourselves to correcting the most dangerous hazards.
At least, not in order of importance. Neither have we done enough as yet to
establish our priorities on a cost-benefit basis. That may come with time.
It must if we are to have programs of enduring value.
We have attempted to learn from mistakes of the past in developing
a land pollution control plan for Ohio. It has been several years in the
making. Many able people are involved. They include farmers, researchers,
government workers, educators, members of the agribusiness community, soil
conservation district leaders, communicators, and many others.
The basic concept is that pollution is controlled when erosion is
held to recommended levels. The idea is to prevent erosion. This is not
new. It was the big mission of the Soil Conservation Service in the days of
Hugh H. Bennett and others who saw the need for protecting our soil re-
sources. Soil Conservation Districts were organized. They became a vehicle
for developing plans and encouraging farmers to adopt conservation methods.
In 1970 the Ohio Federation of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
started positive action to develop a pollution control plan. District
leaders felt that public pressure would force the Ohio General Assembly to
act, and that they were likely to do so in a climate of relative ignorance.
Agricultural leaders preferred to be ready with a plan of their own making.
They recalled that districts have been environmentally oriented since they
were created more than 30 years ago.
Since then legislation has been passed which supports the position
of district leaders. It authorized appointment of a special technical ad-
visory board to assist the Division of Soil and Water Districts in developing
an agricultural pollution abatement program.
The advisory board was made up of 11 members. It represents farmers,
ecologists, district supervisors, agricultural industry, The Ohio State Uni-
versity, Agricultural Research and Development Center, the Ohio Department of
Agriculture, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, and the U.S. Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service.
The advisory board sorted possible agricultural pollution into
four main categories. These were sediment, animal wastes, chemicals, and
air pollutants. Extensive reports were prepared in gathering and interpreting
the facts.
113
-------
It was found, for instance, that recommended levels of fertilizer
application are basically nonpolluting if erosion is controlled. And,
recommended levels are rarely exceeded. Actually, in many cases, increasing
fertilizer applications to recommended levels would tend to reduce pollution.
Most of the fertilizer nutrients that get into public waters from farm land
are attached to soil particles. Reduce soil losses and you reduce pollution.
Ohio's proposed agricultural program is intended to help landowners
who have problems. It recommends that landowners be required to practice a
reasonable amount of conservation. State standards would be the soil loss
tolerance values used by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in conservation
plans.
A 10-year phase-in period is recommended. This is so landowners
can make equipment or cropping system adjustments to meet the final standards.
The Universal Soil Loss Equation would be employed to predict soil
loss. It would be the tool used to decide the necessary level of conservation.
The proposed regulation allows agriculture a reasonable amount of soil loss
just as would occur in nature. But, it restricts flagrant misuse and treat-
ment of soil at the expense of environmental degradation.
The proposal also includes state cost sharing as a fundamental
principle. Cost sharing is not suggested for practices which directly in-
crease yields or reduce labor costs.
Legislation is now being prepared to implement regulatory and en-
forcement procedures called for in the proposal.
If there was ever a place where factual and objective communication
is needed, it is in telling the story of pollution control. If there was
ever a time, it is now.
We have not suffered for lack of words. The outpouring of copy
has been overwhelming. There has been much factual information. Too much,
however, has been slanted and biased. Much of this has been designed to in-
flame emotions rather than to lead people to thoughtful decisions. Such
journalistic endeavors may "get action." They may also set the stage for
massive catastrophe.
Here is perhaps our greatest challenge—also our greatest opportun-
ity. Communication is the tool that gets things done. We have done a fair
job of communicating with farm people. Scientific knowledge has been carried
from the laboratories and the test plots to farms where it was put to use.
Now we face a new challenge. We must continue to communicate within
our industry. We must also communicate with groups far removed from the field
114
-------
of agriculture. What upsets us is that nonfarm people are increasingly
calling the tune where our vital interests are concerned.
Already, agricultural spokesmen have wasted a lot of time talking
among themselves in the vain hope that nonfarm people just might overhear
and understand.
The knowledge explosion has been a boon to mankind. From a com-
munication standpoint, it is a handicap. The whole store of knowledge is
beyond the power of a single individual to comprehend, much less convey ef-
fectively. And, who has the time or inclination to listen?
We must choose a few basic ideas and concentrate on these. Here
are some questions we must answer:
What, really, is the message we should tell?
Why do we want to tell it?
Who do we want to reach?
Who should do the telling?
What "vehicles" can transport our message?
A successful program of information must be continuing in nature.
All too often we attend a seminar or conference. Ideas are batted around.
Many of them are good. Fifteen minutes before the meeting breaks up, some-
one says: "We'd better get this out to the press. Someone should write
a release." A lot more is needed if we are to get the job done.
We must not ignore human nature in planning our communications
strategies. We'd like to believe people make rational decisions on the
basis of scientific fact. In many cases it doesn't work this way.
When it comes to swaying public opinion, many of us in agriculture
are saddled with a severe handicap. We have been schooled in the scientific
approach. This assumes you get factual information on the basis of research.
Then, you use the facts to make rational decisions. Human nature doesn't
always react that way. It is easier and more exciting to be swayed by emo-
tion.
We are concerned about getting our information to "the public."
We forget there is no single "public." Environmental improvement means
one thing to a fanner who already understands something about conservation
and wise land use. It may mean something quite different to a city dweller
who envisions only a world of furred and feathered friends.
115
-------
We must plan our communications on the basis of meaning to the
people we are attempting to reach. Little or nothing will be accomplished
by opposing an idea because it will "hurt farmers." Only a farmer is likely
to care. It is a different story when we are talking about a favorable en-
vironment for people. This includes heat, light, food and a host of other
things. We are all in this together. Eliminating pollution isn't the whole
answer. The moon is sterile enough, but it is a poor place for people.
A key principle is to have a message which is relevant, then de-
liver it in terms others will understand. Our country has problems. No
doubt about it. Ours are the problems of affluence. These are better than
the problems of poverty and starvation.
We also have answers. Protesters and agitators have been getting
much of the attention. Their approach is negative in nature. They don't
provide the answers. The answers are to be found in our store of scientific
knowledge. But knowledge is useless unless it is communicated.
Here is our opportunity. It is also our responsibility. People
are being deluged with ideas. Many are constructive. Others would limit
or destroy the things which have made America great. It matters not whether
this is ignorance or deliberate intent — the result is the same. Informa-
mation to build a better America cannot be based upon emotion, ignorance,
half truths or wishful thinking. We must know and proclaim the truth!
A productive agriculture is basic to our high standard of living.
It is the only hope for a hungry world. We can hold pollution within ac-
ceptable limits by working with producers on a positive basis. Little is
accomplished by creating adversary roles. Most members of the farm and
agribusiness community understand this. We'll improve our chances for
success if we have reasonable goals, able leaders and effective communica-
tion.
Mr. Svore:
Before the coffee break, Earl, would it help my credibility if I
told you I have a sign in my conference room and also in my office that
says "Thank you for not smoking in here?" I have been making snide re-
marks to my secretary for 6 years about her smoking and she finally quit
the other day.
Mr. McMunn:
I have one, too, and she hasn't quit.
116
-------
Mr. Shilling:
Could I make a brief comment? Did you ever think that if all of
us who smoke these things quit how many tobacco farmers are going to go out
of business?
Mr. McMunn:
I know there is always a rationalization.
I
Mr. Svore:
All us farmers thank you.
I have managed to get us behind time. Do you suppose we could
get back here in about 10 min? We will now have a coffee break.
(COFFEE BREAK)
117
-------
PANEL DISCUSSION:
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PRACTICABLE
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL PLAN
Panel Members;
Dr. Samuel R. Aldrich
Mr. Charles F. Bredahl
Mr. R. M. Davis
Mr. J. H. Ebbinghaus
Mr. Dan Lindquist
Dr. Thomas A. Murphy
Mr. Earl W. McMunn
Mr. William C. Shilling
Mr. Jerome H. Svore
Mr. David G. Unger
Moderator;
Dr. A. D. McElroy
Midwest Research Institute
119
-------
Dr. McElroy:
This part of the program is entitled, "The Development of a
Practicable Agricultural Pollution Control Plan." This is a very ambitious
objective for whatever time we have left here.
It is self-evident that we haven't very clearly laid out such a
plan during the day. We have discussed a lot of the issues, and the ele-
ments of what might be in a plan, but we obviously have not come to a con-
sensus of what this plan should be. We now have the opportunity to talk over
what has been said earlier in the day, and hopefully, to crystallize the
words and ideas into a semblance of planning or policy.
Our panel includes Mr. Charles Bredahl, Executive Secretary of
the State Conservation Commission in Kansas, standing in for Dwight Metzler,
and Jim Ebbinghaus, who is Assistant Executive Secretary of the Farm and
Industrial Equipment Institute in Chicago, and represents a segment of the
agricultural community which we have not heard from today. Jim will take
the opportunity to say a few words now.
Mr. Ebbinghaus:
Thank you. When I initially received an announcement of the pro-
gram, I noticed that neither the farm nor industrial equipment industry was
included on the program, and I asked if there was a chance to say a few words.
I asked because farm equipment is used in all farming and is a fundamental
part of all the things that we have discussed today.
As Earl McMunn stated, we have some communication problems. One
concerns the availability of farm equipment to meet the requirements of
conservation tillage, minimum tillage or whatever it's called. Let me
assure you that there is adequate equipment available to meet all the per-
ceived needs that I heard talked about for sediment control.
We are a technology-intensive industry. Our sales of farm equip-
ment are greatly in excess of $7 billion a year. Our research and develop-
ment expenditures are greater than the total ARS budget, and we do a lot of
things in the agricultural research area. About a year ago, when model
legislation was being talked about we had a program to see how we fit and
where there were voids and gaps in research that may need to be filled. We
found out in our conference that there is a misunderstanding, really, of
what equipment is available.
A lot of equipment has been developed that never really made it in
the marketplace, for various reasons. The technology is still there, and if
the need is there, some of these designs can be resurrected. I want to share
with you several words that relate to this: Chisel plows, strip tillage
120
-------
planers, such as "Sidewinder," tillage planers, no-till planers, and double
cropping in wheat. This machinery is only part of the equipment our industry
has available or potentially available. There are thousands of brochures,
there's a great amount of advertising, there are a number of books on tillage,
conservation tillage, minimum tillage, reduced tillage, and so forth. We
have large numbers of schools for farm equipment dealers, and their organiza-
tion has a profound influence in agriculture. There are just lots of re-
sources available to you.
I have heard much about regulations, and I would say that our in-
dustry at this point in time has about all the regulations that it can pos-
sibly absorb and put into practice. We are certainly strong on voluntary
action, perhaps to the point of playing an adversary role. I think our
voluntary action in farm equipment has been very meaningful. I cite a couple
of examples of voluntary action.
There isn't any piece of equipment that doesn't have shielding on
it. No regulations required. People know it's good for them. Took a lot
of education.
In the conservation tillage area, I want to share some statistics
on voluntary action that is working very well. In 1972, it was reported in
the No Till magazine that 39.1% of the acres under cultivation in Maryland
had minimum or no till. In Kentucky, 31.5% of the total acres; in Virginia,
16%; in New Jersey, 7.3%; in Indiana, 3.7%. How many acres does this mean all
together? Well, in 1972, it was 29.7 million; in 1973 it jumped to 33.3
million acres.
I really think what we see as an industry and what we are trying
to advocate in one way or another is the big challenge in education. We
all know the benefits of sediment control, but somehow there are some images
that have to be changed.
Let me just cite an example. When I was growing up, one of the
real traditions was that a really clean plowed field was a beautiful field.
I would say a beautiful field today would be one that would suggest you have
a lot of trash. There are still a lot of people today who feel that beauty
is a very black earth turned up, perfect, with no trash showing. This does
suggest new systems and new communications. In practical terms, we need to
think that conservation farming fits the system. A lot of people feel that
conservation tillage, minimum tillage, what-have-you, means a brand new sys-
tem of farming, and lots of brand new equipment is needed. This is just not
a true statement; equipment is available, and a lot of it is already on the
farm.
121
-------
Now, if new equipment is needed, what can we do as an industry?
We have to know what the need is, when it's needed, where it's needed, how
many, and have some lead time. It takes about 3 years lead time to test a
tool and get it on the market. And the product has to have acceptability
and provide some monetary return.
To sum up what I heard today: the problems are complex, and we
must organize effectively to deal with them. All I can offer to you from
the Farm Industrial Equipment Institute or Agricultural Research Committee
is that if you want us to cooperate and be a part of your program, we are
very willing and able to help you, and our resources are available for your
use.
I thank you for the opportunity of being here.
Dr. McElroy:
Thank you, Jim.
The speakers and their audience have made several points, many
times, which in part sum up the status of agriculture and its relation to
the environment. We have heard repeatedly that the problems are complex,
that every river basin is different and requires a different control strategy.
We have heard that some of the problems are relatively well under-
stood and some of them are not at all well understood, that this problem we
are dealing with is very varied with regard to our ability to understand it
and to know what to do.
We have heard that change has to come, that it has to accelerate.
And we have heard several times that it's going to cost money, lots of
money, and that we really haven't been spending very much money compared
to what we have spent on other programs. In this connection we might do
well to compare defense spending with conservation spending, and reflect
a bit on priorities.
We have heard that we aren't sure what the side effects of pol-
lution control might be. In other words, we are not quite safe in saying
that we can make certain changes and not be unconcerned that we might create
another problem. This is a part of what we have to face up to.
We have heard that the solution requires careful planning, a
rational approach, and, again, lots of money. We have heard quite often,
and it bears repeating, that soil conservation is consistent with water
quality and the two most of the time go hand in hand. It has been pointed
out, however, that soil conservation, or retention of soil on the land, is
not always consistent with water quality.
122
-------
The inititative is still on the local basis with the states. They
still have much to say about what plans are to be, what standards are to be
developed, what kind of implementation, enforcement if you like, is to take
place. In this connection, we have been assured that there's lots of local
talent available: the water quality people, the agricultural people, the
extension service, and so on.
I sense much frustration in that this talent, which includes those
here today, is grappling with, but not quite, resolving the issues. Why?
Do we have discussion?
Mr. Paul Jacobson (Dow City, Iowa):
I would like to make a comment. I don't know how you would
classify me. I worked 30 years for the Soil Conservation Service. And
since that time, I have worked with Harza Engineering Company for 10 years
out of Chicago. I now farm a 320-acre farm in the rough rolling hills of
western Iowa, for 5 years. So you see, I have put in quite a few years on
the soil conservation program.
Coming down from Dow City, Iowa, yesterday, I passed through one
of the most erosive areas in the world, or at least in the United States.
It's a deep loess area. Our Corps of Engineers has run water sample studies
on the Soldier River up there, and got 10 tons annually off every acre, so
you know it's well above the allowable limits. As I drove from Dow City
through 150 miles of this area yesterday, I was very much impressed at
the 70% that wasn't accomplished. I think this is the thing we have got
to be looking at, not at the 30% that we have already got accomplished. How
are we going to get the rest done?
In this area, the slopes run about 12% or over. The soil is deep
loess, so you can take lots of erosion. But the amount of erosion is
tremendous.
What's happended the last 2 years since we went to intensive crop-
ping? At one time, that area was pretty well controlled with considerable
grass in the area. Today as you drive through that same area, you find it's
almost 100% corn, just like the rest of Iowa. You have to think about what
are we going to do.
In that trip, I got one little inspiration as I passed through
Shenandoah, Iowa, and into Tarkio, Missouri. In the old Tarkio watershed
a long time ago, we started one of the first programs, at a time when we
very much concentrated our efforts on an individual area. Today in that
area you will still find a considerable amount of the terracing that went
123
-------
into that area and you will be impressed, as I was, that here is an area
that still has conservation after 40-some years; these people have stayed
with it. Why? Because neighbors working together have got this thing
going so that it has stayed in operation.
If you don't believe that I believe in these things, you can come
up and look at my own farm. It has one of the most complete erosion control
programs there is in the world. I changed a lot of things on that farm for
the same reason that farmers don't adopt practices: some of them aren't
practical enough, you can't farm it after you put them on and if you can't,
they are not going to do it. As a result of some of the things I have done
on that farm, I have changed a lot of my ideas of soil conservation. And
we have put on a program I will match with any program there is anywhere in
the world. There are some problems with my program. These are the things
that society has to stand up and bear the cost of if they are going to get
farmers to adopt them.
In the end, if you are going to get conservation adopted, I think
you are going to have to go back, Mel, to your watershed idea. You did it
on downstream engineering. Now, let's push again on upstream programs and
get this conservation up here on the hills. Like H. H. Bennett said long
ago, if you don't accomplish erosion control up there on the top of the
hills, all the other programs are in vain.
I have spoken a long time, but I am very sincere about this be-
cause I think we need to take some looks at some of the past things we did,
how we got conservation on particular areas, and then use our experience
where we had high success and got lots of conservation. If we do that, I
think we are going to get that 70% done, or a greater portion of it.
I would like to bring one question to Dr. Aldrich. He stated
that several watersheds in Illinois showed less erosion recently than in
an earlier period, and that the records seemed to show that we have less
erosion with more intensive farming. I am concerned about the scientific
validity of the conclusion and would like Dr. Aldrich to comment.
Dr. Aldrich:
I thought I left the impression, or tried to, that I was challeng-
ing people here to go back and look at that kind of data and see whether it
did stand up now. I can give you a lot of other information in response to
your question here. I think it's so specific we might better talk about it
afterwards, or I will send you what the references are and let you take it
from there.
124
-------
Mr. Unger:
Mr. Chairman, several of us have to catch a plane in a few minutes,
and I want to get in one proposal before we leave.
We are supposed to talk about the development of a practicable
agricultural pollution control plan, and I would like to ask Mr. Svore or
anybody else from EPA, if they don't think that the first step in develop-
ing such a plan would be the definition, by the EPA, of nonpoint source
pollution.
Mr. Svore:
Yes, but, I'm not going to comment any further on that point
because they do that kind of thing in Washington.
But another thing they are doing in Washington has to do with
one of the requirements of Public Law 92-500, and that is the establishment
of a national water commission to take a look at the Act and see what changes
or modifications might be justified in the future.
Dr. Dan Wells is here today; Dan is at the present time on leave
from Texas Tech., working for the National Commission on Water Quality.
Dan, would you mind commenting briefly about what you think
this commission may do in the area of nonpoint source pollution as far as
92-500 is concerned?
Dr. Dan M. Wells (National Commission on Water Quality, Washington, D.C.):
(Declined to comment)
Mr. Dave Nicholson (Weyerhaeuser Company):
I have a question that has bothered me for some time that one of
the EPA people perhaps can address. One way of controlling sedimentation
from going into receiving waters is to build a sedimentation pond. Does
this sedimentation pond become a point source of pollution, and does it
require an NPDS permit?
Mr. Svore:
I wouldn't imagine that it's any different from any of the other
of the hundreds of thousands of reservoirs that are built throughout this
part of the country. They all have some kind of an overflow, many of which
are piped overflows. We certainly aren't writing permits on them.
125
-------
Mr. Sallee:
The Corps of Engineers has been involved in a lawsuit recently
with respect to the definition of what is navigable water. It appears to
some of us that this expansion of the definition as ordered by the court
last Thursday is going to put them into the regulating of farm activities
along meandering streams.
What's your interpretation of all this? How does this affect
your nonpoint program? Will it reduce the nonpoint area and put more in
the point source area?
Mr. Svore:
I think we are going along with the Corps on that. We felt that
there ought to be some uniformity of what is a navigable stream and what is
the federal government's involvement. They had their definition and we had
ours.
Mr. Sallee:
What's the definition?
Mr. Svore:
One of the things that I imagine this court case would do—and
I shouldn't even comment on this because I haven't seen the decision--would
at least bring some uniformity along that line. There have been questions
on what's a navigable stream for quite some time. But, I'm not well enough
acquainted with what the court did to really answer your question.
Mr. Steve Oltmans (Lower Elkhorn NRD, Norfolk, Nebraska):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to get some feedback from the panelists,
if I may. We are quite concerned in our basin with nonpoint in that out of
our total district area, 86 to 87% of it is going to be tilled this year.
And contrary to the gentlemen representing the equipment people, we plow
most everything there. We have got a long way to go, and we are working
with these people as well as many others.
But let me first explore with you what we have done, very briefly.
When the President vetoed or tabled or held up the funds for the
so-called REAP program, we adopted our own local assistance program. We
budgeted some quarter of a million dollars and spent that. Technically, it
was administered with the SCS.
126
-------
We also have spent close to $75,000 to $80,000 on point source
feed lots. In Nebraska, we produce in the Elkhorn Basin half the beef and
pork in our district. We feel we are over the hump on the feedlot issue as
far as point pollution is concerned, with control accomplished on 70% of
the lots needing control.
We have worked with counties in getting comprehensive planning
and county zoning done as, hopefully, a source of some land use control
with regard to nonpoint.
We have initiated a reduced tillage program in the last couple of
years in which we spent 5% of our budget, roughly $50,000, on a promotional
program, hoping that this would help.
Our whole point is that recently the Nebraska Natural Resources
Commission came out with our water quality plan as required by Section 208.
I think it did quite well on completing that. However, in our basin there
is no way we are going to meet water quality standards in the future with-
out tackling the nonpoint problem.
Many things we are able to do now, but we can't continue to
finance them all with local funds. The directors sent me down here, and I
must report back to my 19 directors, hoping that I have some of these
answers.
One of the biggest problems we see in the nonpoint issue is the
legal interpretation of the law itself; Dave Unger related to that problem.
We need legal interpretation to help us as an agency determine some practi-
cal things that we can begin to carry out.
Also, we are going to need some help to get state legislation.
We have had a bill drafted in Nebraska for 2 years, and we haven't found
a legislator courageous enough to introduce it. I think we will get that
done next year, in my opinion.
We have heard about the ASCP program. We are very happy to have
$190 million, but that probably will produce about half the production that
the $225 million did in the late 60's. That was not nearly enough. And also
the $25 million maximum that each area can draw annually is not covering
the ball game. That was set up back in the 30's also.
The program needs to be more long-range—it's been too piecemeal,
on an annual basis. We have got the LPA program now that is going to be of
some help.
127
-------
Robert Tweedy's name was mentioned. We have had him, as well as
representatives of other equipment companies, in for seminars at the local
level with the farmers and landowners.
We had an incentive payment program set up through the AGP pro-
gram before the President cancelled it on December 22, 1972. I think we
need an incentive program to get more landowners to try this type of prac-
tice.
We have emphasized promotional efforts. We call them promotional
efforts because when we talk about education on the local level, it doesn't
go over very well. The terminology is very critical. Through these promo-
tional efforts, working with the Extension Service and the Soil Conservation
Service in our local district, we now have about 15 papers. We have full-
page spreads once a month selling the reduced tillage programs as well as
many of our other conservation programs. We buy about $5,000 worth of com-
mercial TV time every year in our area to help sell this program.
We need help financially.
Any comments?
Mr. Svore:
I don't see how I can reply to you. I think what you have just
said is an excellent illustration of a program that's working. I think you
ought to be sitting up here instead of me. You are to be commended for a
job well done.
Mr. Shilling:
I can't answer some of the questions that you asked, and I'm sorry
you have to report back to those directors without answers. I would like to
comment, however.
In considering the nonpoint sources, and I am talking about all
of them, every time we look at them we eventually come up with some sort
of an idea of a plan. If it's mining, a mining plan. The strip mining
act that has been passed, but I don't think has been signed yet, calls for
a plan of some kind. In terms of construction activities, we came up with
a water quality management plan, or whatever you want to call it, that in-
corporates various measures into some method of controlling sediments. We
come up with the same thing for silviculture, where you are dealing with a
massive forest area.
128
-------
And we frankly come up with the same sort of thing for agricul-
ture. If you have a fairly large farm that may have 10 or 15 or 20 ditches
that might be considered a point source, then we keep coming back to the
idea that we can call the plan a water quality management plan. But I think
the plan might be the same thing as a soil and water conservation plan as
far as the probability of meeting the requirements, and the state or a local
agency would deal with this. I believe this is really what they do in Iowa,
even though it starts with a complaint.
I would just like to ask you all to think about whether this sort
of thing would work on your state and local levels.
The question comes up also that if we do have to issue effluent
permits, how do you write the permit? Can you write a permit (and we don't
know whether legally this can be done) on the basis of some sort of a planned
operation above the "point?" Certainly, you know, trying to enforce a per-
mit that depended on a rain would be a tremendous problem.
From your state and local points of view, strictly in terms of
nonpoint, do you feel that a soil and water conservation plan for a farm
will meet the requirements of a regulatory program? In other words, if
there is a regulatory program that says you must comply with a soil loss
requirement, will the development and implementation of a soil and water
conservation plan by SCS or a soil and water conservation district meet
requirements in your area for a regulatory program?
Mr. Lindquist:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to the gentleman from the
Elkhorn in Nebraska. I would like to add my commendations. It sounds like
an excellent program.
I think he is expressing some of the same things we have experi-
enced. It's difficult to get enough money, in his case in a river basin,
in ours within the state, to really do the job, but I think what has been
done demonstrates in both cases that we are dead serious. We are willing
to make the effort and spend some money. This long term program, is, in my
personal opinion, one of the better things that has come along to lend con-
tinuity so that you can expect from one year to the next to have a program
and can tell where you are going.
You don't really need to legislate it if you have this kind of a
program available. People are inclined to sign up for a program when they
can plan their personal finances, when they have a two-way contract, and
can get a program installed over a period of years that they can afford to
do.
129
-------
Mr. Fran Bennett (Midwest Research Institute):
The Corps of Engineers has been making dams in this country for
a number of years. Most of the good sites for dams have either been iden-
tified or have been implemented and used. Very few of these sites have
good conservation control practices on the watersheds feeding into these
dams. The dams have a predictable life, whether it's 80 years or 150 years
which means that at some point in time, they are going to be filled with
sediment.
Is it reasonable that we require pollution control and conserva-
tion control on the watersheds above the reservoirs to increase their life?
A further comment. I spent about 5 years in India, where most of
the catchments and dams are filled with sediment, and there are no other
places to make catchments for irrigation water retention.
Dr. McElroy:
Mr. Bredahl, perhaps that's one you wuuld like to make a comment
on.
Mr. Bredahl:
I think it's reasonable to require the Corps of Engineers to have
a stipulated amount of conservation above reservoirs, just as the Soil Con-
servation Service does for watershed dams, but I think it's a Herculean task.
Tuttle Creek at the mouth of the Blue River has several thousand square miles
of drainage above it. It would take a long time.
Dr. McElroy:
Mr. Svore will officially close the meeting. I would like to say
in behalf of the Institute that we have appreciated the audience, we have
appreciated the speakers, and we have appreciated the opportunity to parti-
cipate with you people in this Conference.
Mr. Svore:
I want to thank MRI officially for a job well done in setting up
this meeting. I want to thank you all for being here. I think that a ses-
sion such as this at least leads us a little ways further down the road to
coming up with at least a partial solution to what we consider one of the
most serious pollution problems, certainly in this part of the country.
And I thank you all again for coming.
130
-------
APPENDIX I
LUNCHEON SPEECH
POLLUTION CONTROL: ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
John A. Schnittker
President
Schnittker Associates
131
-------
Dr. Hubbard:
Today's luncheon speaker is appropriate to the occasion for sev-
eral reasons. He is one of this country's best known and most distinguished
agricultural economists. Like many of the other speakers he is a native
of this region and received his professional training at Kansas State and
Iowa State Universities.
John A. Schnittker, President of Schnittker Associates, directs
the firm's studies in the United States and abroad. In 1970 and 1971,
Mr. Schnittker was Vice President of Robert R. Nathan Associates, where he
was engaged in agricultural and food sector studies, and directed work in
postal rates, transport regulation, and agricultural trade.
He was Undersecretary of Agriculture and President of the Commodity
Credit Corporation from 1965 to 1969. His prior service with the Department
of Agriculture included positions as Director of Agricultural Economics
(1964 to 1965), and staff analyst, policy advisor, legislative draftsman,
and as official spokesman for the Department. As Undersecretary,
Mr. Schnittker was responsible for program planning, for domestic and
foreign operations of the Commodity Credit Corporation, and, in the absence
of the Secretary of Agriculture, for all programs of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Mr. Schnittker served as senior representative of the Depart-
ment of Agriculture in the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations from 1965 to
1967.
Earlier today a member of the press asked me, "How much is this
pollution control going to add to the food bill?" Unfortunately I couldn't
answer the question. I'm not sure that John can either, but I am sure that
we will be better informed on the subject after we hear what he has to say.
John.
132
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL: ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Perspective
The goal of clean water for the U.S. can have a profound impact
on American agriculture and on world food supplies. The near shortages of
food and high prices of recent years have generated a renewed debate over
the apparent conflicts in the objectives of a cleaner environment and feed-
ing an expanding population at reasonable prices. Environmental goals are
sometimes seen as possibly constricting U.S. agricultural production, limit-
ing returns to the farm sector by increasing production costs, or eliminating
profitable foreign markets for U.S. agricultural products.
I do not intend to minimize the potential conflicts between en-
vironmental and food supply goals, but we must keep them in perspective.
Often the problems associated with environmental regulations will be more
closely related to factors other than agriculture. Several examples can
serve to illustrate the point. Concern has been expressed that environ-
mental constraints will limit our ability to help feed an ever hungry world,
especially Asia. Perhaps this will be true at some time in the future. In
recent years, however, the actual constraints on getting food for the world's
poor and hungry have been the unwillingness of rich nations to finance a
high level of food aid. This situation was changed somewhat recently as a
result of the Congressional requirement that at least 70% of our concessional
sales go to the "most severely affected" countries, instead of to our military
allies in the Middle East and Asia. But in this marketing year, when re-
duced world grain supplies have required a 2070 reduction in grain feeding,
the food aid available from the U.S. is in excess of what will actually be
shipped.
Concern has also been expressed that environmental considerations
will price U.S. agricultural products out of foreign markets. The U.S. has a
strong comparative advantage in the production of major farm commodities in
world trade. Our competitors and our trading partners are principally the
developed countries of the Western World. They, too, are increasingly con-
cerned with improving environmental quality. Our advantage in exporting
farm products is not likely to be threatened by environmental consideration.*
* Cotton is a fairly heavy contributor to agricultural and industrial pol-
lution, and the U.S. comparative advantage in producing cotton is small.
We may well produce a smaller share of the world's cotton in the years
ahead. This would be so, even without reference to pollution control
efforts.
133
-------
Unwise price support laws or regulations are a far greater risk to our com-
petitive position.
There is no need to search for scapegoats for our agricultural or
environmental problems. We should face them directly and jointly find solu-
tions. The world can have enough food, clean water, and a generally safe
environment all at the same time, if we will work on it.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Measures for Agriculture
In discussing the framework of controls for nonpoint pollution
from agriculture, an economic approach involves three principal considera-
tions. First, increasing marginal costs are certain to be associated with
pollution control. That is, the cost of taking additional amounts of pol-
lutants from the environment will increase, in certain situations, more than
in proportion to the amount of pollutants removed. With increasing costs
of removing additional increments, a control plan should not extend beyond
the point where costs exceed benefits.
Second, costs of pollution control are not uniform. They will be
different for various types of agricultural enterprises and between produc-
tion units of the same type but of different size or level of management
skill. An efficient control plan would require that the greatest reduc-
tion in pollution be made from those sources where the unit costs of control
are least.
Third, there are likely to be a number of alternative control
measures associated with each type of pollutant. A control plan should al-
low sufficient flexibility to insure that an efficient solution can be adopted
by persons or units with different economic characteristics. Control tech-
niques proposed for agriculture in relation to nonpoint source water pol-
lution will often require that farming activities be changed. Thus, en-
vironmental control measures will influence the direction of change in agri-
cultural techniques.
The production demands that will be placed on the U.S. farm sector
argue for maximum flexibility in environmental control regulations; they
should not lock agriculture into production practices that will unduly in-
hibit our ability to expand or contract agricultural production to meet
changing situations.
The principal nonpoint sources of water pollution from agriculture
are sediment, pesticides, fertilizers, and plant and animal wastes from
cropland and grazing areas. The measures for reducing soil and water runoff
134
-------
under present technology include terraces, strip-cropping, contouring, and
crop rotation.
The approaches to reducing the quantity of pesticides entering
surface and ground water include: erosion control; reduction of the quantity
of pesticides applied to crops; and substitution of nonchemical methods of
pest control or use of biodegradable pesticides.
Reduction of nutrient losses from agricultural operations involve
improved fertilizer application techniques, including proper timing to in-
sure efficient utilization by plants, tillage and crop rotations, and im-
proved conservation measures that reduce soil and water runoff.
Even this superficial listing of control measures illustrates some
potential areas of conflict between reaching environmental goals and achieve-
ment of national policies for food production and foreign aid, and individual
farm income goals. For example, without alternative measures to maintain
productivity, restrictions on pesticide or fertilizer use which reduce levels
of food production may from time to time result in higher domestic food
prices and smaller quantities available for foreign aid objectives. These
effects can be buffered by establishment of grain reserves, or by good grow-
ing weather. The key question is: "How much will food prices be affected,"
not will they be affected.
Unfortunately, data and methodology with which to evaluate these
tradeoffs are scarce. While it is essential that the public and private
costs and benefits associated with nonpoint pollution control be evaluated
so that society can decide appropriate goals based on knowledge of these
tradeoffs, for the near term water quality standards and means of achieving
them will be based upon very limited knowledge. Lack of information does
not mean that standards should be set at a bare minimum, or that water quality
control plans should have no teeth. Instead, they should be as flexible as
possible to meet changing needs. It means, especially, that control plans
should be designed to generate new information on the benefits and costs of
water quality control.
In the area of nonpoint source pollution control, most of the
economic information generated to date has focused on site-specific farm
situations. In considering this type of data, one should bear in mind that
they most often assess the direct effects on productivity and income of in-
dividual production units. In the aggregate, there can be effects on the
level of total agricultural production, the product mix from U.S. agriculture,
and on production within the major agricultural regions of the U.S. In
turn, these effects have implications for national (and world) supplies of
food and fiber, food prices to the consumer, and world trade. However,
the first step appears to be a consideration of those site-specific impacts.
135
-------
For control of erosion and sediment runoff, conservation measures
can be shown to pay off, even on an individual farm basis. Farming on the
contour has been more profitable, in many situations, than farming up and
down the slope (see Table 1-1). In cases where the direct benefits are in-
sufficient to justify the additional investment or costs to the farmer,
federal cost-sharing has been the most common approach. This remains a gen-
erally accepted measure for controlling erosion where the public and private
benefits clearly exceed the costs. Thus control plans for improving water
quality which embody these generally accepted conservation measures probably
would not generate much debate on economic or environmental grounds, but
could be .carried out under a new version of long-established federal pro-
grams. I want to emphasize the need for new approaches to cost-sharing.
No federal farm program has been more difficult to adapt to changing needs
and conditions than the Agricultural Conservation Program (later renamed
Rural Environmental Assistance Program). And it has been in continuous
jeopardy from budget-cutters for 20 years, partly because it has not been
changed as needed.
However, the issue is less clear-cut when control measures re-
quire altered planting and tillage practices to reduce sediment loss. The
range of crops that can be most profitably grown in a particular region
is usually limited. The introduction of additional crops in a rotation for
conservation purposes, while further reducing sediment loss, usually will
result in lower returns to the farmer and may present particular marketing
problems. Whether the total benefits associated with additional reductions
in erosion attributable to changes in crop patterns will exceed the costs
is a question which is likely to be answered in different ways, depending
upon the crops and region in question.
Reduced tillage systems, in many cases, can significantly reduce
soil loss by erosion and reduce production costs without sacrificing output.
On the negative side, limited till systems often require some change in a
farmer's perception of "good" farming practices (clean tilled fields). They
require investment in new types of equipment and salvaging of old at a loss.
They often require a higher level of management skill and heavier use of
chemical pesticides, which will mean some economic and environmental trade-
offs.
If water quality standards are set to limit soil losses to
moderate levels--say to 50% of the estimated annual soil loss from planting
up and down on 4 to 6% slopes (see Table I-2)--there is unlikely to be any
major impact on American agriculture. The trend of recent decades towards
"improved" soil conservation practices would be reinforced, without any
real economic or social tradeoffs.
If standards are set at levels high enough to require intensive
control procedures and changes in cropping patterns, such as complex crop
136
-------
rotations, there would be a larger impact on the farm sector. Costs would
rise and there could be a reduction in production of some major crops. The
greatest impact might be in the reduced flexibility of the farm sector to
expand or contract production of a crop in any given year as a response to
changing market conditions. However, it seems unlikely that significant
regional shifts in production would occur under these conditions. For ex-
ample, it is difficult to envision any environmental constraints that, by
themselves, would alter the productive efficiency of the Cornbelt relative
to other areas in producing feed crops.
The extent of the water quality problem associated with losses of
nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers varies among regions and crops. The
level of fertilizer use depends primarily on its cost relative to the cost
of other inputs, and the prices of agricultural products. Put very simply,
fertilizer use has increased because it has been very profitable. Control
measures center on improved fertilization practices involving proper timing
the application of optimal amounts of fertilizers, and the development of
slow release fertilizers to improve the efficiency of plants in using
nutrients. Such measures may involve some increased costs, but by them-
selves are unlikely to affect total production levels or returns.
The most lasting effect on fertilizer use patterns will not come
from environmental constraints, but from the increased cost of energy.
Costs of fertilizer will probably increase over time, although the short-
run prices may decline. Higher costs will provide strong incentives to
change fertilizer use patterns in ways that limit loss, and thereby also limit
pollution. Thus, the energy crisis would provide some unexpected benefits to
water quality.
The alternatives to current pesticide use patterns are more com-
plex. With current technology, reducing the level of sediment runoff through
reduced tillage generally requires heavier pesticide use (for weed control),
and presumably an increasing level of pesticide runoff. The current thrust
of pesticide control regulations has placed strong emphasis on restricting
the use of the more persistent chemicals. While this will reduce the levels
of these chemicals in our water supplies, the alternatives generally involve
more complex and costly control techniques. Agricultural pest control under
future environmental standards is likely to require higher production costs
and a higher level of management skills. It is not yet clear that total
productive capacity will be reduced, or that increased instability in output,
prices or farm income will result. But these are real possibilities.
137
-------
Summary
Water quality control measures have the potential for major im-
pacts on American agriculture. However, just as there are large gaps re-
maining in assessing the significance of the pollutant load from nonpoint
agricultural sources, there are large gaps in our understanding of the economic
and social tradeoffs associated with clean water goals. Large structural ad-
justments are in store for agriculture in the coming decades, and only a
small portion of these changes can be directly attributed to requirements
for meeting environmental quality standards. Many of the problems facing
the agricultural sector are influenced more by nonenvironmental factors.
We should be careful not to lay too much blame on efforts to limit pollu-
tion from agricultural sources.
138
-------
TABLE 1-1
VALUE OF ACCUMULATED INCOME PER ACRE, BY ROTATION. SLOPE. METHOD
OJ
OF CULTIVATION, AND LENGTH
of 5.0%)
Length of Continuous Crop
Planning Slope
Horizon Up and
(in years) 4%
5 103
10 177
20 267
30 310
a/ Swanson, E. R. ,
on Crop Yields
Down
Contouring
6% 4% 6%
79 106 83
130 185 143
180 289 216
192 347 251
and C. E. Harshbarger,
," Journal of Soil and
OF PLANNING HORIZON
. NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS^
C-C-SB-0-M
Slope
Up and Down
4%
Contouring
(Discount Rate
C-C-0-M-M
Slope
Up and Down
6% 4% 6% 4% 6%
Dollars
89 66 90 67 87 69
157 113 159 118 154 120
245 170 253 184 246 186
295 197 309 221 300 223
1963. "An Economic Analysis of Effects
Water Conservation, Vol. 19, No. 5.
Contouring
4% 6%
88 70
156 123
250 195
307 237
of Soil Loss
-------
TABLE 1-2
ANNUAL SOIL LOSS ESTIMATES FROM SWYGERT
SILT LOAM SOIL, BY CROP ROTATION AND
PLANTING SYSTEMS^"
Planting Technique
Up and Down Slope Contour
Crop Rotation 4% Slope 6% Slope 4% Slope • 6% Slope
Tons/Acre
Continuous corn 18.8 29.2 9.4 14.6
C-C-SB-0-M 7.4 13.6 3.7 6.8
C-C-0-M-M 4.4 8.2 2.2 4.1
a/ Swanson, E. R., and C. E. Harshbarger, 1963. "An Economic Analysis of
Effects of Soil Loss on Crop Yields," Journal of Soil and Water Con-
servation. Vol. 19, No. 5.
140
-------
APPENDIX II
1975 AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM INFORMATION
141
-------
1975 AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION PROGRAM INFORMATION
The USDA on April 11 announced the operational procedures for the
1975 Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). Authority to develop practices
needed to solve conservation problems was delegated to the county Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation (ASC) committees in consultation with the
county program development group. Practices in the program may include, (a)
all approved practices in effect under the 1970 national Agricultural Con-
servation Program, (b) practices developed in accordance with the 1974 pro-
gram guidelines, and (c) additional practices needed to solve local conserva-
tion problems but not otherwise available. Practices developed by county
ASC committees are subject to approval by state ASC committees in consulta-
tion with the state program development group.
Throughout the practice development and cost-sharing approval
process, ASC state and county committees are to emphasize the objective
of assuring that cost-sharing will be for carrying out enduring soil and
water conservation measures that the farmer would not perform without this
assistance.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) is furnishing planning and
technical assistance on servicing of practices and long-term agreements.
Technical services for forestry practices are being provided by the Forest
Service.
The 1975 ACP is being funded at $190 million with an allocation
of funds to each state. The level of cost-sharing assistance to farmers
under the 1975 program is from 50 to 75% of cost of carrying out the needed
conservation practices. The program provides authority for long-term (3 to
10 years) and regular (annual) agreements.
Individuals interested in complete information on the program or
who want to sign up to participate should contact their local county ASCS
office or the state ASCS office for information on the state program.
142
-------
APPENDIX III
CONFERENCE REGISTRANTS
143
-------
Ubbo Agena
Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality
3920 Delaware Avenue
P.O. Box 3326
Des Mbines, Iowa 50316
Adi Aleti
Midwest Research Institute
Physical Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Aleck Alexander
Research and Development
Representative
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Charles W. Alexander
USDA, Agricultural Research
Service
800 North Providence Road
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Min Amemiya
Department of Agronomy
Iowa State University
117 Agronomy
Ames, Iowa 50010
C. R. Amerman
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
207 Business Loop 70 East
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Thomas J. Army
The Great Western Sugar Company
P.O. Box 5308
T.A. - 1530 - 16th Street
Denver, Colorado 80217
L. Dean Bark
Kansas Agricultural Experiment
Station
Department of Physics
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Frank A. Bartonek
Farmland Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 7305
Kansas City, Missouri 64116
B. W. Beadle
Farmland Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 7305
Kansas City, Missouri 64116
Ronald K. Beasley
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63166
Francis Bennett
Midwest Research Institute
Physical Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Albert M. Best
Sperry New Holland
Franklin and Roberts Streets
New Holland, Pennsylvania 17557
Robert Best
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 418
Warrensburg, Missouri 64093
Freeman E. Biery
Kansas State Department of
Agriculture
State Office Building
Topeka, Kansas 66612
144
-------
Charles A. Black
Council for Agricultural Science
and Technology
Iowa State University
Ames, Iowa 50010
Carl V. Blomgren
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
John Blythe
Kansas Farm Bureau
2321 Anderson Avenue
Manhattan, Kansas 66502
Harley Bogue
Soil Conservation Service
218 West Mill
Liberty, Missouri 64068
James A. Bosch
Land 0* Lakes, Inc.
614 McKinely Place
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413
Charles Bredahl
Kansas State Conservation
Commission
Room 406, Mills Building
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Ronald W. Brenton
The Great Western Sugar
Company
P.O. Box 5308
Denver, Colorado 80217
Philip W. Casperson
Occidental Chemical Company
4671 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77001
Cecil C. Chappelow, Jr.
Midwest Research Institute
Physical Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Shen-Yann Chiu
Midwest Research Institute
Physical Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
John R. Churchill
Environmental Protection Agency
Mail Drop: SH 449
Washington, D.C. 20460
Carl Clopeck
Environmental Protection Agency
10050 Regency Circle
Omaha, Nebraska 68114
Roger Coleman
Soil Conservation Service
1709 North 98th
Kansas City, Kansas 66061
Ray Cope
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
Room 134, South 12th Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Emalene Correll
Legislative Research Department
Room 545 N, State Capital
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Edwin A. Crosby
National Canners Association
1133 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Richard D. Curley
Farmland Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 7305
Kansas City, Missouri 64116
145
-------
Joe Deer-man
Natural Oxygen Products, Inc.
P.O. Box 1813
El Paso, Texas 79949
George E. Dissmeyer
U.S. Forest Service
1720 Peachtree Road, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Tony Oonigian, Jr.
Hydrocomp, Inc.
1502 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Donald C. Draper
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Richard L. Duesterhaus
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
14th and Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250
David W. Duttweiler
Southwest Environmental
Research Laboratory
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
Lee Duvall
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
William M. Eberle
Kansas State University Extension
Service
115 Umberger Hall, Kansas State
University
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
J. H. Ebbinghaus
Farm and Industrial Equipment
Institute
410 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60611
A. J. Eiguren
Boise Cascade Corporation
One Jefferson Square
Boise, Idaho 83701
Lloyd F. Elliott
USDA/ARS
141 Keim Mall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503
Lee Ellis
Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box J
Harrisonville, Missouri
Gene Erickson
Midwest Research Institute
North Star Division
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
Ben F. Ervin
Butler Manufacturing Company
BMA Tower, Penn Valley Park
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
E. T. Fabinanski
International Harvestore Company
7 South 600 Country Lane Road
Hinsdale, Illinois 60125
Frank C. Fowler
Research Engineers, Inc.
7515 Troost Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64131
Jim Frank
Illinois, Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinlis 62706
146
-------
Charles D. Fulhage
University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Agriculture
200 Agricultural Engineering
Columbia, Missouri 65201
William C. Galegar
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
George Garner
University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Agriculture
111 Schweitzer Hall
Columbia, Missouri 65201
David Garrett
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Toxic Substances
Washington, D.C.
Ted Geppert
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
John W. Gibson
Entomology and Plant Industry Division
Oklahoma State Department of Agriculture
122 State Capital Building
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
William L. Greenwood
Kansas Department of Agriculture
State Office Building
1025 South 10th Floor
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Robert K. Griffin
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
Box 600
Salina, Kansas 67401
Ralph D. Grotelueschem
Deere and Company
John Deere Road
Mo line, Illinois 61265
Barbara Gudmundson
Midwest Research Institute
North Star Division
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
Robert Hamel
Boise Cascade Corporation
One Jefferson Square
Boise, Idaho
F. D. Hamilton
National Association of Wheat
Growers
Box 154
Olney, Texas 76374
Dick Hanson
Successful Farming
Magazine Division, Meredith
Corporation
1716 Locust
Des Moines, Iowa 50336
B. L. Harris
Texas Agricultural Extension
Service
Soil and Crop Sciences Department
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas 77843
Ray Hartung
State of Nebraska
Environmental Control
State House Station, Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Phil Hatch
The Great Western Sugar Company
P.O. Box 5308
Denver, Colorado 80217
147
-------
Lawrence L. Heffner
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Environmental Programs
South Building, Room 5503
Washington, D.C. 20250
Ronald H. Henricks
Kaysinger Basin Regional Planning
Commission
Ninth and East Ohio
Clinton, Missouri 64735
L. H. Hileman
University of Arkansas
Soil and Water Testing Laboratory
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Art Hock
Landmark, Inc.
245 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Kenneth Holland
P.O. Box 380
Soil Conservation Service
Richmond, Missouri 64085
Sue Hoppel
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission
P.O. Box 94725, State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
John Houlihand
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Terry E. Huntrods
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
1935 West County Road B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
Paul Jacobson
Route 1
Dow City, Iowa
Charles J. Johannsen
University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Agriculture
214 Waters Hall
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Ronald W. Johnson
Kamar Buildings
P.O. Box 495
Pittsfield, Illinois 62363
Rex E. Jones
Indiana State Board of Health
Water Pollution Control
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260
Warren Kester
Farm Journal
P.O. Box 12029
Kansas City, Missouri 64152
Glen E. Kirk
2901 Knoll Drive
Topeka, Kansas 66617
Norman Klocke
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
George J. Kriz
North Carolina Agricultural
Experiment Station
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Norman Kruse
Soil Conservation Service
Leavenworth, Kansas
Leon Lallier
MAACD
1709 North 98th
Kansas City, Kansas 66061
51528
148
-------
Don Lamb
Chemagro
Box 4913
Kansas City, MLssorui
Roy F. Larson
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 459
Terrace Level Parkade Plaza
Columbia, Missouri 65201
James A. Lindley
Environmental Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dan Lindquist
Department of Soil Conservation
Grimes State Office Building
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Oren Long
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Orville W. Love
Soil Conservation Service
3410 Van Buren
Topeka, Kansas 66611
Bruce Macy
Midwest Research Institute
Economic & Management Sciences
Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Harry L. Manges
Kansas State University
Agricultural Engineering
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Glen Marotz
Research Administrator
University of Kansas
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
J. Vernon Martin
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
Parkade Plaza Shopping Center
(Terrace Level)
P.O.Box 459
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Robert L. McCarty
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
301 West Lexington, Room 217
Independence, Missouri 64050
Dale McClaskey
Soil Conservation Service
Topeka, Kansas 66611
William H. McCredie
National Forest Products Association
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
John McKelvey
Midwest Research Institute
Corporate Management
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Coy G. McNabb
University of Missouri - Columbia
College of Agriculture
220 Mumford Hall
Columbia, Missouri 65201
James W. Merchant
University of Kansas
Space Technology Center
2291 Irving Hill Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
Rowena Michaels
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
149
-------
Ronald A. Michieli
American National Cattlemen's
Association
1015 National Press Club Building
Washington, D.C. 20045
Guy Miles
Midwest Research Institute
North Star Division
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
Charles Miller
Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware
Des Moines, Iowa 50316
Henry Moran
Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare
Environmental Services Division
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Van Morris
Midwest Research Institute
Corporate Management
Kansas City, Missouri
Loren Moseley
Midwest Research Institute
Biological Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
C. Roland Mote
University of Arkansas
Agricultural Engineering Department
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Al Murrey
Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare
Environmental Services Division
Statehouse
Boise, Idaho 83720
Keith Myers
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
134 South 12th Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Thomas E. Neal
Mid-America Regional Council
20 West 9th Street - Third Floor
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
John Nebgen
Midwest Research Institute
Physical Sciences Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
David Nichols
Texas Water Quality Board
P.O. Box 13246
Capital Station
Austin, Texas 78711
David Nicholson
Weyerhaeuser Company
Tacoma, Washington 98401
Lee Norbury
Soil and Water Conservation District
Commission
1014 Madison, P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Ed Novak
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Russell T. Odell
Member of Illinois Pollution
Control Board
309 West Washington Street, Suite 300
Chicago, Illinois 60606
150
-------
E. A. Olson
Department of Agricultural
Engineering
Agricultural Engineering Building
East Campus
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503
Steve Oltmans
Lower Elkhorn NRD
P.O. Box 838
Norfolk, Nebraska 68701
Owen D. Owens
A. 0. Smith Harvestore Products,
Inc.
550 West Algonquin Road
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60005
Dale Parke
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Calvin Phillips
Soil Conservation Service
218 West Mill
Liberty, Missouri 64068
Steven L. Pilcher
Montana Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences
Cogswell Building
Helena, Montana 59601
Paul Pippert
KCMO - TV 5
125 E. 31st Street
Kansas City, Missouri 64128
Jack Provin
U.S. Department of Agriculture
10th and Walnut Streets
Columbia, Missouri 65201
Glen Raines
A. 0. Smith Harvestore Products, Inc.
550 W. Algonquin Road
Arlington Heights, Illinois 60006
Gary Reed
P.O. Box 147
Soil Conservation Service
Platte City, Missouri 64079
John Reh
River Basin and Watershed Planning
Soil Conservation Service/USDA
P.O. Box 600
Salina, Kansas 67401
Wilber E. Ringler
Cooperative Extension Service
Kansas State University
Umberger Hall
Manhattan, Kansas 66506
Lugene C. Ritter
Soil Conservation Service
126 South Cherry
Box 427
0lathe, Kansas 66061
Ronald R. Ritter
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City,Missouri 64108
Thomas G. Rockenbaugh
Soil Conservation Service
Box 600
Salina, Kansas 67401
Chuck Romine
Midwest Research Institute
Economics & Management Sciences
Division
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
151
-------
William D. Rutz
MAPCO, Inc.
3637 South 73rd East Avenue
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145
William J. Sallee
Environmental Quality and Land
Use Division
14th and Independence
Washington, D.C. 20250
John L. Sanders
Missouri Department of Agriculture
P.O. Box 630
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Max Schnepf
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
7515 N.E. Ankeny Road
Ankeny, Iowa 50012
Delores Schuler
Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality
P.O. Box 3326
3920 Delaware
Des Moines, Iowa 50316
G. E. Schuman
USDA/ARS
142 Keim Hall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska 68503
Lee Schuster
Schuster Farms
Gower, Missouri
64454
Robert N. Shulstad .
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Larry Sheridan
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
Dean W. Simeral
Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
245 North High Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
Joseph B. Skaptason
Bio-Search and Development Company,
Inc.
12700 Prospect Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64146
George L. Smith
Kansas Farmer
719 Mills Boulevard
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Ivan C. Smith
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Jack Sukovaty
State of Nebraska - Environmental
Control
State House Station, Box 94653
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Donald Townley
Environmental Protection Agency -
Region VII
1735 Baltimore
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
R. H. Trostle
Southwest Kansas Irrigation
Association
Johnson, Kansas 67855
Ted L. Talmon
University of Kansas
Space Technology Center
2291 Irving Hill Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66045
A. E. Vandegrift
Midwest Research Institute
North Star Division
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
152
-------
|