Unite
Agency

-------
Agriculture  and  the Environment
Like other spheres of life in America, farming brings with it environmental problems that the nation is attempting to deal
with. In this photograph, cattle graze near a farm's stock watering tank. The tank is supplied with well water by a windmill.
Animal waste in proximity to the well casing could contaminate ground-water supplies.
   History is being made in
   Hit; way the nation looks
at agriculture and  its
relationship to  environmental
quality. New programs, new
perspectives, and in sonic
cases, new ways of fanning
an: being established. This
issue of J','P/\ Journal explores
this significantly changing
picture, attempting at the
same time to provide  a view
of the problems concerned
iron) a [rush vantage point.
  Lee VI. Thomas  introduces
ihe issue with an article
looking at some of the trends.
implications, and prospects
from hi.s point of view as
KI'A's Administrator.  In 
-------
                               United States
                               Environmental Protection
                               Agency
                               Office of
                               Public Affairs (A-107)
                               Washington DC 20460
                               Volume 14
                               Number 3
                               April  1988
                           &EPA JOURNAL
                               Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
                               Jennifer Joy Wilson, Assistant Administrator for External Affairs
                               Linda Wilson Reed, Director, Office of Public Affairs

                               John Heritage, Editor
                               Ruth Barker, Assistant Editor
                               Karen Flagstad, Assistant Editor
                               Jack Lewis, Assistant Editor
                               James Ballentine, Circulation Manager
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the nation's land, air, and
water systems. Under a mandate of
national environmental laws, the
agency strives to formulate and
implement actions which lead to a
compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of
natural systems to support and
nurture life.
  The EPA Journal is published by
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. The Administrator of EPA
has determined that the
publication of this periodical is
necessary in the transaction of the
public business required by law of
this agency. Use of funds for
printing this periodical has been
approved  by the Director of the
Office of Management  and Budget.
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy.
Contributions and inquiries should
be addressed to the Editor (A-107).
Waterside Mall, 401 M St., S.W.,
Washington. DC 20460. No
permission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials.
 The EPA Administrator's
 View
 by Lee M. Thomas

 The Outlook of
 the Deputy Secretary of
 Agriculture:
 An Interview with
 Peter C. Myers

 The Perspective of
 the Chairman of the Senate
 Agriculture Committee
 by Patrick Leahy

 The Viewpoint of
 the President of The
 Conservation Foundation
 by William K. Reilly

 Farmers Speak
Modern Farming:
Myths and Realities
by Steve Lovejoy and Will
Erwin

Agriculture and
Ground-Water Pollution in
Iowa
by Michael Duffy  and S.R.
Johnson

A Local Situation:
Thinking "Long Distance"
by Paul A. Schuette  —
Some Steps
in Other Countries
by Michael D. Young

The Controversy Over
Pesticides and
Endangered Species:
Two Points of View  2<>
"Alternative Farming":
A Report
by Roy Popkin  28

Analyzing the
Challenge Ahead of Us
by Rob W7olcott  31

Oil Spill
on the Monongahela: As the
Story Unfolded
by Ray Germann  -*•">

Environmental Almanac:
A Tale of a  Big Red Oak
by Dennis W. Brezina

Appointments   •*!>
                               Fronl cover: Modern agriculture at
                               work—(he corn harvest in Joivo.
                               Photo by Dale Thompson, Folio,
                               Inc.
                               Design Credits:
                               Donnu VVasvlkiivskvj;
                               Ron Farrah;
                               James H. Jngram.
The annual rate for subscribers in
the U.S. for the EPA Journal is
$11.00. The charge to subscribers
in foreign countries is $13.75 a
year. The  price of a single copy of
the EPA Journal is $1.75 in this
country and $2.19 if sent to a
foreign country. Prices include
mail costs. Subscriptions to the
EPA Journal as well as to other
federal government magazines are
handled only by the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Anyone wishing to subscribe to the
EPA Journal should fill  in the form
at right and enclose a check or
money order payable to the
Superintendent of Documents. The
requests should be mailed to:
Superintendent of Documents,
GPO. Washington. DC 20402.
                               EPA Journal Subscriptions
Na
ne
Firs
t, L
sst









PI
! A:
;E P
RIN"









Co
npa
ny |v
arm
5 or
Add
tion
3l Ac
Jdre
3S L
ne

















Str
set
\ddr
ess














Cit
/





















Sta
te








Zip
Coc
ie

I	I   Payment enclosed (Make checks payable to Superintendent of Documents)

LJ   Charge to my Deposit Account No	

-------
The  EPA
Administrator's
View
by Lee  M. Thomas
experience as a member of the South
Carolina 4-H, farmers then prided
themselves on their long tradition of
good stewardship of the natural
resources under their care.
  The world has changed a great deal
since then, and the lives of farmers and
the quality of the environment have
changed with it. For example, the U.S.
population and economy both have
grown rapidly since the 1950s, leading
to much larger total loadings of
environmental pollutants, and placing a
much greater strain on the
    As 11 child j>rnwiit}> up in rural South
    Carolina, I saw first-hand the close
 bonds between fanners and the
 environment. No one was more
 concerned about erosion than farmers;
 no one was more concerned about the
 quantity and quality of local water
 supplies. As I learned from my
environment's ability to assimilate
them. In today's more crowded and
complex world, our lives are
intertwined more tightly with our
neighbors. Thus the activities of farmers
today are more likely to affect, and be
noticed by. people living in neighboring
towns and cities than they were 30
years ago.
  Farmers and farming have changed,
too. For one thing, farmers have
improved their productivity
enormously. Although there are far
fewer farmers today than at the turn of
the century, they are harvesting much
larger crops. The agricultural bounty
that we sometimes take  for granted has
been nurtured by a sharp increase in the
use of agricultural chemicals—
jnsecticides, herbicides, and
 ertilizers. To produce still larger
harvests, chemical-intensive  farming has
been introduced onto heretofore
marginally valuable land. The end result
of this farming evolution is that more
chemicals are being used on more land

-------
to produce more food than ever before
in our nation's history.
  The astounding productivity of the
American farm has contributed to a U.S.
standard of living that is among the
highest  in the world. The American
people spend a smaller share of their
income  on food than almost anyone
else. The quantity, quality, and variety
of food  available to the U.S. consumer is
unmatched.
  Yet, as we have seen in other parts of
the  American economy, sometimes the
economic practices that contribute so
much to our national quality of life have
unforeseen and unintended
environmental side effects. The same.
American farming methods that have
supplied a cornucopia of foodstuffs to
people all over the world are also
contributing to some serious
environmental problems that have the
potential to impose substantial  health
and economic costs on all of us,
including farmers, in the future.
  Agricultural chemicals are leaching
into ground-water aquifers, even in
remote locations. Topsoil, fertilizers,
animal wastes, insecticides, and
herbicides are being washed off farm
and ranch land and into rivers and
streams. Surface-water pollutants
originating on farms are ending up in
our nation's estuaries, thus contributing
to the ongoing degradation of those
ecologically rich areas.
  The cultivation  of marginal farmland
is reducing wildlife habitats, and the
underground storage tanks prevalent on
many farms have the potential to foul
ground-water aquifers, including those
that supply  drinking water directly  to
farm families. The health of farm
workers is being threatened by exposure
to agricultural chemicals, and chemical
residues are showing up in our national
food supply. In short, the evolution of
American farming—in the context of an
expanded population and
economy—has led  some people to
suggest that the American farmer is  no
longer able to maintain adequate
stewardship of the environment.
  There is no doubt that modern
agricultural practices have contributed
to environmental concerns about
ground-water quality, surface-water
quality, and endangered species.
Recognizing the linkage between
agricultural production and
environmental protection. Congress has
passed several pieces of legislation  that
attempt to balance the public's  interest
in both areas, and  the Environmental
Protection Agency has been given a
large  measure of responsibility  for
implementing that legislation.
  In the years ahead. KPA will  he
working closely with state and  local
governments in a number of ways that
will affect the farm community in this
country. We will be cooperating on
research efforts to  define the
environmental effects of different
agricultural chemicals. We are
committed to removing from
commercial use  those pesticides that
pose an unreasonable risk to human
health. We will continue our
cooperative efforts to identify the
sources and extent of ground-water
pollution. We are going to work together

Corn  is being planted and herbicide,
fertilizer, and insecticide are being
applied, all at the same time—a
common agricultural practice. Chemicals
are an integral part of most American
farming operations. Wolfgang  Hoffmann
photo, University of
Wisconsin—Madison, Agricultural
Journalism  Department.
to protect endangered species and their
habitats.
  But strong government regulatory
programs, by themselves, will not solve
the  environmental problems that are
linked to agricultural practices. Because
those problems are so diverse, and
because agricultural  practices vary so
widely from farm to  farm, we're going to
need the creative,  voluntary
participation of farmers all across the
country if we hope to achieve our
national environmental goals.
  I  believe that farmers can be enlisted
as allies in the fight  against agricultural
pollution for a number of reasons.  For
example, farmers have a substantial
self-interest in protecting the quality of
ground-water aquifers, because their
homes often are supplied  with  water
directly from farm wells. Thus  any
impurities in ground water are  likely to
show up in farm homos first.
  Farmers will make productive
partners in national  pollution control
efforts for another reason as well:
because they are closer to the problems,
they are more likely to know how  to
solve them effectively. If farmers can be
convinced that agricultural run-off needs
to be controlled, they will  not need
government regulations to  show them
how to do it.
  At the federal level, we need to give
farmers enough  information and
incentives so that  they volunteer to put
their initiative and skills to work for the
environment. The Food Security Act of
1985 provides incentives for farmers to
keep marginal lands and wetlands out
of crop production; those incentives are
helping to preserve valuable ecosystems
while restraining crop production. We
need to do more of that. I believe that
farmers will be willing to re-examine
their use of agricultural chemicals, and
revise other agricultural practices as
well, if they understand the
consequences of. and the alternatives to.
their present methods of doing business.
  Daniel Webster  once said th.it tanners
"are the founders  of human
civili/ation." From the perspectives of
human health and environmental
quality, they may well be the preservers
of civili/.ation, too. The sense of
stewardship that I saw in the South
Carolina fanners of  my childhood  has to
be  reapplied to  the environmental
problems facing us today.  Because of
their heritage and training, no one is
more capable of good stewardship of
natural resources, both today and in the
future, than America's farmers. -

(Thomas is Administrator ol IWA.I

-------
Planting alternate strips of corn and smal
Conservation Service photo.
grain helps reduce erosion on this farm in Carroll County, Maryland. USDA Soil
The  Outlook  of
the  Deputy
Secretary  of
Agriculture
An Interview with
Peter C. Myers
       to present (he viewpoints of
sonic key people involved in issues
reg
-------
that it tied in with water quality—both
surface water and underground aquifers.
  The whole package of conservation
and environmental  issues just wraps
together. We are becoming increasingly
concerned about what we tire doing to
our environment. We want to continue
our production of food for the next  few
centuries- and beyond—and we want to
do  so in a  manner that conserves our
soil resources, affords a reasonably
clean environment, and sustains
profitability for America's
agriculture.

U   Was there a time in this country
when farming was more
environmentally sensitive than in
recent decades?

r\   I don't think so. If you look at the
history of farming in the United States.
starting with the pilgrims on the east
coast . . . they just farmed  until the land
was gone. The same thing was done in
the  southeast, with cotton. When  the.
topsoil was gone, people just moved
West.
  Since we've reached the Pacific
Ocean, there's no more  moving away
from the problems:  we have to farm
with what we've got. The  point is we
have a history of not recogni/.ing and
facing up to problems we've created.
This began to change 130 years ago
when the soil conservation movement
was born.  |FIugh Hammond| liemiett
and others saw what was  happening,
and President Teddy Roosevelt also
realized what was going on. I think
that's when an awareness of soil
conservation was first born. Of course,
this was also the dusthowl era.

Q  What has USDA done to enforce
the Swampbuster policy established by
the 1985 farm bill?

r\   Starting last year, any farmer who
comes in to sign up for a farm program
must sign a statement certifying that he
has not converted a wetland for
cropland use. And,  of course, USDA
personnel go out and spot-check
compliance. Right now. vv.; have 300
cases under investigation for possible
violations of Swampbuster.
  I  have seen some  articles that say
USDA is not enforcing the Swampbuster
policy. In fact, we are enforcing it. I
know we have the farmers' attention on
this because many of them are reacting
with righteous indignation. And  1 would
submit that we have basically stopped
the  wholesale conversion of wetlands.
  I  think Swampbuster, on balance, is
going to prove to be a good piece of
legislation. 1 think we should leave it
    e and let it function.
Q
     What about Conservation Reserve:
how successful has this program been
so far in terms of farmer sign-ups? Has
the turnout been disappointing?

/\  No, if you look at volume of
acreage, we're ahead of schedule. I'ncler
Conservation Reserve, the goal is to
retire 45 million acres of highly erodible
cropland out of production for 10 years.
At this point, we're approaching 27 or
28 million acres, depending on what wt:
can accept from this last sign-up.
  We're now getting some of the erosive
land in southern Illinois, southern
Indiana, and parts of Ohio. However,  we
may need to raise our bid levels in  the
Corn Belt.  On the whole, we have
probably paid a little too much for some
lands, and probably not enough for
others.
  We are also going to have to go alter
land that could impact water, for
instance. For example, we need to look
at some of the hydroiogic units in the
Chesapeake Bay area.
  The program has been. 1 think, an
unqualified success, but we still have
some line tuning to do.

V_J  So you can consider water quality
and  underground aquifers when you
accept land into Conservation Reserve?

r\  Not necessarily, unless the land  is
highly erodible. The law does afford a
lot of leeway, but our regulations do not
at this time allow us to make aquifer
damage a consideration for taking land
into  the program. On the other hand, we
are finding—in Nebraska, in the
Sandhills, for instance   that there will
be a  positive effect on water quality as a
direct consequence  of Conservation
Reserve.
  We have just begun taking filter
strips—strips of land along bodies of
water—into the Conservation Reserve,
regardless of erodibility. Since filter
strips serve as "filters"  for sediment and
chemical loadings, this new  policy is
intended to have a positive impact on
surface water quality.

U  Do you favor an expanded
Conservation Reserve? If so, how
should it be expanded?

r\   I do favor an expanded program.
probably with the next  farm  bill  in
1990—but with the stipulation that
Conservation Reserve would be the only
set-aside program that we would have.
  There have been several proposals to
expand the Conservation Reserve to 65
million acres. There is reason  to be
nervous about getting that much land
out of production in addition  to the
normal set-aside acreage. With too much
land out of production, we could be
giving away our production capacity to
other countries, and giving away our
export markets.
  I would  support a farm bill  that
designated 65 million acres  to
Conservation Reserve as the only
set-aside program in this country.
Sixty-five million acres would be just
about the right balance of land out of
production in the United States—and it
would be erodible land, and land that
affects water quality. Thai makes sense
to me.


U   For highly erodible cropland  that
remains in production, how  strictly will
USDA be enforcing the Conservation
Compliance program set up  by the farm
bill? What  happens when the limitary
1990 deadline arrives?

r\  We intend for all soil conservation
plans to be written by the end of 1989.
Any farmer who is farming highly
erodible land will have to have an
approved plan and begin implementing
it by January 1. 1990.
  We will  allow farmers five years to
put their soil conservation plans tully in
place—but this doesn't mean waiting
until the fifth year,  for instance,  to start
practicing  conservation tillage. The law
says fanners must be actively  pulling
these plans to work.
  We're giving farmers flexibility on
their conservation plans. We're not  out
to put  farmers out of business. On the
contrary, it's our job to keep them in
business but help them learn to be good
stewards of their land. We intend to
enforce Conservation Compliance, but
we intend  to  do it with reason and
balance.
  Farmers  with erodible hind must sign
a certification statement concerning
their implementation of a conservation
plan. USDA will spot-check  about  10
percent ol  these farms per year—so  that
in five years,  we'll have checked at  least
50 percent of the farms involved.
Generally,  in  99 percent of cases, we
find that farmers are doing exactly  what
they've certified they would  do.
                                        Q
     On the use of farm chemicals
it seems that over the past couple of
decades, U.S. farmers have greatly
APRIL 1988

-------
intensified their use of agrichemicals,
always striving to obtain maximum
possible crop yields per acre—even if
the end result may be crop surplus at
the expense of the environment. Is there
a way out of this pattern?

f\  I would challenge that statement,
that we have intensified the use of
agrichemicals. We have continued the
use of chemicals. I've been farming for
three decades, and we. used more
punitive; insecticides 30 years ago than
we use now. On the other hand, we are
using more herbicides than we did back
then. We've always used commercial
fertilizers.
  Something we need to remember is
that most commercial fertilizers art;
natural. Potash phosphate comes out of
the ground.  It's a natural element.
Nitrogen comes out of the air. People
tend to get uptight talking about
chemical fertilizers when in fact  these
are natural fertilixers.
  Nitrogen is our biggest problem. And
we do  gut phosphorus overloading in
some bodies of water, but this comes
from a lot of different sources.  I think
fanners arc; beginning to learn how to
manage their fertilizer application. As a
result, I think we are going to he .seeing
a lot fewer problems related to run-off.
  On the pesticides, particularly the
herbicides, 1 really believe a lot of
changes are coming in the next feu1
years. I sec farmers moving away from
herbicides that  contaminate ground
water.  After all. who are the biggest
losers? Farmers. They're the biggest
users of well water.
  I think we're going to see a new breed
of herbicides that will not damage the
environment. Maybe they'll be organic
and biodegradable,  Maybe they'll be
bacterial  pesticides-  fungal herbicides.
for example, which already exist in
research stages.


U  So do  you predict a decrease in
agrichemical usage in the next decade
or so?

f\  I see a  change in the  use profile, a
movement toward more organic
practices.  Most ol the major chemical
companies arc already doing research
(in biological pest controls in all  kinds
of shapes and forms.
  Of course. agriehemicaJs is an
all-encompassing word. We can't just
point to agrichemicals as the bugaboo;
we have to look at specifics how and
in what form we are using farm
chemicals, on what crops, on what soil
types. We cannot produce food tor this
country without using basic fertilizers
because not enough livestock exist in
the country to put back the basic
nitrogen, phosphate, and potash that we
take from the soil when we harvest
crops. So we have to use fertilizer, but
with intelligence.
  In the use of agrichemicals as in other
things, farmers are going to have to be
better managers. Being a  better manager
will mean different things to different
farmers, depending on crop, soil, and
regional considerations.
Q
     What is USDA doing to promote
the kinds of changes you've
mentioned—to promote low-input
agriculture, if that is the right term?

f\  Call it low-input, sustainable, or
alternative agriculture, as you like: these
terms are becoming more popular.
USDA has been doing research in this
area for years; we just haven't labelled it
as such. We now have contracts in four
or five states for research specifically on
what people are now calling alternative
agriculture. I expect that most farmers
will adopt a combination of alternative
and traditional agricultural practices.
  USDA has a big role to play in
conducting the  necessary research on
alternative farming methods. It's also up
to us to make this knowledge available
through outreach programs, not only to
farmers, but also the people who
manage lawns and gardens. The states
also have an  important role to play,
through cooperative extension services,
in imparting up-to-date  information. So
does the Soil Conservation Service in
providing on-the-land technical
assistance. So does EPA, through
publications, for example.

     Some people have described
agriculture and the environment as a
battleground right  now. Would you
agree?

/\  If you look at things that way,  you
could say there are battlegrounds all
over—in the cities  as more "people
pressure" results in more sewage
dumped into the Mississippi  River or
Lake Michigan, or whatever.
  I don't like to consider agriculture
and the environment a battleground. I
think that's a hype. There's a need to
work with the environment more
carefully as we  use our renewable soil
and water resources more intensely.
again to accommodate more people
pressure. The soil is a living entity.
constantly changing. If you don't believe
that, just work with it for awhile. Also.
we need to keep in focus that over many
years America's soil, water, ami plant
resources have contributed to our gross
national product in a major way. Our
timber resources, for example, have
supplied jobs and  millions of homes for
Americans. Yet our timber resources
today are  generally of high quantity and
quality  and are better managed than  100
years ago. Certainly we need to work
with each other.  And I think we at
USDA have good working relationships
with EPA and are making a lot of
progress together.


(.J  This is a deliberately broad
question: Are farmers over-regulated?

f\  The  farmer generally thinks he's •
overregulated. Having been a farmer for
30 years, 1 don't like anybody telling me
what to do. But sitting in my present
position, I can see that we, as a society,
probably do need some regulations. . .
just as we need penalties for speeding.
  There is a punitive aspect to
Conservation Compliance. If you fail to
have  a conservation plan, you lose
access to farm benefits. On the other
hand, the Conservation Reserve program
works through incentives. In general,
we're trying to use incentives more than
punitive regulations.
  Like beauty, "over-regulated" is  in the
eye of the beholder. While the farmer is
likely to tell you he is overregulated, a
lot of people who  are sensitive to the
environment would say we're not tough
enough on farmers.


     Would you say that environmental
regulation has a disproportionately
bigger impact on small farmers than on
larger agribusinesses?

/\  Here again, the impacts felt by
farmers depend on their methods of
operation. For example,  if you're a  small
farmer,  and you use total mulch and
manure and you monitor your run-off,
you probably will not be hit hard by
regulatory requirements. On the other
hand, if you run a large  farming
operation  and you depend entirely  on
herbicides for weed control, you might
have some adjustment problems.
                                       V_i  Has environmental regulation
                                       actually impeded the production of
                                       food and fiber in this country? In any
                                       other country?
                                                                                                          EPA JOURNAL

-------
  Conservation Provisions of the 1985  Farm Bill
  Several provisions of the Food
  Security Act—the 1985 farm
  bill—make the goals of USDA farm
  and conservation programs mutually
  more consistent. These new provisions
  are designed to encourage the
  reduction of soil erosion and the
  preservation of wetlands, and reduce
  production of surplus commodities.


  Conservation Reserve: The
  Conservation Reserve offers farm
  producers help in retiring highly
  erodible cropland. The Agricultural
  Stabilization and Conservation Service
  (ASCS) will share up to half the cost of
  establishing permanent grasses,
  legumes, trees, windbreaks, or wildlife
  plantings on highly erodible cropland.
  Under 10-year contracts, ASCS will
  make annual rental payments to
  farmers as long as the terms and
  conditions of the contract are met.
  Conservation Compliance:
  Conservation Compliance applies
  where farmers continue planting
  annually tilled crops on  highly
  erodible fields. To remain eligible for
  certain USDA  program benefits,
  farmers must develop and be actively
  applying a locally approved
  conservation plan for those highly
  erodible fields by January 1, 1990.
  Farmers must have the plan fully
  implemented by January 1, 1995.
Sodbuster: Sodbuster applies where
farmers plant annually tilled crops on
a highly erodible field that was not
used for crop production during the
period 1981-85. If farmers plow out
such a highly erodible field, they must
do so under a conservation  system
approved by the local conservation
district in order to remain eligible for
USDA program benefits.
Swampbuster:  Swarnpbuster applies if
farmers convert naturally occurring
wetlands to cropland after December
23, 1985  (the date the farm  bill was
signed). With some exceptions, to
remain eligible for certain USDA farm
programs, farmers must discontinue
production of annually tilled crops on
newly converted wetlands.

USDA Programs Affected

• Price and income supports

• Crop insurance
• Farmers Home  Administration
loans
• Commodity Credit Corporation
storage payments

• Farm storage facility loans
• Conservation Reserve Program
annual payments

• Other programs under which
USDA makes commodity-related
payments.
                                       knowledgeable. Farmers will resolve
                                       these kinds of problems on a voluntary
                                       basis if properly advised based on the
                                       facts.
A  1 can't speak for other countries,
and I don't see it slowing us down right
now in this country. But it could
happen—if we lose some key
herbicides, for instance, or if we get
overly paranoid about fertilizer. Before
we totally eliminate some of the
practices now being used, we need to
have alternatives available.
  There are exceptions—for instance, if
a pesticide, like DDT,  is obviously
damaging to the environment, then its
use should stop. There's no doubt about
that. But there should be reasonable
proof—not just suspicion, but scientific
evidence for removing a product from
the market. And farmers should be
educated not to use it if they have some
of the product left.


     As a farmer, did you worry about
using agricultural chemicals—your own
exposure to them, their potential to
contaminate ground and surface water?
Are most farmers worried today?

A  My wife and 1 have been testing
the wells on our farm for years,  having
water samples analyzed for herbicides.
ett:. In our case, we've found no
contamination. But there are many
variables from farm to farm  in  the use
of farm  chemicals, management
techniques, soil types, weather,  etc:.
  Most  farmers today are worried about
farm chemicals. They are very aware of
the issues because there's been good
coverage by the press and by various
agencies on problems with certain
herbicides, for example, or too much
manure  getting into water supplies.
With many farmers, the first perception
is: this is somebody else's problem. But
now farmers are beginning to look at
their own operations, as 1 did. And
farmers  are becoming better and better
managers as they become more
  .  More and more states are
reporting ground-water contamination
as a result of normal agricultural uses
of pesticides and fertilizers. In your
view,  what should be the federal role in
ground-water protection?

A Number one. we should  play a
strong educational and technology role
at the federal level. We need to know
what we're talking about, so research is
the beginning. Also, coordination is
important since myriad agencies  are
involved. At USDA we have put
together a very strong group — with
representatives of eight or nine
agencies — to look at ground water,
ranging from researchers to the people
who will be responsible for imparting
knowledge to farm producers  in the
field.
  Regulation to protect ground water
should be implemented more at tin-
state level rather than the  federal level.
There's no way 1 can sit here  in a
Washington, DC, office and decide what
should be clone in a certain area  in
California: the state would have a much
better feel for that. However. I do think
it is up to federal policy-makers to
decide on an overall general strategy to
be implemented at the state level,
perhaps through a series of
incentives • • •  •

     As anyone who reads the
newspapers knows, many farmers have
serious economic difficulties  right  now.
Realistically, given this  kind  of
economic pressure, aren't
environmental concerns likely to bfi
low on farmers' list of priorities?

A  N<>- On the contrary, 1 think that
farmers are having to become better
managers from a business standpoint. At
the same time, 1 see them becoming
better managers from a conservation and
environmental standpoint. They  an:
going to be looking very closely at  
-------
The

Perspective  of

the Chairman

of the  Senate

Agriculture

Committee

 by Senator Patrick Leahy

   The 1985 Food Security Act
   began a new era in American
agricultural policy—an era of treating
our agricultural programs as assets
rather than liabilities in environmental
protection. The Conservation Title
requires farmers,  for the first time ever,
to meet an environmental  standard in
order to be eligible for farm program
benefits. It was an ambitious and
unprecedented departure from past
policy.
  In examining the success of the
Conservation Title to date, it is helpful
to distinguish between the two
approaches in the conservation
legislation. One program provides a
carrot,  namely the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP); the other wields the
stick, which includes the Sodbuster,
Swarnpbuster,  and Conservation
Compliance provisions.
  As one might expect, the carrot has
produced more immediate and tangible
results. The voluntary CRP program
created an economic incentive for
farmers to take highly erodible land out
of production.  In doing so, the CRP not
only ensured immediate progress
toward  reducing soil erosion, but also
provided farmers an opportunity to
delay meeting  potentially costly
Conservation Compliance requirements
on their highly erodible lands.
  As of January 1988, the CRP has taken
almost 23 million acres of highly
erodible cropland out of production
(with an additional 4.5 million acres
currently bid by farmers and under
consideration by  USDA). This is more
than halfway to the 1990
45-million-acre target for the program.
The soil savings from those 23 million
acres is an estimated 467 million tons
per year, or 16 percent of the total
annual soil erosion on the nation's
cultivated  cropland.
  1 am not totally satisfied with the way
the Department of Agriculture has
operated the program. If one looks at the
geographic breakdown of accepted bids
for the CRP, there has been a clear bias
towards the parts of the country from
which farmers submit the lowest bids,
even though those may not be the acres
which are  the biggest  problem. Clearly,
the Department needs to balance budget
needs with conservation needs. Sooner
or later we are going to have to accept
additional  land from the Corn Belt into
the program.
  While the CRP has been an effective
tool in reducing soil erosion, its broad
political support has come in large part
from its equally  impressive impact on
farm income and the budget. The CRP
has proven to be more cost-effective as
an acreage reduction program  than the
paid set-asides or diversions used for
commodity programs.  According to a
recent study done  by the American
Farmland Trust, the CRP, in reducing
crop production and causing a
corresponding increase in commodity
prices, is likely to  reduce government
outlays for commodity programs by
$11.2 billion from  1986 to 1990, while
costing $7.9 billion to implement. The
result: a net budget savings of $3.3
billion from 1986 to 1990. Again, the
Department has  been operating the
program more with an eye on  the
budget than on effectively reducing our
water quality problems.
  The CRP has affected farm income in
two ways.  First, it ensures farmers a
steady cash flow from their enrolled
land. Second, it has a cumulative
impact on  commodity prices. According
to the American Farmland Trust, by
reducing crop production by 45 million
acres, the CRP will increase net farm
income by an estimated $700 million
from 1986 to 1990.
  While the primary mandate of the
CRP is soil conservation, it also contains
provisions intended to encourage
reforestation and improve water quality.
Though it  has come close to its tree
enrollment goal, evidence suggests that
the CRP has not achieved significant
water quality improvements. In a recent
analysis of the impact of the CRP on
water quality, EPA found that the CRP
has reduced sediment loadings by 4.3
percent. The analysis  also suggested that
achievement of better results has been
hampered  by the lack of targeting
enrollment in counties identified as
those where cropland controls would
provide significant water quality
improvements.
  To address this concern, USDA
recently revised the CRP eligibility
criteria to allow the enrollment of filter
strips along wetlands and other bodies
of water. Since the first filter strip
enrollment began with the February
1988 sign-up and the results are not yet
known, it is too early to judge the
popularity or effect of this action.
  In looking at the progress and
potential of the other regulatory
provisions of the Conservation Title,
one has to understand the magnitude of
their impact on the agricultural
community. By 1990, in order to
comply with Sodbuster, Swarnpbuster,
or Conservation Compliance
requirements, 1.2 million  farms will
need to have a Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) determination made on
whether the farm has wetlands or highly
erodible land. In addition, 800,000
farmers will need to meet with SCS
personnel to develop a  conservation
plan for their highly erodible land. All
told, some 169 million acres (43 percent
of the nation's farmland) will be
affected.
  The impact of these provisions is not
yet clearly visible, in part because of the
sheer volume of work that needs to be
done before implementation can occur.
In making the necessary determinations
and developing the conservation plans,
USDA has faced an enormous workload,
a tremendous educational campaign,
and the need for expertise in wetlands
identification, an area with which it is
not altogether familiar.
  In the longer term, the impact of these
provisions will ultimately rest on the
ability of USDA field personnel and the
local conservation districts to adapt to a
very new role. Prior to the 1985 Food
Security Act, soil conservation programs
were voluntary. The mandatory nature
of Sodbuster, Swarnpbuster, and
Conservation Compliance has  changed
the role of SCS field personnel and local
conservation district members, many of
them farmers themselves.  In the past
they largely gave advice and provided
incentives. They now must measure the
compliance of a farmer's activities with
broader public goals in  mind.  It is a role
that may not yet have taken hold.
  As we approach the 1990 farm bill,
the agricultural community is  faced
with three major issues.
  First, will the precedent established
in the 1985 farm bill, that farm
programs must support, and not
                                                                                                    EPA JOURNAL

-------

North Dakota wetlands. Such areas are important to local wildlife a        Mtory birds and also help protect water quality by
filtering out pollutants. Swampbuster provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act an.- uusiyned to protect wetlands from
agricultural conversion. North Dakota Game and Fish Department photo.
undermine broad environmental goals,
continue to be a basic principle of the
1990 farm hill? I think the answer must
be "yes" because a sound resource
conservation policy is in the long-term
interests of both our nation  and our
farm community, and because farm
programs will not be able to retain
broad public support, in Congress or in
the nation as a whole, if they are
perceived as  anti-environmental.
  The second major issue Congress will
face is whether the conservation
provisions in the 1985 farm bill will be
translated from legal precepts into
farming practices. Since only two
producers thus far have actually lost
farm program benefits because of
violations of Sodbuster  or Swampbuster,
there has been  little impetus to
dismantle them. However, maintaining
the political will to insist on the 1990
compliance deadlines, particularly
during a farm bill debate, may be very
difficult. The outcome will depend in
large part on the Department's
commitment over the next year and a
half to the development of the
compliance plans and education of the
farm community.
  The third issue in the 1990 farm hill
is whether we will  move beyond tin:
programs and principles established in
the Conservation Title provisions of the
1985 farm bill. It is clear that
agriculture's contribution  to
environmental problems has continued
to grow.  Ground-water contamination is
perhaps  the most compelling problem.
Continued nonpoint source pollution,
excess soil salinity, and wetland
conversion for agriculture are a few of
the others.
  The design of the Conservation Title
had  essentially one purpose: soil
conservation. While keeping that goal
intact, the challenge of the next farm
bill will  be to  broaden that goal to
address other critical problems,
particularly ground-water  and
surface-water quality.
  One of the best opportunities for
doing so  may be in  expanding the goals
and the scope of the CK1'. Several
legislative suggestions lor doing so have
already been introduced, most of them
focusing on targeting CRP enrollment  on
environmentally sensitive rather than
highly erodible lands. Increased state
participation in CRP cost-sharing lias
also been suggested, particularly as a
tool for states to use in fulfillment ol
nonpoint source programs.
  The Conservation Title demonstrated
that addressing pervasive  environmental
problems through agricultural policy is
possible. Environmental protection
makes sense not only to the American
taxpayer, but to the American fanner as
well.  In developing our agricultural
policy in 1990, the challenge will be to
expand on  the integration of
environmental goals into our
agricultural programs in a way that
continues the environmental and
economic successes of the 1985 Food
Security Act. D

(Senator Leah}' (D, VI'} is  Cliuirnuiii ol
the U.S. Senate Committee on
Agriculture, iYuirifion, and Forestry.]
APRIL 1988

-------
The Viewpoint
of the  President
of The Conservation
Foundation
 by William K. Reilly
   This spring, for the first time in
   five or more years, one could sense
a cautious optimism in American
agriculture. Prices for such key crops as
wheat and soybeans have strengthened,
thanks to tightening global supplies.
Crop exports are on the rise. Land
values show signs of stability, even
increase, in areas that suffered
calamitous deflation in the first half of
the decade. Even my father, retired
owner of a grain farm in Piatt County,
Illinois, who has not had an optimistic
word to say about farm prospects in this
decade, recently allowed as how land
prices had finally bottomed out.
  Granted, the farm sector remains
heavily dependent on government
assistance, to a degree that would have
seemed unthinkable just a few years
ago. Yet subsidy costs did decline from
over $25 billion in 1986 to an estimated
$18-$22 billion for 1987. It seems that
the worst of the economic ordeal of the
1980s might at last  have passed; the
most recent of U.S.  agriculture's long,
hard winters might  be coming to an
end.
  It  is far too early  to tell if recovery is
indeed in the wind for American
farmers. At this point, we can say for
certain that the human costs of the
1980s farm depression have been
staggering. For the first time in more
than a century, the  nation's farm
population fell below 5 million in
1987—to 2  percent  of the population—a
decline of 240,000 from the year before.
The misery that many of those 5 million
experienced was documented by almost
daily news stories of suicides,
breakdowns, and the disintegration of
families.
  The farmers and  farm families who
remain have been reminded most
painfully that, with the exception of a
few years in the mid-1970s, American
agriculture has a persistent, sometimes
disastrous problem of excess capacity.
The problem varies in severity from
commodity to commodity, and from
year to year. But excess capacity—too
many resources producing too many
goods for existing markets—is a fact of
life for U.S. farm policy-makers. And it
must be a central consideration for
anyone interested in the integration of
agricultural and environmental policies
over the next decade.
  Mountainous, costly stocks of grain
and other commodities symbolize not
just economic problems in the farm
sector, but environmental problems as
well. According to Conservation
Foundation estimates, for example, at
average yields and chemical application
rates, it probably required 7 billion
pounds of fertilizer and more than 110
million pounds of pesticides to grow the
surplus portion of the country's 1986
ending stocks of wheat and corn. This
represents about 28 percent of the
fertilizer and 40 percent of the
pesticides used on corn and wheat that
year.
  Clearly the environment, the farm
sector, and the taxpaying public would
benefit from policies that
simultaneously address the economic
and environmental consequences of
excess capacity in U.S. agriculture.
  The first steps in that direction were
the soil and wetlands conservation
provisions contained in the 1985 Food
Security Act, the most recent omnibus
farm bill. These new policies were
designed to harness the Keynesian
fluctuations of farm subsidy programs to
enhance conservation, instead of
undermining it as in the past. Under the
1985 farm bill, farmers' eligibility for
farm programs is linked to certain soil
and wetlands conservation
requirements. Both the strengths and the
limitations of the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) and the Sodbuster,
Swampbuster, and Conservation
Compliance programs derive from the
very nature of this linkage.
  The most logical and promising next
steps for integrating agricultural and
environmental policies begin where
USDA's subsidy programs end. These
programs are intended to
counterbalance the ups and downs in
the farm economy. For this reason, the
program payments, farmer participation
rates, the amount of land idled under
the programs, and overall program costs
tend to increase in hard times, like
those experienced since 1982. Whenever
the farm sector enters a recovery phase,
supplies begin to  come into closer
balance with demand, and  prices begin
to strengthen; there is simply less need
for USDA commodity programs, and
their scale and  influence are reduced.
  As these programs become  less
important during an economic upswing,
the disincentives  to resource  abuse
embodied by Sodbuster, Conservation
Compliance,  and  Swampbuster are
likewise diminished. Also diminished
are the incentives for farm
policy-makers to idle land, either
through annual programs or through
such long-term programs as the CRP.
With a very robust recovery, and
certainly  with a "boom" like  the one
that temporarily eliminated excess
capacity in U.S. agriculture in the
mid-1970s, the conservation provisions
of the 1985 farm bill would no longer
have much impact at all.
  I know of no conservationist who
wants to  see  prolonged economic
hardship in agriculture; neither do 3
know of one who does not view
potential recovery with some
trepidation. For it is not impossible to
imagine that a surge in export demand,
crop prices, and farm income could
undo much of the progress in
conservation that has been achieved
under the Title XII provisions of the
1985 farm bill.
   One solution to this dilemma would
be to link conservation policy to the
large and relatively constant  financial
 10
                                                                                                   EPA JOURNAL

-------
This Nebraska feed lot illustrates the link
between agricultural production and
environmental issues such as water
quality. USDA Soil Conservation
Service.
mechanisms in U.S. agriculture: namely,
the flow of loans for farm acquisition
and operation. These loans are issued
by Farm Credit System (FCS)
institutions, banks, and insurance
companies.  These lenders currently
place no conservation restrictions on
their loans. The only lending agency
that does so is the federal Farmers
Home Administration (FmHA), which is
required by the 1985 farm bill to ensure
that its loans do not contribute to
sodbusting or swampbusting,
  Congress rejected a proposal to place
similar requiremezits on other lenders
last year. It enacted a major "bail out" of
the financially crippled FCS and
provided federal guarantees lor  a new
secondary market tor farm real estate
loans—potentially a very lucrative
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                    11

-------
                                        I know of no  conservationist
                                        who wants to see prolonged
                                        economic hardship in
                                        agriculture; neither do I know
                                        of one who does not view
                                        potential recovery with some
                                        trepidation.
mechanism for private farm lending
institutions, including banks and
insurance companies. Conservationists
suggested that some protection against a
repeat of the mid-1970s experience,
when farm lenders financed widespread
conversion of highly erodible lands and
wetlands, would be a reasonable quid
pro quo for the substantial assistance
Congress intended to provide PCS and
other institutions. Uppermost in the
minds of conservationists was the
question: Will farm lenders assisted by
Congress in 1987 make loans in 1997  to
help farmers bring land back into full
production which has been idled in the
CRP, with no conservation practices
whatsoever? In a bull grain market, that
could be a very real concern.
  Yet Congress did not oblige the
conservationists, despite the  persuasive
arguments of Senator Wyche Fowler
(D-GA), who chairs the Senate
Agriculture Committee's Conservation
subcommittee. Alternatively, the farm
financial community could develop
effective voluntary guidelines to achieve
the ends of Swampbuster and
Sodbuster. Failing that, however, it is
fair to assume that conservationists will
press for a reconsideration of
conservation and credit linkages during
the development of the next  farm bill in
1990.
  Another idea certain to receive
attention over the next year is the
adaptation of the CRP to deal with
nonpoint source water pollution, both of
surface water and ground water.
Senators Robert Dole (R-KS) and Sam
Nunn (D-GA) each have  introduced
legislation authorizing a higher
enrollment ceiling for the CRP, and
their proposals would also expand the
criteria for the CRP to include water
quality considerations as well as soil
erodibility.
  USDA already has utilized its
authority under the 1985 Food Security
Act to enroll in the CRP land that
contributes to nonpoint source
surface-water pollution. The Department
is now accepting CRP bids for planting
"filter strip" areas along water bodies,
even though the land may not have high
rates of erosion, since those areas
contribute disproportionately to
sediment and nutrient loading of lakes
and streams. Keeping them  in natural
cover should also reduce the amount of
sediment and contaminants that flows
through them from upland sources of
erosion.
  The Dole and Nunn proposals signal a
very encouraging interest on the part of
policy-makers to explore long-term
linkages between environmental and
agricultural policies. As this exploration
continues en route to the 1990 farm bill,
several broad questions must be
answered. First, how can we develop
good, defensible criteria for targeting
this modified CRP  to our most serious
ground-water and surface-water quality
problems? Even the soil erosion criteria
used for the existing CRP are far from
perfect; identifying lands contributing
most seriously to ground-water and
surface-water phenomena is much  more
difficult.  In any case, it is probably not
advisable to extend the CRP to deal
with water quality  problems without
also extending and adapting the
Sodbuster and Conservation Compliance
concepts to those same problems. For it
is the ensemble effect of these policies
that makes them so significant.
  But even if these technical problems
can be  solved, idling relatively small
areas of land in the CRP is unlikely to
solve our ground-water and
surface-water problems. Broader, more
extensive and subtle changes in the
management of agricultural  chemicals
will still be necessary in many areas. It
is important that we integrate the
implementation of  these programs with
the nonpoint source control programs
that states are developing in response to
the 1987 Water Quality Control Act, and
with the ground-water protection
programs that many states have begun
to adopt. In fact, one of the key
recommendations of the National
Ground-Water Policy Forum, sponsored
by The Conservation Foundation in
association with the National Governors'
Association, was that, to be effective,
ground-water protection programs need
to be integrated with other natural
resource management programs. The
agricultural programs I have been
discussing  here provide perhaps the
pre-eminent example of this type of
coordination.
  I have roughly outlined the principal
directions that further integration of
agricultural and environmental policies
will take over the next decade. By far
the most important influence on future
integration will be the success  of Title
XII in the field, and how well it is
integrated with other environmental
protection efforts. If Title XII is fairly
implemented and achieves its goals of
soil and wetlands conservation,
additional reforms will be more likely  to
pass the test in Congress.
  Environmentalists do need to bear in
mind that there are limits, both practical
and political, on the degree to which
agricultural programs can be altered to
serve environmental goals. It is equally
important that the agricultural
community recognize the role
environmental reforms can play in
dealing with the persisting problem of
excess capacity. Farmers, agribusiness,
the environment, and the
taxpayer—none have been well served
by the extreme changes U.S. agriculture
has undergone in the past decade, a

(Rei)ly is President of The Conservation
Foundation and World Wildlife Fund.)
12
                                                                EPA JOURNAL

-------
                                                                                     Farmers
                                                                                     Speak
 Most farmers have substantial capital tied up in their cropland and machinery and hope to
 make a good return on their investment. All of this equipment was used on one Iowa farm
 that produced corn and hogs in  the 1970s. USDA photo.
                                                                                     How do environmental
                                                                                     regulations affect fanners.
                                                                                     and hoiv do farmers fee/
                                                                                     about these rules? FPA
                                                                                     Journal asked some farmers
                                                                                     ivho gnnv different crops in
                                                                                     different parts of the country
                                                                                     to comment. Here are (heir
                                                                                     answers:

                                                                                     Mike Ellis
                                                                                     Eminence, Kentucky
                                                                                     Tobacco, corn, soybeans, and
                                                                                     wheat. 2.500 acres.
                                                                                     "Environmental adulation
                                                                                     has significant effects, hut I
                                                                                     can't say it has cost
                                                                                     tremendous amounts nt
                                                                                     money. For one thing, F.I'A is
                                                                                     requiring pesticide
                                                                                     applicators to have training
                                                                                     to apply restricted-use
                                                                                     pesticides. Ami under the
                                                                                     federal right-to-know law. we
                                                                                     will have to report on
                                                                                     chemicals \ve are  using as
                                                                                     well as reporting any spills.
                                                                                     That will take time ami
                                                                                     effort,
                                                                                      Three  years ago. we
                                                                                     weren't able to use sludge
                                                                                     offered Irom the city ol
                                                                                     Louisville as fertili/.er
                                                                                     because  the county /.oning
                                                                                     board said we couldn't  apply
                                                                                     it.  It won Id have been a big
                                                                                     economic boost to get it, and
                                                                                     I believe there are ways il
                                                                                     could have been  used safely.
                                                                                       Still, I'm not opposed to it
                                                                                     all. Environmental problems
                                                                                     affect me and my  neighbors
                                                                                     and everybody else."


                                                                                     Bemell Harlan
                                                                                     Woodland, California
                                                                                     Tomatoes. ),()()()  acres.
                                                                                     "We are under very strict
                                                                                     regulations from  EPA, and
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                             13

-------
     'ny other form of
agriculture, catfish farming is
affect               . iital
regulations. These men are
pulling in a catfish harvest in
             • ;na. Roy E. Lee
     i, USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
the State of California also
has its rules.  It's very
difficult to operate under all
of these stringent cumulations.
main1 of which seem
duplicative.
  The rules are becoming so
strict that companies don't
want to register chemicals in
California. We have only nne
pesticide left  to control
nematodes (which attack
plant roots), and the
canneries don't like the
tomatoes that are resistant to
nematodes.
  Another thing. Four years
ago, everybody was
encouraged to hnrv the diesel
fuel tanks on farms for safely.
Now we're being asked to
raise them above ground.
  We might complain a lot,
but you have to realize we're
under strict regulation.
Unfortunately, people; see us
as 'fanners,' not as people
with an operation that  has  to
make a profit."


Larry Lynch
Gilmore City, Iowa.
Com 
-------
                              Crated Golden Delicious apples are readied for shipment from
                              a Yakima Valley, Washington, orchard. Agriculture
                              increasingly resembles other kinds of business in such facets
                              as marketing, business management, and dealing with
                              environmental regulations. Doug  Wilson photo, USDA.
Lee Eaton
Lindsay, Montana
Wheat. 4,000 acres.
"The biggest thing affecting
our operation is the
restrictions on what you can
do with certain pesticides.
We've had some grasshopper
trouble the past few years
and can't use the chemicals
that were most effective
against them. Probably there
has been some overreaction
in regulation, although
maybe there was a reason to
put it on because of some
misuse.  If used in the right
way, there wasn't any
problem with these
pesticides."

Thed Spree
Boligee, Alabama
Catfish farming.
"The environmental
regulators have gotten after
the catfish processing plants
and could possibly shut them
down. Nobody knows exactly
how to handle the situation.
It's a severe challenge to  the
catfish industry in western
Alabama.  We're a specialty
agriculture. It's hard enough
to make a nickel in it as it is.
  On the other hand, the
trains go by my farm and stir
up dust that has turned my
ponds yellow. Nobody has
done anything about that,
even though I have
complained."
Dick Ballantyne
Lamoni, Iowa
Corn and soybeans. 200
acres,
"The liability laws are
changing. That's what could
affect me the most. They're
trying to change the law, so it
doesn't  matter whether I
follow the regulations or not:
if my chemicals caused  the
pollution, I'm liable. One
state already has a law to I hat
effect.
  On the brighter side,
manufacturers are working
vigorously to conn; up with
chemicals that won't be
pollutants. And at a recent
meeting, we were told about
planting rye and beans
together—the rye produces a
chemical that acts as a
herbicide that kills the
weeds. I'm going to try that
on a 30-foot strip down a
field.
  The fact  is, we've been
raising 'sissy' plants with
strong weeds. We select corn
for its high yield and then
apply herbicides so that the
only weeds that can  survive
are the strongest ones.  It's
survival of (hi; fittest."
Everett Mosher, Jr.
South Dayton, New York
Dairy farmer, with 275
milking cows.  700 to 800
tillable acres.
"Our biggest concern is
agricultural chemicals. We're
certainly concerned about
some that are under review.
For example, one that is
being investigated as a
possible ground-water
pollutant is a quite important
part of our chemical
application program.
  Requirements for
notification before spraying
will cause  us some problems.
We will end up using
stronger chemicals that are
less sensitive to weather. It
may protect people in some
ways but damage the
environment in others.
  There needs to  be more
coordination of state and
federal agencies trying to
police the same thing, with
uniform standards at the
national level. When a state
is stricter, it drives up the
cost for companies to comply
with the tougher regulations,
  Sometimes it looks like
there is  an  adversaria!
relationship between fanners
and EPA. Hut that's  not really
the way it is. Farmers in
general  understand and want
to portray an  image of care in
the use  of chemicals. There is
ignorance on  the part of some
users, but 1 don't  think there
is any lack of can; for the
environment.
  1  will add that
environmental regulation
does affect  farm income,  and
1  only see it getting to be
more so. People get
concerned when you tinker
with their incomes."
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                   15

-------
Philip Succop
Sparta, Michigan
Apple groivor. 1HO acres.
"The  registration or
reregistration of pesticides
affects us very much. Apples
arc a specialty product. It's
hard to get  new chemicals
registered for them because
they are such a small cro]).
Furthermore, the Dolaney
clause makes it almost
impossible  to get anything
registered.
  A lot of pesticides don't
function for us anymore-!
because pest resistance has
built up.  And  the companies
have dropped  some that did
work  because  it is too
expensive to reregister them.
We lost one chemical that we
hiid had for :H) years; the
sales were  down a little, and
when tin; t  hue came for the
company to reregister it, they
dropped  it.
  The solution? Maybe it will
come when the consumer can
justify a lessor quality
product at  a higher  or the
.same price without  the use of
pesticides.  Hut they buy with
their eyes;  if they just had
the opportunity to look at
some food  with no pesticides
on it  they won't receive the
product that they're used to
without the use of certain
chemicals.
  Some pest-resistant
varieties  of fruit are being
developed. But we. can't
change over in six months to
a year. It takes 1(1 years to get
an apple orchard  into
production."

Kditor's note: The so-culled
"Deiunc-v clause" is
                                                                                          Cherry tomato plant. USDA
                                                                                          photo.
contained in section 409 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, which governs
tolerances (legal residue
limits) for pesticides and
other food additives in
processed foods. The DeJaney
clause prohibits the approval
of a food additive that has
been found to "induce
cancer" in humans  or
animals. In light of a study
completed in 19H7 by the
National Academy  of
Sciences, EPA favors a
negligible-risk approach to
implementing the DeJaney
clause, rather than  a literal
[zero-risk) interpretation.
J. A. Driver
Yuba County, California
Mostly rice. 4,100 acres.
"It affects us. There are
standards on drainage from
the rice fields that goes into
the water and downstream,
One part per billion is too
stringent, but that's  what
they're regulating us by now
in (California. We can't use
some of the old faithful
chemicals any more.
  I think it's fair, although
sometimes it's going a little;
bit to the extreme. If they
said no chemicals, it woidd
present big problems down
the road."

Don Blomgren
Ames, Iowa
Corn and soybeans. 2.000
acres.
"We have to be licensed to
purchase and apply
restricted-use chemicals. It
isn't too costly. Most farmers
want to protect the
environment too.
  I do feel we have to use
chemicals. I don't  want  to go
back to the way we did
things 30  and 40 years ago.
We have a few  million
dollars tied up  in land and
machinery, and we expect to
make a decent living.
  We do try to  use chemicals
in moderation.  We're using
half as much through ridge
tillage, which doesn't disturb
the soil as much. We use
different herbicides than wo
used to—herbicides that
don't need to be incorporated
into the soil.
  Of course, it's been hard in
farming the last few years,
costly for  a lot of farmers.
And it's tough to make the
switch to  something like
ridge tillage; kind of
expensive."


Fred Wise
Delphi, Indiana
A hog fanner,  marketing
25,000 animals a year. 2.500
acres.
"I've never had a problem;
nobody has been on our
back. We  try to handle
everything right. A few years
ago, I didn't cut our manure
into the soil. Now  we do; it
cuts down on the odor and it
means we're not just
dumping it off the  edge  of
the road. We cover 1,500
acres with our bog manure.
There are  no problems that I
am  aware  of with
grouncl-water contamination;
we've been using the same
wells for years."
Steve Yoder
Blountstown, Florida
Row crops and a dairy and
beef herd. 2,000 acres.
"Because of restrictions in
the works to protect
endangered  species from
chemicals, we're going to
have a real problem.  I have a
100-acre field  where
chemicals would be
restricted because they would
endanger the Indigo snake. If
the land were  developed for
homes, I believe the
homeowners would be able
to use the same chemicals
without any restrictions. It
doesn't seem fair. Also, the
regulators need to be careful
in setting the boundaries
around land for restricted
spraying to make sure they
don't take in any more land
than necessary.
  Another problem with the
chemicals is that sometimes
fears become reality.  Even if
EPA clears a chemical for use
after studying  it, if the fact
that they were studying it  is
known to the public, the
public may demand that the
farmer quit using it.
  As a general rule, I think
the fanners in  our part of the
state will try to work with
EPA if we feel we're  being
heard out. We feel, 1  should
add, that we're being
restricted without
compensation. But our
biggest gripe is that the
fanners are being policed
while the homeowners are
not. We feel that we're being
blamed for things that are not
our problem. If we could see
that some others are carrying
some of this burden  .  . ." a
16
                                                                            EPA JOURNAL

-------
                                   Modern  Farming:
                                   Myths  and  Realities
                                   by Steve Lovejoy and Will Erwin
                                                                        ft
 A farm in Carroll County, Maryland. Tim
 McCabe photo. USDA Soil Conservation
 Service.
   The changes in American agriculture
   during the 20th century have been
dramatic. More than one-half of all
Americans lived on farms  in  UW2, HO
percent in 1920, and about 20 percent
in  1940. However,  in the HWO.s less
than 4 percent of Americans live on
farms, and less  than 2 percent of the
workforce is engaged in farming.
  These trends  resulted largely from
increasing agricultural  productivity.
Today we spend only 15 percent of our
disposable income on food, while much
of the world spends 40-50  percent or
more. While farming and farm life are
important components  of our cultural
heritage, few of us  have any first-hand
knowledge of modern agriculture. Many
who were raised on farms in the late
1940s and early  19f)0s would barely
recogni/.e modern fanning equipment
and techniques. They—and \ve  are
blinded by a number of myths and
misconceptions that need In be
dispelled.
Myth: A couple of generations ago. most
Americans were fanners.

Fact: Even in the late 1800s, less than
50 percent of the total population lived
on farms. We have had a largely urban
population for over a century.
           [Continued on next pagel
APRIL 1988

-------
Myth: Most farmland is owned by big
corporations; the family farm is
disappearing.
Fact: Of the 2.2 million farms in this
country, less than 3 percent are owned
by corporations and they control less
than 10 percent of the farmland. There
is an increasing number of incorporated
farming operations,  but these are
generally family-owned and
family-operated enterprises. In addition,
the percentage of farms operated by
owners has risen during the past several
decades. In 1945,  only 67 percent  of
farms were owner-operated; by 1969,
nearly 90 percent of a much smaller
number of farms were owner-run.

Myth: Foreigners have grabbed a major
chunk of American  farmland.
Fact: In 1986, only 12.4 million acres of
U.S. farmland were foreign-owned. That
is less than 2 percent of all American
farmland.
Myth: Most farms are big spreads.
Fact: Nearly 60 percent of all farms
operate less than 180 acres. Only 7.4
percent of farms operate 1,000  or more
acres. While the size of the average farm
has risen from less than 200 acres in
1940 to over 400 acres, the trend seems
to be toward a higher percentage of
small farmers, a larger number of big
farmers, and proportionately fewer
mid-sized agricultural operations.
Myth: Farmers enjoy high  incomes.

Fact: The Census  Bureau reports that
nearly 9 percent of non-farm families
earn $60,000 or more, while only 3.6
percent of farm families earn that  much.
Whereas over 30 percent of non-farm
families earn more than $35,000, only
21 percent of farm families earn as
much.

Myth: Farm families are more
self-sufficient than the rest of us.
Fact: Years ago, farm families were more
self-sufficient because they grew and
canned their own vegetables, fruits, and
meats, but modern farmers exhibit
consumption patterns similar to their
urban counterparts. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture estimates that
in 1983 some 60 percent of farm family
income was earned off the farm. Many
farming operations specialize in one or
two crops and do not raise or process
any more of their own food than urban
households.
Myth: Farming is a safe, healthy,
outdoor occupation.

Fact: While the activities occur
outdoors, farming is the second most
dangerous occupation (mining  is first),
with an annual accidental death rate of
49 per 100,000 workers and an annual
injury rate of 5,312 per 100,000 workers.
Farming  can be very  hazardous.
Myth: Farmers suffer less stress than
others.

Fact:  The National Institute of Mental
Health rates farming as one of the most
stressful occupations because of
tremendous uncertainty about  weather,
yields, prices, etc., as well as a
perception that the consequences of
sub-optimal decisions might mean
financial disaster and the destruction
of the family business and way of life.

Myth: Farming in the United States is
still a very labor-intensive occupation.
Fact:  The agricultural sector uses more
mechanical hoursepower per worker
than the  manufacturing sector. The drop
in labor needed to produce food, feed,
and fiber commodities is suggested by
the declining number of farmers as well
as even greater cuts in the amount of
labor needed to produce a given crop
volume.  In 1880, some 1.8 manhours
were needed to produce one bushel of
corn; by the late 1970s, only 0.1
manhour was required.
Myth: In the Corn Belt, the majority of
people live on farms and earn their
living by farming.

Fact: In the entire country, only six
million people live on farms. Though
the Corn Belt has the highest percentage
of farmers, less than 10 percent of total
employment is on the farm. Even most
lowans live in urban communities.

Myth: The government protects all
farmers from failure.

Fact: In FY 1987, some 5,700 farm
families filed for bankruptcy.
Myth: Federal law limits the liability of
farmers regarding their use of chemicals,
so long as they use chemical products
according to their label directions.

Fact: False. Present environmental laws
do not preclude farmers from liability
for damages due to chemical
contamination even if such  damage
results from application in accordance
with labeling directions. One point
being debated concerning proposed
amendments to the Federal  Insecticide,
Fungicide, and  Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
is whether farmers should be exempted
from such liability except in cases of
pesticide misuse.

Myth: Farmers are virtually guaranteed
a profit by federal price supports.

Fact: In 1983, farmers, on average, had
negative farm income. In other words,
their families' off-farm income
subsidized their farming operations, or
they were using their savings to
continue their farming operations, Q


(Love/oy is an Associate Professor,
Department of Agricultural Economics,
Purdue University, presently on leave to
the EPA Office of Policy Analysis.
Envin, an Indiana farmer, is a Special
Consultant to the EPA Administrator.]
18
                                                                 EPA JOURNAL

-------
Agriculture and  Ground-Water
Pollution  in  Iowa
by Michael Duffy and S.R. Johnson
 Iowa is a prominent agricultural state.
 The nation's agriculture depends on
Iowa, and Iowa depends on its
agriculture, which is dominated by four
commodities: corn, soybeans, cattle, and
hogs. These commodities provide over
90 percent of the state's agricultural
income, and last year Iowa led the
nation in production of corn, soybeans,
and hogs, and was fourth in  beef
production.
  The state's economy depends directly
and indirectly on agriculture. In 1985,
for example, over 20 percent of the
state's personal income came from
agriculture or related industries. And
this was in a year of farm financial
crisis.
  This high level of agricultural
production and modern production
technology is accompanied by high
levels of agricultural chemical usage. In
1985, Iowa farmers treated over 95
percent of their corn and soybean
acreage with herbicides. The 1985 Iowa
Pesticide Use Survey showed that Iowa
farmers applied over 58 million pounds
of active herbicide ingredients to corn
and soybeans. They also applied over 6
million pounds of active insecticide
ingredients, and used over 950,000 tons
of nitrogen fertilizer, primarily on corn
crops.
  This heavy use of agricultural
chemicals by Iowa farmers has raised
concerns over possible ground- and
surface-water contamination. Questions
are being asked about what happens to
these chemicals after they are applied to
crops. Do they cause human health
problems? What can be done to prevent
contamination?
  A state  Department of Natural
Resources study in the spring of 1986

Iowa led the nation in corn production
in 1987. The state's high production rate
is achieved with the  use of millions of
pounds of agricultural chemicals. Gene
Alexander photo. USDA Soil
Conservation Service.

APRIL 1988
19

-------
found detectable levels of pesticide
compounds in 30 of 33 public water
supplies tested that used surface water.
These tests were done after a rainfall
and reflected water affected  by run-off
from the fields. (It is interesting to note
that only one of the 10 pesticide
compounds found has a standard in the
federal Safe Drinking Water  Act.)
  This and other water quality studies
raised at least  three fundamental
questions:

• How did the pesticides enter the
water? Was it  because of the high
volume of use, or was it from misuse,
over-application, improper disposal,
direct contamination of wells, or all of
the above?

• Does exposure to chemicals at parts
per billion  or parts per trillion levels
pose a threat to human health?

• A third  question involves length of
exposure. The Iowa studies wen:
conducted  after a rainfall. What are the
short-term and long-term exposure
levels? Given the  nature of agricultural
chemical use in Iowa, the spring and
summer months would see the heaviest
chemical use and higher  possible
contamination. Are health risks
increased or decreased by higher
exposure for a shorter time?

  Although these fundamental quest ions
may never  be completely, satisfactorily
answered, political pressure moved the
Iowa Legislature.  In 198ti, the  first
version  of a ground-water bill  was
introduced, debated, and defeated, but
in 1987 the Ground-Water Protection
Act was modified, reintroduoed, and
passed.
  This legislation has been labeled both
"landmark  environmental regulation"
and the "destroy the family farm and
agribusiness act." Neither description is
accurate. The bill is a balanced
approach, relying more: on education
and demonstration than on regulation.
  Years of study preceded passage of
the Ground-Water Protection
Findings from these studies  are reported
in Section 103. Some of the  principal
findings note the variability  and
uncertainty of the  health  effects, but go
on to  state  that there are  health
concerns; another says any detectable
quantity of a synthetic organic
compound  in ground water is  unnatural
and undesirable; and another notes that
preventing ground-water  contamination
is ol paramount importance.
  The goal of ground-water protection,
as summarized in  Section 104. is "to
prevent contamination of ground water
from point and nonpoint sources to the
maximum extent practical, and if
necessary to restore the ground water to
a potable state." The goal of this Act is
not to create a pristine environment, but
to create an environment compatible
with good health.
  One of the  Act's main features is the
establishment of the Ground-Water
Protection Fund. The Fund's Solid
Waste Account receives money from a
sharp increase in dumping fees. (The
previous fee of $.25/ton increased to
$1.50/ton in FY 1988 and  is scheduled
to increase $.50/ton per year, up to
$3.50/ton.) This account will then
disburse funds to a variety of  projects
such as monitoring guidelines and
programs, assistance to small businesses
in solid and hazardous waste handling,
and demonstrations for alternatives to
landfills, including recycling.
  The Agricultural Management
Account receives funds from registration
and license fees. These include a
pesticide dealer fee based on a
percentage of gross annual sales, a
pesticide product registration fee on
manufacturers ranging from S250 to
$3,000 per year depending on  use rates,
and a nitrogen fertilizer tax. These
funds will be used  to establish a
sustainable agriculture research center
to test rural water  and private  wells, to
demonstrate; alternatives to agricultural
Iowa raised more than 21 million hogs
last year—roughly 25 percent of U.S.
hog production in  1987. This farrowing
house  shows how piglets are typically
raised  on a  modern farm. Fred  S. Witte
photo. USDA.
drainage wells and sinkholes, and to
develop health effects data bases.
  The Household Hazardous Waste
Account is funded by an annual permit
fee based on gross sales of retailers who
sell hazardous materials. These funds
will be used to provide grants  for
reclamation and  recycling projects and
pilot study projects for oil collection,
and to sponsor a toxic clean-up clay and
education programs.
  The Storage Tank Management
Account receives the one-time $10
registration tee and the annual
$15-per-year fees for tanks over 1,100
gallons. These funds will  be used to
administer the program, provide
insurance, and conduct remedial
clean-up efforts.
  The Oil Overcharge Account is for
funds received clue to overcharges on
petroleum products and will support a
variety of demonstration projects in
ag-energy management, waste-to-energy
and solid waste management, and
energy resource development.
  As originally passed and when fully
implemented, the Act is expected to
raise $9.37 million annually. This is
about $3.20 per lowan per year.
  The ground-water legislation also
details specific programs and mandates.
Among  these are developing procedures
to certify all commercial,  public, and
private pesticide applicators. Also
mandated are license and inspection
fees and special  programs for
agricultural drainage wells, sinkholes,
water wells, abandoned wells, and solid
waste management.
  The 1987 Iowa Ground-Water
Protection Act is sweeping legislation,
but does not  rely solely on taxes and
regulations. Because of its nature, the
Act is criticized  by a wide variety of
groups who focus on  its complex nature
and ambiguities—and on  their own
resistance to  changing the status quo.
  How effective the legislation will be
in stemming  ground-water
contamination can't be predicted. Also
unknown is how effective expected
efforts to dismantle various sections will
be. The Iowa Act does, however, take a
broad look at complex questions, and it
tries a mix of both "the: carrot" and "the
stick.'
  The state's situation, and experience
with the Iowa Act, may contain lessons
for the future. Although health risks are
uncertain for many compounds.
                                                                                                           EPA JOURNAL

-------
information on the agricultural chemical
problem was sufficient to support the
broad, sweeping Act, and the trend is for
science to show that active organic
compounds induce health problems.
Society should not gamble with such
high stakes.
  Nevertheless, the law does not impose
specific limits, taxes, or penalties
related to use levels or loading because
there still is much uncertainty about the
ultimate environmental fate of the
chemicals involved. It does, however.
support research to determine fate in
the environment and a more suitable
basis for selecting  regulation.
  The Iowa law was enacted in a state
less diverse than most. Perhaps this
means that legislation by states will be
more locally focused on problems that
vary significantly by application level,
soil type, climate,  and other factors.
  Will technology  be the eventual
answer to the problem it has caused?
Sustainable farming, carriers of active
compounds that bond with soil and do
notjeach or run off, and less toxic
compounds are among the possible
solutions. But these are in the future,
and the problem is now. Legislation  like
Iowa's, balancing risk, what is known
about chemical fate, and economic
interests is on the  rise. Let's hope this
enlightened approach continues in state
and local regulation of agricultural
chemicals. D

[Duffy is an Extension Economist.
Department of Economics, Iowa Staff;
University. Johnson is a Professor of
Economics and Administrator, Center
for  Agricultural and Hural
Development, loiva State University.]

Editor's note: In requesting this article,
EPA Journal did not intend to endorse
Iowa's particular approach to
ground-water protection from
agricultural chemicals. Several states
are  trying other approaches  ivhidi may
prove just as effective or better.
The Federal Role:
EPA's Proposed Ground-Water Strategy
In February 1988, EPA proposed
for public review and comment a
national strategy aimed at
protecting U.S. ground-water
resources from contamination by
pesticides. The strategy is usually
referred to  as the "Agricultural
Chemicals  in Ground-Water
Strategy." One of the proposed
strategy's major aims is to help
coordinate efforts between EPA
and the states to minimize further
damage by pesticides to
ground-water quality.
  Evidence of pesticide
contamination of ground water has
been growing  in recent years. In
1986, EPA  estimated that  24 states
had reported the  presence in wells
of one or more of 19 different
pesticides, as a result of normal
agricultural use of these chemicals.
EPA is currently assessing new
data from the  states that will likely
show an increase in both the
number of  states finding
contamination and the number of
pesticides being detected.
  Some states have already taken
aggressive action  to deal with
ground-water contamination
problems, the origins of which are
highly localized in nature. EPA is
strongly in favor of the state
initiatives already under way, and
expects through its proposed
strategy to  foster similar efforts
elsewhere.  The Agency believes
that efforts to  protect ground water
from agricultural  pesticides are
most likely to be  successful if the
states take  a significant role.
  Under the proposed strategy,
EPA is providing each  state with
the opportunity to take the lead
role in controlling agricultural
pesticides within its borders. EPA
will establish the level  of
ground-water contamination that
would be unacceptable and will
also evaluate individual state plans
in terms of their likely
effectiveness in preventing such
levels from being reached  or
exceeded. For ground water that is
a current or potential source of
drinking water, EPA's reference
point for unacceptable
contamination will be the
Maximum Contaminant Levels
established by the Agency under
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
  Once a state's  plan is
determined by EPA to be effective.
the plan could serve as the basis
for EPA's continued  approval of
certain pesticides for use within
that state. The Agency will also
rely on the predictive capabilities
afforded by its monitoring data
and computer models for ground
water in assessing the likely
effectiveness of a state's plan.
  If a state decides not to take a
lead role or to develop an
appropriate plan, EPA will
develop an alturriative plan that
may include  statewide or
countywide prohibitions as welt
as other limitations on the uses of
specific pesticides. The Agency
will also be influenced in  its
future registration of pesticides
under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act by
the patterns it observes in  the
individual states and the nation as
a whole as the strategy is
implemented.
  In addition to  st.ite management
plans, EPA's  proposed  Agricultural
Chemicals in Ground-Water
Strategy calls for Agency-directed
preventive measures that all states
must implement, on  a nationwide
basis. Among these is the
requirement that certain pesticides
may be applied only In  certified
applicators. At present EPA is
working with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture as well as the states
to develop a ground-water
protection program as an added
training requirement for certified
pesticide applicators.
APRIL 1988

-------
A  Local  Situation:  Thinking   "Long   Distance"
by  Paul A. Schuette
          in,-i!Hi;           s ono of the final steps in developing a manure
            plan. Mitch Woodward, Pcnn State Extension, measures the amount
of manure being spread. Pennsylvania Farmer Magazine photo.
   Paul Clugston doesn't sail on the
   Chesapeake Day. He doesn't troll for
 blues or "chicken neck" for crabs. In
 fact, CItigston seldom even sees the
 Chesapeake. Hut  tin; way lie (and many
 others like him) runs  his business has
 an important bearing  on the future
 health and productivity of the Bay and
 its tributaries.
  Collision's business is dairy farming.
 He milks liU) ! lulsteins and raises crops
 on li-l'J acres of land about 20 miles
 north ol 1 larrisburg, Pennsylvania, in
 the Suscjuehanna River watershed.
  Pennsylvania farmers are getting
special attention in the campaign to
clean up the Chesapeake Bay because
the Susquehanna accounts for about half
the freshwater flow into the
200-mile-long estuary. And that flow
includes nutrients, sediments, and other
pollutants accumulated as the
Susquehanna and its tributaries drain
some 17 million acres spanning
Pennsylvania from Maryland to the
Finger  Lakes region of New York State.
Nutrient enrichment is considered to be
a primary villain in the decades-long
degradation of the Chesapeake.
"Nutrient enrichment" may have a
wholesome sound to it, but the effect is
quite the reverse. In the Chesapeake,
nutrients—including nitrogen and
phosphorus from farmland—drive a
process of excess algae production,
decomposition, and recycling that
contributes to oxygen depletion of the
Bay's bottom waters. Oxygen-starved
waters, in turn, threaten the survival of
oysters, crabs, striped bass, and other
species once produced in such rich
abundance that H. L. Mencken was
prompted to  describe the Chesapeake as
"a great big outdoor protein factory."
  Clugston doesn't claim to be an expert
in the problems  of the Chesapeake Bay.
But the 43-year-old farmer does know
more than a little about controlling
nutrients on  his  own farm. And his
operation comes about as close as any to
being a model of what farmers can do  to
restore and protect the Chesapeake.
Clugston has been a pioneer in "manure
management," a  term devoid of glamour
but rich  in environmental implications
for the Bay.
  Farmland makes up less than a
quarter of the 38 million acres in the
Chesapeake watershed, but agricultural
run-off contributes significant amounts
of nutrient pollution to the Bay.
Nitrogen reaching the Chesapeake from
farms ranges from 19 percent of the  total
in years  of average rainfall to about  32
percent in wet years. The phosphorus
contribution  ranges from 29 percent in
average years to  about 57  percent in wet
years.  Cropland  erosion and animal
waste  are the principal sources of the
agricultural nutrients.
  In December 1987, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and the federal government
joined in a new  Chesapeake Bay
Agreement which, among other
commitments, calls for a 40-percent
reduction by the year 2000 in the
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus
reaching the  Bay.
  In Pennsylvania, manure management
is getting primary attention as an
effective means of nutrient reduction on
the farm. Erosion control is important
too, but soil conservation  techniques
have been  central to agricultural
programs for many years now. Manure
 ,v
                                                                                                     EPA JOURNAL

-------
management, on the other hand, is only
just coming to the fore. Why? One
reason manure is getting more attention
now is that there is more of it, relatively
speaking.
  "You have to recognize what has
happened in agriculture," said Victor
Funk, watershed management branch
chief in Pennsylvania's Bureau of Soil
and Water Conservation. "Agriculture
has become more intensive. There has
been an increase in livestock density.
We are generating larger quantities of
manure on less acreage. Farmers have
been using manure on fields as a way of
getting rid of it."
  But too much manure, said Funk,
elevates nutrient levels beyond amounts
crops can use, leaving an excess of
nitrogen and phosphorus to pollute
streams and  the  Bay.
  Clugston recognizes the problems
created by improper storage and use of
manure, but thinks people are too quick
to blame the farmer. In the past, farmers
were relying on chemical fertilizers, not
manure, to enrich their soil, he
explains. In doing so, they were just
"following instructions, doing what
commercial dealers told  them to do,"
Clugston maintains.
  Now, however, state and federal
money is being funneled to farmers in
the Bay watershed who agree to employ
"best management practices" that will
reduce the migration of nutrients from
fields to waterways. Reducing the need
for expensive commercial fertilizers is
one of the advantages that encourages
farmers to participate, Funk said.
Clugston's own introduction to efficient
manure management began in 1980
when he decided he had to do
something simply to raise the "comfort
level" of having a manure stockpile
nearby. He started his  manure storage
system with some financial help from a
U.S. Department of Agriculture
cost-share program.
  "As time went on, I saw the benefits
of storage," he said. "I could designate
areas to go to instead of having the
weather in control. Instead of a daily
spread throughout the winter, I could
apply the manure at a more appropriate
time of year."
  Now, Clugston has manure
management down to a
science—literally. He employs an
agronomy firm to analyze the nutritional
value of the manure from his animals
and to regularly test the  soil  to
determine what it needs.
  Clugston's manure storage system
retains solids in one tank, while liquids
drain into a second container. He
applies the semi-solid manure from the
first tank as a slurry, and hires a
commercial applicator to apply the
liquid manure as a spray.
  Clugston's knowledge of manure
management has been furthered by his
involvement in agricultural research
projects sponsored by Penn State
University, the University of
Pennsylvania,  and the Susquehanna
River Basin Commission. The Penn
State project focuses directly on nutrient
management.
  "The big plus from my point of view
is that it has made me aware of the
actual pounds of nutrients going  onto
fields," Clugston said. "Most people
apply more than they think they  do."
  Clugston raises corn for silage,  hay,
rye, and soybeans. He tracks the amount
of nutrients he applies to the soil, and
he knows the amount each  crop takes
from the soil.
  "Through monitoring, we know only
18 pounds of nitrogen per acre are
unaccounted for," he said. "One missing
link here as far as I am concerned is that
we  don't know what we started out with
as residue nitrogen."
  Other unknowns are the amount of
nitrogen that percolates  down into
ground water,  evaporates into the air, or
is carried away in run-off, but Clugston
hopes to start getting answers to those
questions this  year. Five wells are being
drilled on the  farm to monitor ground
water, and a new weir in a  grassed
waterway will help in checking nutrient
levels in run-off.
  Clugston said he got into research
projects by accident: "I just happened to
be in the right place at the right time."
But he feels that all parties concerned
are benefitting.
  "I do it  for the information," he
explained. "And I think one of my
selling points [to the universities] is that
I give them accurate records."
  He also sees an advantage in having
research carried out on a working farm.
There is more  assurance that results will
have practical application, he indicated.
  "I have to come out on the plus side
or I'll go broke," he said.
  Clugston's operation does not generate
more manure than his crops can use,
even though he added 67,000 broilers
last year to supplement income from his
dairy herd. But excess manure is  a
problem on many other Pennsylvania
farms, which tend to be considerably
smaller in the  Susquehanna valley than
the  349 acres Clugston works. (The
average size of a farm in Lancaster
County is  60 to 65 acres, Funk said.)
  The state is exploring various
mechanisms for moving excess manure
 to areas where it is needed, said Funk.
 One new.approach is to treat
 transportation of manure as a "best
 management practice" entitling the
 farmer involved to financial  assistance,
 he said. Composting and incineration
 also are being looked at, Funk added.
 Some entrepreneurs  are drying manure
 and packaging it for  sale to home
 gardeners, but Funk  said this activity is
 "just a small thing now."
  Clugston's comprehensive approach to
 nutrient management may still be
 atypical, but John Vogel, editor of
 Pennsylvania Farmer magazine, has
 noted a growing awareness among
 readers of the practical benefits of the
 efficient use of manure.
  "Most farmers are  more conscious of
 using manure as a fertilizer," said Vogel.
 "They are more conscious of the threat
 of nutrient overloading from an
 environmental standpoint.
 Ground-water contamination is also a
 concern."
  Clugston, a Dauphin County
 Conservation District board member,
 also sees growing interest among his
 neighbors in manure management and
 he fields a  lot of questions about his
 methods. He enjoys answering them.
  "It's fascinating to  me that what is
 economically beneficial to us, is
 environmentally beneficial to the
 community," he said.
  Clugston puts considerable value on a
 sense of community. He is host to 400
 to 500 students a year who visit his
 farm on school tours. And, each
 December, Clugston individually wraps
 some six dozen one-pound packages of
 butter to deliver to his neighbors. He
 started this practice four or five years
 ago, and  it  takes more time now than it
 used to.
  "Now that I've gotten to know people,
 they want to talk more," he said.
 "People wave now or toot their horns
 when they  pass."
  Clugston clearly is pleased that his
 dedication  to nutrient management  is
 making a contribution to  a healthier
 Susquehanna River and Chesapeake
 Bay, but he  won't be checking out the
 results for himself. "I'm just not a water
 person," he explained.
  Others might dispute that modest
 description, o


 fSchuette is on temporary assignment to
 EPA's Chesapeake Boy Program
from (he Agency's Office of Public
 Affairs.}
APRIL 1988
                                                                          23

-------
Some  Steps
in  Other
Countries
by Michael  D. Young
   As the impacts of farming practices
   on the environment become
increasingly apparent, many countries
arc seeking to integrate environmental
and agricultural policies that have often
been in conflict and to enhance the
positive role that farmers can play in
maintaining the landscape.
  This is  especially true in  Europe,
where market intervention,  tariff
protection, and other incentives have
boosted farm production to  the point
where the use of nitrogen fertilizers has
more than doubled since 1900, and the
practice of intensive animal production
has risen  substantially. The result  has
been an increase in serious nitrate and
other agricultural pollution problems.
  The number of water-supply sources
exceeding the European Community's
maximum permitted level of nitrates in
potable water is rising rapidly in many
key agricultural areas. In West Germany,
for example, the number of areas in
violation of the prescribed safety level
for drinking water rose from 126 in
1979 to 805 in 1983. In the United
Kingdom, it is likely to cost an
estimated $200 million in capital
expenditures and $10 million in annual
operating costs to keep present water
sources within the standard. Also,
wildlife habitat and landscape quality
are declining  in  many areas.
  To combat such  environmental
degradation, a number of nations are
seeking to resolve the competing
interests  reflected in their agricultural
and environmental policies. In Europe,
such integration is being pursued by
modifying supply controls, changing
and expanding extension and advisory
services,  introducing environmentally
protective farm management
agreements, strengthening regulation of
farming practices, and taxing or placing
other levies on fertilizers and pesticides.
  In fostering such actions and
generally in the context of its work on
agriculture and the environment, the
Organization for Economic: Cooperation
and Development (C)ECD) recognizes
that integration usually requires the
development and implementation of
policies which make conscious
trade-offs between competing objectives.
Care is taken to avoid implying that it is
always possible to develop policies that
can simultaneously achieve both the
agricultural and environmental
objectives. Examples of policies  which
are truly mutually supportive and
reinforcing are few.
  The Danish government, for example.
is concerned about the impact of nitrate
and phosphate pollution on the  nation's
fishing industry and  other natural
resources. Agricultural, industrial, and
urban sources of the  pollutants are
being required to change their
management practices  in order to halve
nitrate  and phosphate levels over the
next five years. As part of this effort,
farmers must prepare management plans
showing how fertilizers and manure
will be applied to their lands with
minimal nitrate or phosphate run-off or
leaching into nearby  waters.  Moreover,
    Harvest time on a farm neartneefl
    Hills in mid-Germany near Frankfort and
    Cologne. Equipment Me tt}JSJs*»"
                                       s
                                grnaH.

    EiJropejn farms. German Information-
     ^rj^c...            _      _

    V


'.
                                                                                                     EPA JOURNAL

-------
 since most nitrate pollution comes from
 bare, fallow fields in autumn, Danish
 farmers must establish a green cover
 crop or pasture over a  fixed proportion
 of their acreage every fall, and must
 upgrade their manure storage facilities
 to nine months' capacity.
  Sweden; Finland, and Austria employ
 a variety of economic incentives to
 encourage cereal grain production and
 then use charges on fertilizers to
 subsidize the sale  of the resultant
 surpluses on world markets. The
 Swedish 20-percent levy and 5-percent
 tax on all fertilizers also serve to finance
 research and extension activities
 associated with the reduction of
 pollution. In addition,  advisory officers
 are in the process  of visiting all farmers
 in areas with serious nitrate pollution
 problems to ensure that they apply only
 the quantity of fertilizers needed for
 maximum profit. Many are learning that
 they can increase their profits by
 decreasing the quantity of fertilizers
 they apply to their crops. This
 combined advisory-economic strategy of
 raising input costs and drawing farmers'
 attention to the benefits of reviewing the
 quantity of fertilizers they use is
 reported to have significantly reduced
 agricultural pollution. Drawing on this
 experience, Sweden introduced a
 25-percent pesticide tax in 1986 which,
 combined with strengthened advisory
 services and stricter regulations,  is
 expected to reduce pesticide use by 50
 percent before the  end  of 1990.
  In the Netherlands, manure from
 increasingly intensive livestock
 production is responsible for 20 percent
 of the Dutch contribution to acid
 precipitation and for the unacceptable
 levels of nitrates in ground water  used
 for drinking in many locations. Much of
 the increase in Holland's pig and  dairy
 production results  from preferential
 trade agreements between the European
 Community and developing countries.
 These agreements permit the
 importation of cassava  and some other
 feed substitutes tariff-free.
  To reduce the environmental
 problems resulting from increased farm
 production, the Dutch government
 limits the amount of manure which may
 be spread per hectare. Manufactured
 feed inputs are taxed to finance
anti-pollution research  and extension
services. The limits on  manure are
 defined in terms of kilograms of
 phosphate per hectare,  with the
amounts varying according to crop and
soil type. Farmers must calculate the
amount of manure  they will  use and
how much surplus their livestock will
produce. The surplus is taxed, and must
be disposed of at the farmer's expense.
Because in 1986 the surplus came to
13.6 million tons, manure banks have
been established and markets for the
surplus are being sought.
  As elsewhere, Western Europeans
have debated about who should pay the
costs of reducing agricultural pollution.
In 1972, the governments of OECD
countries agreed to implement a
"polluter pays" principle, which
requires polluters to pay the full costs of
any pollution prevention and controls
resulting from their activities, so that
these costs are reflected in production
and consumption patterns. Exceptions
can be made during transition periods,
providing they do  not lead to significant
distortions in international trade and
investment.
  Many countries have applied the
"polluter pays" principle to  industry but
not to agriculture,  the Swedish and
Dutch experience notwithstanding.
Alternative regulatory efforts (to some
extent consistent with approaches to
industry) include requirements that
farmers adopt non-polluting methods.
For example, West Germany forbids
spreading manure  on frozen ground.
Sweden bans aerial pesticide spraying
to reduce the threat to wildlife and
human health. Australia restricts the
planting of crops next to water courses
to prevent erosion.
  As indicated earlier, the severity of
almost all agricultural pollution
problems has been worsened by
agricultural production incentives (price
supports, tariff barriers, and preferential
trade agreements), which stimulate
increased use of chemicals. Thus,
reducing such supports can  be expected
to reduce pollution and improve the
quality of the  environment. However,
there are those who say that without
such supports there would be fewer
farmers in economically disadvantaged
areas, and farmers are necessary to
preserve traditional agricultural
practices. Without them, it is argued,
landscape quality would deteriorate and
regional unemployment would increase.
However, New Zealand has recently
removed nearly all support to
agriculture and reports that this has not
only led to reduced use of agricultural
chemicals but also to the diversification
of production into other activities.
  On the other hand, many European
countries are supporting farmers who
undertake environmentally helpful
actions and are finding that  this has
worked well. Austrian fanners are paid
 to maintain traditional herb-rich
 meadows that attract tourists, and Swiss
 farmers who cut hay on mountain
 slopes to reduce risks of snow
 avalanche are given grants. Some of
 these grants are financed by local taxes
 on tourism and others from government
 revenues.
   Many countries do recognize the
 positive contribution farmers can make
 to the environment. South Australia
 offers farmers heritage agreements
 (conservation easements or covenants
 prohibiting certain activities in return
 for grants, ongoing rate concessions, and
 other benefits) and a vegetation
 clearance program in return for
 improving wildlife and the environment
 by preserving natural areas on their
 farms. And throughout Western Europe.
 voluntary management and grants
 agreements are extensively used to
 encourage adaptation of
 environmentally favorable farming
 practices. The United Kingdom has
 identified environmentally sensitive
 areas within which farmers can apply to
 receive payments to help them improve
 and maintain the environment by
 deferring hay-making, grazing livestock
 so as to improve pasture composition,
 using less fertilizer,  not ploughing their
 fields, etc. Similarly, in Germany, some
 farmers are paid to leave the edges of
 fields unfertilized. A key difference
 between the South Australian  heritage
 agreements and most European schemes
 is the length of the agreement. The
 South Australian agreements run in
 perpetuity and are attached to the land
 title. Most European agreements,
 however,  run for only five years and
 thus do not guarantee long-term
 environmental improvement.
  In other words, many countries are
 finding ways to enhance the role which
 farmers can play in protecting and
 improving the environment by pursuing
 the integration of agricultural and
 environmental policies. There is,
 however,  considerable potential for
 short-term progress through the
 adaptation of agricultural policies so
 that they take greater account of their
 effects on the environment. In the
 longer run, the general reduction of
 support to agriculture, particularly in
 key production areas, also offers strong
 prospects for reducing pollution from
 agriculture. Q

(Young is  an Administrator with the
OECD's Environment Directorate in
Paris, France. The views expressed are
his own and not necessarily those of his
organization.)
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                   25

-------
The Controversy Over  Pesticides
and  Endangered Species:
Two   Points  of  View
                   :  Prairie Chicken is an endangered
                     ;*g been reduced by urbani/ation and
            lie 1988 census counted only  156 of these birds
                                e Chicken Wildlife
                  Texas. Another 770 were found outside
                   i
-------
its intent to put the program
on a slower track and to
correct the deficiencies
which had been  identified.
  The agricultural
community was  not
unanimously against the
program even as initially
proposed. For instance, the
chief of pesticide
enforcement of the California
Department of Food and
Agriculture declared last
October, "I feel fairly
confident  that we can
accommodate the needs of
the species and agriculture at
the same time." An official
with the Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
stated that with enough
involvement  of state officials
and the public, a workable
program is possible. Perhaps
the strongest  opposition to
EPA's initial  program  came
from the American Farm
Bureau  Federation. A
spokesman for that
organization objected  to the
omission of public hearings,
saying,  "That's what's
outrageous about it,"
  The concerns of critics of
EPA's first attempt to
implement endangered
species  protections should be
met by the opportunity for
public involvement now
provided and by EPA's
commitment  to develop a
program based on accurate
information and valid
pesticidal hazards to
endangered species.
  This program will cause
some disruption in the
agricultural status quo. But
the paramount need is to
protect  endangered  species
from  further jeopardy.
Ironically, it is agriculture
which is one of the chief
beneficiaries of species
preservation. Crops from
which we directly or
indirectly derive most of our
food were developed  from
wild flora. Wild plants are
still used to improve their
domesticated relatives.
  It is in all our interests to
assure that endangered
species are not further
jeopardized by pesticides. We
cannot afford to fall short of
that goal, n

(Hagood is a Wildlife
Management Specialist with
Defenders of Wildlife.)
Mark Maslyn

    Rarely has an issue
    generated as much
controvers}' within the
agricultural community as
the recent proposal by EPA
to protect endangered species
from pesticides. Most farmers
are conservation-minded and
take pride in seeing wildlife
thrive on the farm or ranch.
The controversy is not over
whether endangered species
should be protected, but
whether or not endangered
species are actually
jeopardized by the selective
and seasonal use  of
pesticides in farming.
  The recent proposal to ban
approximately two-thirds of
all  pesticides in all or part of
1,000 U.S. counties because
of a purported threat to
endangered species was
greeted with a healthy dose
of skepticism from farmers
and ranchers. This doubt was
fueled  by widespread
knowledge of inaccuracies in
the proposed habitat maps
and in the jeopardy opinions.
It was exacerbated by the
lack of opportunity for
farmers and ranchers to have
input and participate in the
process.
  Any  future proposal to
address the endangered
species problem must contain
several essential elements.
  First,  it mus! show clearly
that there is a cause and
effect relationship between
the routine seasonal use of
pesticides and risk to
endangered species. Jeopardy
opinions are currently based
on assumptions of maximum
exposure to maximum dose,
which is not representative of
actual conditions. On the
farm, pesticides are diluted
significantly; exposure, if it
occurs at all, is to the diluted
mixture on an infrequent
basis during the growing
season. If it is shown that
routine use of a pesticide
under actual conditions
results in jeopardy, then the
Fish and Wildlife Service
should be required to
consider mitigating changes
such as altering the rate.
timing, frequency, or method
of application as ways of
removing jeopardy while still
allowing use.
  Second, the program's
scope must be reasonable.
Prohibiting the use of an
insecticide used to control
the corn borer because the
corn borer is one of the
sources of food of the Piping
Plover is taking the
requirements of the
Endangered Species Act too
far!
  Third, the delineation of
habitat areas must be reliable
and specific. A clear policy
should be adopted in those
instances where habitat area
is increased or where species
have been reintroduced.
Farmers  should not be
threatened with the loss of
crop protection products
because a species has been
reintroduced lor introduced)
where currently it does not
exist.
  Fourth, the proposal
should involve an outreach
effort that extensively
involves the farm and ranch
community. Ultimately, this
program depends on
voluntary compliance and it
will succeed or fail  on the
basis of whether it is
perceived as fair and
reasonable. Fanners and
ranchers will want to "kick
the tires and drive it around
the block" in order to feel
comfortable with it. In short,
you must involve the
regulated community fully in
the planning and design of
any program.
  Fifth, a successful program
should be tailored to
individual state needs and
priorities. Once it is
determined that there is
jeopardy, the primarv
responsibility for designing.
implementing, and enforcing
a program should be that of
the state.
  Finally, there should be an
economic analysis of the
program's effects on
agriculture and some  means
of compensating the
landowner if the laud can no
longer be cropped or ii value
is lost. There should also be
an examination of this
program's relationship to
commodity and conservation
programs.
  In conclusion, to bo
successful a program must be
reasonable, fair, and based on
sound scientific: evidence. In
addition,  il must also bo
respectful of private properly
rights and flexible i-iimigli to
allow for customi/ing to fit
local situations. Most
importantly, il must involve
farmers ami nmchers fully in
all phases of development
and implementation,  c
                              (Mash/it is Assistant
                              Director, National Affairs,
                              American  Farm Bureau
                              Federation.)
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                    27

-------
"Alternative
Farming":
A   Report
by Roy Popkin
 In Clare, Iowa, grain farmer |ini Stnlil
 worries about erosion ;nnl
ground-water pollution and has been
"thinking this way for 20 years." As a
consequence of environmental
consciousness-raising over the last two
decades, Stahl sues a renaissance in
morn environmentally compatible
farming  practices that  were predominant
in the United States before World War
11. "Fitty years ago." lie says, "it was all
organic.  But then in the 1950s, they told
us to raise more and more corn for
28
export. We had to use a lot of weed
killers and fertilizers." Now he uses
"no-till" soil conservation
practices—planting seed among the
unplowed residue of last year's
crop—and is pursuing a "low-input
farming" approach, cutting way back on
his use of chemical pesticides.
  Sylvia and Walter Erhardt raise fruits
and vegetables on their intensively
farmed acreage in Knoxville, Maryland.
They are pursuing an "organic farming"
approach by using no chemical
products. Says Mrs.  Erhardt: "I know a
farmer who  walked across a field that
had been sprayed with paraquat the day
before. He wound up in the hospital
with severe  leg problems." The Erhardts
use a panoply of integrated pest
management (IFM) and organic fanning
methods.
  And Todd Greenstone of Brookville,
Maryland, raises mostly com on over
1,200 acres in the midst of suburban
Montgomery County. Even though  he
practices monoculture (growing corn
almost exclusively),  he's into no-till
Soybeans grow in corn residue in an
Iowa no-till  system. Increasing numbers
of farmers are turning to "alternative"
agricultural  practices in an effort to
become better  businessmen and
conservationists. H.E. Alexander photo.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
agriculture and has cut back on
chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
  Greenstone, Stahl, and the Erhardts
are among the growing numbers of
American farmers who are trying to
avoid the negative environmental
impacts resulting from the heavily
chemical-supported farm systems that
have dominated American farming since
the 1950s. These farmers are not simply
discarding farm technology as it has
developed over the last four decades,
nor are they giving up agrichemicals
completely.  However, they art; turning
in their own ways to  "alternative"
agriculture—also variously known as
"conservation," "sustainable," or

                        EPA JOURNAL

-------
 "regenerative" farming. Some are
 attempting to use no synthetic
 chemicals—an organic farming
 approach. A number of others are trying
 to reduce their use of such chemicals
 for both economic and environmental
 reasons—a low-input  farming approach.
  The U.S. Department of Agriculture
 (USDA) defines alternative farming as
 follows:

   ... a production system which
   avoids or largely excludes the use
   of synthetically compounded
   fertilizers, pesticides, growth
   regulators, and livestock feed
   additives. To the maximum extent
   feasible, organic farming systems
   rely upon crop rotation, crop
   residues, animal manures,
   legumes, green manures, off-farm
   organic wastes, mechanical
   cultivation, mineral-bearing rocks,
   and aspects of biological pest
   control to maintain solid
   productivity and tilth, to supply
   plant nutrients, and to control
   insects, weeds, and other pests.

  Clearly, many of the practices
considered to be alternative farming
methods are not new  (some of them
date back to the 1700s). In order  to
understand where alternative  agriculture
 is coming from in the 1980s, it is
necessary to look back to the 1950s
 when, in the wake of  World War II,
 pressure for large-scale production
 increases began to mount.
  Since the war, according to Dr. I.
 Garth Youngberg, Executive Director of
 the Institute for Alternative Agriculture,
 "American agricultural practices  have
been substantially altered. . . ." As
 Youngberg recounts,

    Large-scale, highly specialized,
   capital- and energy-intensive farms
   came to  dominate U.S. agriculture.
   Monocultural cropping systems,
   particularly of cash grains, large
   confinement animal feeding
   operations, and fossil fuel-based
   production technologies,
   especially  the heavy use of
   synthetically compounded
   fertilizers and pesticides, were
   widely adopted by  American
   farmers.

  While these post-war changes did
lead to what Youngberg calls the
"United States' contemporary
agricultural abundance," they have led
to growing  concerns about their
long-term effects on the nation's
environment. Throughout  much of
the United States, modern farming
methods have accelerated soil erosion
and resulted in chemical pollution of
soil and water. The old soil-conserving
crop rotation practices were replaced by
widespread monoculture of grain or
continuous row cropping accompanied
by heavy tilling, which encourages
erosion. There is growing concern about
agricultural run-off and the harmful
impacts of chemicals in drinking-water
sources and the food supply.
  In addition to soil conservation and
environmental issues, there are
economic concerns as well. Consider,
for example, the following variety of
concerns cited in USDA reports
covering the years  1980 and 1981:

•  High and increasing costs of energy
and agricultural chemicals, as well as
concerns about the future availability of
some chemicals.

•  Weeds and insects becoming more
resistant to chemicals.
•  Loss of soil productivity, organic
matter, and plant nutrients because of
erosion and agricultural practices.

•  Loss of wildlife, bees, and beneficial
insects due to pesticide use.
•  Nonpoint source pollution of surface
waters by sediments and  farm
chemicals.
•  Potential human  and animal health
threats from pesticides and feed
additives.

•  Harmful impacts of farm chemicals
on food quality.
•  Drop in the number  of family farms
and local or direct-marketing systems;
growth of big farms, with concentration
of sales and assets.
• Growing capital-intensity of
agriculture in general.

  Since these reports were issued, what
Youngberg calls "growing scientific
disquiet over agriculturally related
environmental degradation, accelerating
economic pressures on the family, and
faltering farm exports"  have led
agricultural policy-makers, scientists,
and conventional farmers to renew  their
interest in "farm enterprise
diversification, including specialty
crops and direct marketing . . . the
benefits of mixed cropping systems
which include legumes, hay, and other
nitrogen-fixing crops ... as a way to
stabilize and enhance farm income,
reduce production  costs, and make
agricultural ecosystems more
sustainable in the long  term."
  Ten years ago, organic purists like the
Erhardts would have been dismissed as
food faddists or back-to-the-landers.
Farmers like Stahl and Greenstone
might have been scoffed at or even
resented by neighboring fanners. Today,
their kind of farming is becoming
noticeably more common in many parts
of the country. Just possibly, they may
represent a major movement to adopt
many of the principles and practices of
pre-war farming, although this remains
to be seen.
  Proponents of such a movement argue
that it makes sense from environmental
and economic standpoints. Says Wilder
Foundation's Craig Cramer, former
editor of New Farm: "The organic
movement is now  related to concern
over profitability and the environment."
And, says Youngberg, "Alternative
farming has become part of the
mainstream. There are  articles in all the
mainstream agricultural publications;
there are conferences, workshops, and
teaching programs at 10 to 12
universities, programs that didn't exist
three to four years ago."
  Under the Food,  Security Act of 1985,
anti-erosion plans  for individual farmers
are mandated, and USDA has
established a $4 million research
program to look at all aspects of
low-input farming. Information on the
subject, until recently relatively hard for
farmers to obtain, will be available not
only in specialized magazines but also
from county extension  agents.
  In addition, the National Academy of
Sciences is soon to release a major
study on alternative farming. According
to the Executive Director of the
Academy's Board on Agriculture,
Charles  A. Benbrook:

   Nearly everyone active within
   American agriculture today is
   taking notice of the  sometimes
   rather remarkable
   accomplishments of successful
   low-input, sustainable agricultural
   systems. The mythology and
   rhetoric of organic farming in the
   1970s is giving  way  to the
   bottom-line profits of mainstream
   farmers who have chosen to
   become innovators.

  Writing in the 1987 Yearbook of
Agriculture, Kenneth Cook of The
Conservation Foundation basically
agrees with Cramer, Youngberg, and
APRIL 1988
                                                                           29

-------
 Benbrook on the dual economic and
 environmental motivations presently
 behind alternative agriculture:

   Economics may be the overriding
   motive behind alternative farming
   today, but concern about soil and
   water conservation, wildlife,  and
   the environment is not far behind.
   Alternative farming systems tend
   to be very effective in controlling
   erosion, runoff, and pollution of
   surface water and ground water
   .... One final motivation is
   concern about . . . the effects
   agricultural chemicals may have
   on their health or that of their
   family and  neighbors.

   A 1986 Iowa State University survey,
 for example, found that 80 percent of
 the farmers in the state's Big Spring
 Basin worried about pollution of their
 drinking water and favored  protecting
 the environment at all costs.
   How widespread is the trend to
 alternative farming? According to USDA
 estimates cited in a recent directory of
 sustainable agriculture and horticulture,
 at least 30,000 of the nation's 2,100,000
 farmers use no chemicals at all. While
 this does not  reflect large-scale
 "conversion"  to organic practices,  soil
 scientist Robert Papendick of the USDA
 Agricultural Research Service says his
 Agency also predicts that virtually all
 American farmers eventually will use
 some form of low-erosion,
 low-pollution, pro-resource conservation
 tillage, such as what the American
 journal  of Alternative Agriculture
 describes as ranging from "a few tillage
 operations for weed control and seedbed
 preparation to one-pass, no-till
 planting."
   While Youngberg feels that adoption
 of alternative farming methods should
 be more widespread, he asks, "How do
 you define alternative farming? Is it
 tofal absence  of chemicals? There are
 not too many of those. The number of
 certified organic farmers in California,
 for example, is only between 400 and
 500.  While there are relatively few
 purists, there are many farmers who  use
 some pesticides but have reduced
 amounts and  are moving towards
 low-input alternative procedures. If you
 step  back a little further, you'll see
 farmers experimenting with new crops,
 legumes, and  crop rotations. You'll find
 quite a lot of  change out there,  with
 clean and sustainable agriculture as its
 goal."
  Reflecting some of the change that is
"out there," some states are now
formally certifying organic farmers
according to state-adopted standards. In
California, some supermarkets say they
are buying produce only from such
certified sources.
  The economic motivations are both
cost- and market-related. While surveys
indicate that yields may be smaller for
some, money saved by not using
chemical agricultural products and the
more efficient use of mechanical
equipment can create a net profit which
is often the same or greater despite a
lower yield. A recent study of what
farming in the Palouse of Washington
and Idaho showed production costs of a
"perpetuating-alternative-legume
system" were 56 percent lower than
conventional farming, and that when
high-yield non-subsidized market
conditions exist, profits were $14.95 per
acre higher.
These farmers are not simply
discarding farm technology as
it has developed over the last
four decades, nor are they
giving up agrichemicals
completely.
  IPM methods, such as using biological
controls like pest-specific predators or
organic sprays, also reduce costs.
Recently, cranberry farmers in
Massachusetts reported that IPM
increased income of $200 an acre.
Biological products have literally wiped
out once-chronic infestations of the
alfalfa weevil. And the return to crop
rotation and cover crops (which all but
disappeared over the past three decades)
is also reducing the need for chemical
products.
  Although many farmers say it is hard
to find markets for organically grown
foods, others reflect a growing demand.
Sam Smith, in northwestern
Massachusetts, turns five acres into a
net of over $20,000 a year in an area
that has few natural food addicts. "The
demand is for quality," he says. In many
areas, supermarkets are installing
natural food departments.
  Grape growers, for example, find a big
demand for naturally grown output
because chemicals interfere with the
microbial fermentation processes of the
winemakers.  Sylvia Erhardt sold her
produce to downtown Washington DC's
most important French restaurants.
"French chefs," she says, "want the very
best in everything from spices to berries
to vegetables, without chemicals." She
also grows vegetables for more than 50
families who order a year's worth of
produce at a time. She successfully
encouraged several small manufacturers
of organic sprays and fertilizers  to
increase their marketing and production
methods to meet the growing demand.
  Other developments also seem to
reflect a trend. A major chemical
industry magazine reports  that
agrichemical "manufacturers are not
considering growth, they are now
worried about shrinkage."  Iowa  is taxing
the sale of chemical agricultural
products to raise money for research
and information dissemination.  The
American  Farm Bureau Federation
(AFB) has gone on record supporting
IPM practices; at its 1988 annual
meeting, the AFB adopted  a policy
stating, "We support the widespread
promotion and use of Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) as a method  of
reducing costs, risks, liability, and total
dependence on farm chemicals."
  Said Benbrook at a Montana State
University conference on new directions
for rural communities:

   Low-input or alternative
   agriculture is channelled in a
   broader river of change. It has
   gained definition through the
   actions  and experiments of
   practical farmers, who talk with
   their neighbors. The dialogue in
   recent years has  been much more
   grounded in practical lessons and
   accomplishments ... adoption is
   progressing at very different rates
   across the country. Two things are
   increasingly clear. Low-input
   systems can work and be highly
   profitable. Tangible
   accomplishments motivate change.

  Alternative agricultural practices, the
proponents and practitioners of  such
practices seem to be saying, represent
an approach whose time has
come—again. D


(Popkin is a Writer/Editor for EPA's
Office of Public Affairs.)
30
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL

-------
This Oklahoma farm operation has hired
a custom harvesting crew and their
equipment to reap its wheat. With the
price of many combines exceeding
$100,000, many farmers are choosing to
hire such services instead of purchasing
their own machines. USDA photo.
Analyzing the Challenge
Ahead  of  Us
                                    by Rob Wolcott
                                       Prior to World War II, tin; typical U.S.
                                       farm was labor-intensive, diversified,
                                    and relatively self-sufficient. Today, our
                                    farms are generally capital-intensive,
                                    specialized units of mass production.
                                    Heavily influenced by federal farm
                                    programs, the development of advanced
                                    technology, and the competitive drive to
                                    achieve high rates of productivity, U.S.
                                    farms have become models of efficient,
                                    high-volume food and fiber production.
                                      The old days were very different. The
                                    threat  of pest infestation, adverse
                                    weather conditions, and commodity
                                    price fluctuations required a variety of
                                    crops and activities to hedge against
                                    these problems. In the absence uf
                                    commercial pesticides and fertilizers,
                                    crop rotation and old-fashioned wooding
                                    were used to inhibit pest infestation anil
                                    restore soil fertility.
                                      In the late 1940s and early 1950s, tin-
                                    vast majority of farmers  \vere eager to
                                    take advantage of newly developed.
                                    disease-resistant seed varieties,
                                    fertilizers, pesticides, and advanced
                                    machinery  to achieve higher yields from
                                    fewer crops on larger tracts  of land. This
                                    shift led farmers to rely  heavily on
                                    purchased inputs.


                                                (Continued un next  p
-------
  From an environmental standpoint,
the most  notable of these commercial
inputs were agricultural chemicals:
pesticides (insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, plant growth regulators, etc.)
and fertilizers. Their use, virtually
non-existent prior to World War II, has
burgeoned into a $4.5 billion industry.
In 1986, over 500 million pounds of
agricultural pesticides were used in this
country. Between 1960 and 1986, our
annual use of nitrate fertilizer increased
fourfold,  reaching more than 12 million
metric; tons in 1986.
  The great majority of agricultural
chemical use is for the purpose of
sustaining yields of the basic
commodity crops supported by the U.S.
government's farm program. Corn, for
example, accounts for over 30 percent of
all agricultural pesticide use. Six basic
commodity crops—corn, wheat, rice,
cotton, barley, and soybeans—all of
which have some kind of U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) price
support or loan program, account for  a
combined total of over 80 percent of the
total volume of agricultural pesticides.
  In addition to growth in the  use of
agricultural chemicals on the USDA
program crops, there has also been a
sharp increase in the kinds and amounts
of chemicals used on specialty crops
(fresh produce and fruits in particular).
A wide variety of chemicals have been
developed, not only to combat pests and
plant diseases but also to regulate the
growth of fruits and vegetables and
enhance  the cosmetic appearance of
produce.
  Apart from relatively isolated
concerns expressed by the scientific and
environmental communities, the trend
toward chemically intensive agriculture
was generally welcomed in the decades
following the war. Consumers  enjoyed
inexpensive food, as well as year-round
supplies  of diverse produce. Until the
mid-1980s, farm incomes steadily
increased, and the U.S. trade balance
was bolstered by escalating export
earnings  from this technology-induced
cornucopia.
   Now, in the late 19HO.S, three areas of
concern  have converged to spark a
re-examination of the social merits of
continuing such chemical-intensive
production. The first set of concerns
revolves around the health and
ecological effects of agricultural
chemicals. Concerns about the potential
effects of pesticides  and other
agricultural chemicals are not  new in
the  1980s. Rachel Carson raised the
 public consciousness about the potential
 effects of pesticides with the 1962
 publication of Silent Spring. However,
 these concerns have in some ways been
 heightened in recent years—particularly
 with the detection of ground-water
 contamination in increasing numbers of
 states, as a result of normal agricultural
 uses of pesticides.
Apart from relatively isolated
concerns expressed by the
scientific and environmental
communities, the trend toward
chemically intensive
agriculture was generally
welcomed in the decades
following the war.
   A second area of concern is the
 overproduction of many crops, resulting
 in significantly decreased commodity
 prices, as compared to the price  peaks
 of the 1970s, and decreased farm
 incomes. In 1982, for example, 90
 percent of the chemicals in question
 were being used on crops already in
 excess supply—rendering any
 increments of increased production
 attained through  agrichemical usage of
 questionable value to society. A  third
 and related concern involves the
 dramatic increases in federal  farm
 program costs during the  1980s,  which
 are particularly troublesome  in the face
 of record federal  deficits.
 Health  Concerns

 While some pesticides have been linked
 with cancer and other health problems,
 many chemicals have not yet been fully
 tested and their potential health effects
 are unknown. These data gaps introduce
 a measure of uncertainty  into nearly all
 discussions of the adverse effects of
 agricultural chemicals. Scientists at EPA
 and other regulatory agencies
 compensate for scientific  uncertainties
 by using cautious assumptions when
 making risk estimations.
   Human exposure to pesticides may
 occur through a variety of pathways
 (including food, air, and water).
 Residues of pesticides and fertilizers
 have been found in ground and  surface
 water and may pose health risks when
 consumed in significant concentrations.
 During pesticide application, farm
 laborers and neighboring  populations
 may be subject to inhalation  or dermal
 exposures to chemicals.
   In its 1987 report on the significance
 of the relative risks posed by current and
 /
The pesticide malathion is widely used
to protect fruit and vegetable crops from
insect damage. USDA photo.

prospective human health and ecologic
exposures,  Unfinished  Business: A
Comparative Assessment of
Environmental ProbJems, EPA ranked
pesticide-related cancer and non-cancer
risks in the highest category of effect.
This 1987 study rated such risks higher
than those  that currently dominate the
attention of EPA and Congress,
measured in terms of budgetary
resources and institutional  focus. Here
once again, however, data gaps  make
hard-and-fast conclusions very difficult.
   During the past decade, evidence has
been building about the contamination
of ground water as a consequence of
normal, recommended uses of
agricultural chemicals, with serious
implications for drinking water safety.
At present, nearly  half of the United
States  relies on ground water for its
drinking water supplies. In 1986, EPA
estimated that 24 states had reported the
presence of at least one of 19  pesticides
in wells as a result of normal  use of
pesticide products. In 1984, the United
States  Geological Survey found the
presence of nitrates in  over 20 percent
of the  124,000 well samples collected
over a 25-year period; a primary source
of such contamination is the agricultural
use of nitrogen fertilizers.

Ecological  Concerns

In addition to adverse human health
effects from intensive chemical  use,
certain agricultural practices can
damage terrestrial and aquatic:
ecosystems. In 1979, EPA found that
agricultural run-off was the primary
cause of water quality problems in 30
 !2
                                                                  EPA JOURNAL

-------
 percent of U.S. stream miles. In 1986,
 another group of researchers found that
 cropland soil run-off accounted for more
 than 30 percent of the sediment and 40
 percent of the nitrogen entering U.S.
 waterways.
   Nonpoint-source pollution from
 agricultural sources (loadings of soil,
 nutrients, and pesticides) has been
 found to cause substantial damage to
 lakes, streams, estuaries, and wetlands.
 (See box.) The overall economic cost  of
 cropland run-off to the United States  in
 1986 alone was estimated to be $2.2
 billion.
   In particular, the impacts of
 agricultural practices on wetlands
 warrant special attention. These
 valuable ecosystems are being
 threatened not just by conversion to
 agricultural uses, but by exposure to the
 chemicals and sediment that accompany
 that conversion. Nearly 400,000 acres of
 wetlands are being drained or otherwise
 destroyed each year. Over 80 percent  of
 these losses have been attributed to
 agricultural production practices and
 expansion of croplands. The
 Swampbuster provisions of the 1985
 farm bill are aimed at reducing these
 losses.
                    Overproduction

                    In the early 1980s, there were record
                    domestic and worldwide harvests. The
                    result was an accumulation of surplus
                    supplies and a sharp drop in
                    commodity prices. Corn, wheat, and
                    soybean prices dropped by an average of
                    40 percent between 1981  and 1986. By
                    1985, 43 percent of corn production,  25
                    percent  of soybean production, 78
                    percent  of wheat production, and 73
                    percent  of cotton production went
                    directly  to surplus stocks.  In addition to
                    the impacts of commodity price drops,
                    there were storage  costs for maintaining
                    surplus  stocks from year to year;
                    alternatively, there were export
                    subsidies to dispose of these stocks
                    abroad. The value of U.S. agricultural
                    exports fell to 26 billion in 1986 from
                    44 billion in 1981.
                      Across the nation, the farm economy
                    was battered. Many farms went
                    bankrupt. Particularly  vulnerable to
                    bankruptcy were those farmers who had
                    gone heavily into debt to acquire more
                    land and machinery during the boom
                    years of  the 1970s.  USDA commodity
                    support  and credit  programs were all
                    that kept many others  from going under.
     Environmental  Degradation  Effects of Agricultural  Run-off
     Nonpoint
     Source
     Pollutant
Aquatic Species Damages
     Increased
     Turbidity
     Increased
     Sedimentation
     Increased
     Organic
     Loadings
Reduces photosynthesis, leading to decreased productivity of
phyloplanktou and beutliic organisms

Impairs vision-dependent feeding activities for aquutic species

Delays spawning activities for some species

Clogs fisli gills

Increases susceptibility to disease

Smothers spawning beds

Fills in stream depressions necessary for habitats

Increases streambank erosion that destroys riparian habitat

Increases water temperature

Decomposing organic material can lead to oxygen depressions,
species changes, and fish kills
    Increased         Increases eulropliicntion, algal blooms, and oxygen demand,
    Nutrient Levels    leading to species changes and fish kills
    Increased
    Pesticide
    Loadings
Impedes growth and reproduction of aquatic and terrestrial
species

Acute pesticide concentrations can cause fish kills
 Soaring Farm Program Costs
 The heavy demands placed on
 commodity support and credit programs
 in the early 1980s resulted in enormous
 costs to the federal government in an
 era of soaring budget deficits.
   From 1972 to 1980, total cumulative
 farm program costs were $25.9 billion,
 averaging $2.9 billion per year. From
 1981 to 1987, cumulative farm program
 costs were $108.3 billion, averaging $15.4
 billion per year. These costs peaked in
 1986, reaching nearly $26 billion. In
 that year, USDA commodity program
 support represented 67.5 percent of total
 net farm income.
   Since 1985, costs have been coming
 down due to increased commodity
 prices and reduced rates of participation
 by farmers in the commodity programs.
 However, the costs remain very high in
 both relative and absolute terms, $17.2
 billion in 1988.
 A New Beginning?

 Severe stress in the farm community,
 high costs of government farm
 programs, mounting concerns about the
 effects of agricherhicals on human
 health and the environment: each of
 these concerns, considered by itself, is
 "bad news." However, the convergence
 of these concerns may be the harbinger
 of good fortune, born of adversity, if it
 leads to changes necessary for the
 integration of agricultural and
 environmental policies in this country.
  There is reason for optimism in that
 many experts have concluded that a
 re-examination of current U.S.
 environmental and agricultural policies
 is in order. There is a need for
 reshaping these policies so as to
 mutually reinforce objectives that
 environmentalists and agriculturalists
 are now pursuing largely in  isolation.
  But what can be done to better
 integrate agricultural and environmental
 policies in this country? Where do we
 begin?
  One obvious place to begin is by
 making information readily available
 that is useful to policy-makers. At EPA,
 the Office of Policy, Planning, and
 Evaluation and the Office of Pesticide
 Programs have been cooperatively
 developing an  information system called
 the Comprehensive Economic Pesticide
Policy Evaluation System (CEPPES),
sometimes referred to  colloquially as the
"Pesticide Macro-project." Once the
system becomes operational, it can be
used to project the impacts of a variety
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                    33

-------
Wheat field at dusk. In 1985, after several years of record harvests, nearly 80
percent of our wheat crop became surplus stock. USDA photo.
of agricultural ;md environmental policy
options in terms of farm income,
government costs, and crop production
patterns, as well as health and
environmental risk implications. The
system is intended to provide
policy-makers with a broad spectrum of
information needed in shaping national
program policies. It is expected to
facilitate policy decisions not only in
the management of agrichemical-relatecl
risks, hut also in the implementation of
USDA's commodity,  crop  insurance,
and conservation programs. The system
is expected to be operating this fall.
  In the  immediate future, two specific
areas of federal agricultural policy
afford opportunities for EPA and  USDA
to work together toward integrating
agricultural and  environmental policies.
The first is the soil Conservation
Reserve; program established by the
Food  Security Act of 1985 (the 1985
farm bill). The second relates to USDA's
commodity programs.
  The 19H5 farm bill established  a set of
conservation programs designed to
reduce erosion, reduce surplus
production, stabilize farm income,
enhance water quality, and protect
wetlands. (See box on page 7.) One of
these programs,  the Conservation
Reserve;, compensates farmers for taking
cropland that is  highly erodible out of
production.
  Research recently completed by EPA
suggests that more "targeting" of  the
Conservation Reserve on critical
environmental lands could yield
34
significant water quality and habitat
protection benefits while reducing
overall federal farm program costs.
Further, the reduction in cropped
acreage would reduce chemical use
while holding farm incomes constant.
EPA is currently working together with
USDA on ways to implement these
findings.
  Logical candidates for such target
planning include wellhead protection
areas, ground-water recharge areas,
lands with porous soils over shallow
aquifers, endangered species habitats,
and other lands, stream-side and upland,
that significantly contribute to nonpoint
pesticide, fertilizer, and sediment
loadings to surface waters.
  Moreover, this overall targeting
approach would complement the
EPA/state approach to implementing the
Water Quality Act of 1987. This
collaborative approach involves the
development by states of State Clean
Water Strategies that focus, from a
water quality perspective, on
high-priority water bodies and the
development of program plans  to
achieve specified water quality
objectives. The Conservation Reserve
and the other conservation provisions of
the 1985 farm bill are several of many
programs that could be used to achieve
these results.
  The second area that warrants
mention here is USDA's basic
commodity programs. In their present
form, certain provisions of  of the
commodity programs tend to foster
continuous, single-crop (monocultural)
production practices. Such practices
typically require higher levels of
pesticide and fertilizer input than is
necessary when crops are rotated to
increase the level of nitrogen fixation in
the soil and retard pest infestations.
  Monocultural cropping, such as
continuous com planting, presently
dominates much of the Corn Belt,
requiring  intense chemical management.
In Iowa, for example, a 1986 study
indicated  that 85 percent of farmers
growing continuous corn applied
insecticides to control  corn rootworm:
by comparison, only 15 percent of
farmers who rotated corn with other
crops used these insecticides.

Looking Down the Road

Agricultural chemicals and selected
agricultural  production practices pose
public health and environmental risks
of major proportions. The management
of these risks is complex,  dynamic, and
immensely challenging from social,
political, institutional,  and economic
perspectives. In the past, conflicting
federal policies, a highly dispersed
industry, scarce resources, and political
considerations  have presented
formidable barriers to comprehensive
risk management.
  During the past five  years, however, a
number of factors have come together to
afford an opportunity to
integrate agricultural and environmental
policies, allowing for mutual
achievement of the  respective goals of
the agricultural and environmental
community: safe and affordable food,  a
prosperous farm sector, and stable,
productive ecosystems.
  As a practical matter, the successful
integration of agricultural and
environmental  policies will  be highly
cost-effective. Compensating farmers for
retiring environmentally sensitive land
from production can enhance water
quality and  habitat while at the same
time reducing farm  program costs. The
challenge  is in  bringing together such
highly diverse groups as farmers,
conservationists, and regulators, among
others, first to achieve  an understanding
and respect  for each other's  goals and
values, then to  build a  broad-based
commitment to attaining mutually
compatible objectives,  o

(Wolcott is Director, Environmental
Resource Economics Division, in (he
Office of Policy Analysis of EPA's
Office of Policy, PJanning, and
Evaluation.]
                                                                  EPA JOURNAL

-------
                                   Oil  Spill  on the  Monongahela
                                   As  the  Story  Unfolded
                                   by Ray Germann
 When a storage tank crumpled and fell,
 about a million gallons of diesel fuel
 leaked into the Monongahela River. This
 picture shows where the tank once
 stood. U.S. Coast Guard photo.
   To Ashland Oil Company workers, it
   sounded like a giant water balloon
bursting. But what they were hearing
was anything but a conventioneer's
prank. It could  easily have claimed their
lives.
  Shortly after  5 p.m. on Saturday.
January 2, a 45-foot high, partially filled
oil tank at Ashland's Jefferson Borough
facility collapsed, spilling almost a
million gallons of oil  in a matter of
seconds. As the tank's walls peeled
away, the oil fell outward in a giant
wave-like motion. This 30-foot wave of
heavy  oil surged over containment
barriers with such force that it nearly
caused a nearby tank  to collapse.
Company officials said it was
miraculous that no employees were
working in the area, for they certainly
would have been swept into the nearby
Monongahela River.
  Local volunteer firemen and
Allegheny County Emergency
Management personnel stationed in
Pittsburgh were among the first to reach
the twisted mass of pipes and  steel
mired in a lake of oil. As  they observed
the scene, they saw something which
stirred fear in even the most seasoned
veterans:  a gasoline tank less than 50
yards away appeared damaged. The
smell of gasoline was in the air.
According to Emergency Management
Director Robert Kroner, this deadly
mixture of oil and gas had the potential
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                     •;'-

-------
In the direction shown by this map,
diesel fuel oil began oozing down the
Monongahela  River on Saturday,
January 2. By  Sunday, it had covered 27
miles to reach Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
where the Monongahela joins the
Allegheny to form  the Ohio River. Work
crews used booms, barges, and barriers
to  remove or slow the advancing oil
slick.
to cause an explosion which could have
"wiped out half the town."
  Evacuation of nearby residents was
initiated. By dawn, almost 1,200 people
had been rousted from their beds and
placed in emergency Red Cross shelters.
  After several hours of sloshing
through oil-soaked muck, firemen and
county workers located the gasoline
leak. Fortunately, it was in a pipeline,
not the tank, and involved hundreds,
rather than thousands, of gallons. By 10
a.m. Sunday, lots of hard work and a
golf tee supplied by a county worker
put a stop to the gasoline leak. This
"engineering" feat took on almost
legendary status  by week's end as a
symbol of the "can do" attitude of the
Pittsburghers fighting the spill. The
evacuees were back in their homes
before noon.
  As the attention of the nation turned
towards spill clean-up efforts, Jefferson
Borough  residents were catching their
first daylight glimpses of their soiled
river. U.S. Coast  Guard Commander
Gene Miklaucic,  who had  been in
charge of the Monongahela River
cleanup throughout the night, knew the
spill was of unprecedented size. He had
already closed the river to barge traffic:
to allow  placement of booms. (The
booms, made of  plastic or absorbent
material, are used most often in coastal
waters or the open sea to catch oil
floating on the surface.) By closing the
river to barge traffic, Commander
Miklaucic was severing an economic
lifeline for many Pittsburgh area
industries. He also directed Ashland Oil
contractors to place containment booms
to control the oil oozing down-river
towards Pittsburgh, and directed tanker
trucks to the containment  areas to begin
pumping oil from the river.
                                         PENNSYLVANIA
             OHIO
                             WEST VIRGINIA
           I Huntington
                                                  VIRGINIA
  He knew time was of the essence
because three water suppliers provided
river water for tens of thousands of
people living along the 25-mile stretch
between Jefferson and Pittsburgh. Some
were better equipped to treat their
supplies than others, but  none could
continue to operate if the oil
contamination became serious.
  It was this potentially disastrous
situation that faced EPA On-Scene
Coordinator Jerry Saseen  when he
arrived Sunday morning.  Saseen, a
veteran clean-up manager with more
than 20 years' experience, was prepared
for the worst. He knew that a spill of
this magnitude  posed  a slew of
technical problems and could lead to an
explosion of political activity and media
interest.
  Before leaving his Wheeling, West
Virginia, home, Saseen called EPA's
Region 3 Office of Public  Affairs  in
Philadelphia to initiate the Agency's
efforts to provide information to the
public and press. Public Affairs staff
quickly joined him at the site and
remained until the worst of the crisis
had passed.
  Upon  arrival, Saseen assumed control
of the clean-up effort from Commander
Miklaucic, but the two continued to
work together, along with a host of
federal, state, county, and local agency
representatives.
  For the first 36 hours after the spill.
news media coverage was intense but
was mostly by local and nearby
reporters. By Monday morning,
however, reporters from all over the
                                                                                                         EPA JOURNAL

-------
 world had converged on Jefferson
 Borough and downstream
 municipalities. News bureaus as far
 away as Australia were getting hourly
 updates from reporters at the scene.
  The eyes of the world watched as
 clean-up crews fought to prevent
 millions from going without water. They
 saw a clean-up effort in full swing, with
 thousands of feet of booms in place to
 contain the spreading oil and hundreds
 of workers pumping oil from the river
 into barges and tanker trucks. But most
 viewers who saw this on TV were
 unaware that those dedicated workers
 risking frost-bite on the decks of frozen
 clean-up vessels were fighting a  losing
 battle.
  The quickly flowing river, the  oil
 mixing easily with the water, and the
 river's system of locks and dams (which
 speeded this mixing process) combined
 to hamper the clean-up effort, which
 was already plagued by arctic
 temperatures. It was clear that most of
 the oil in the river would be lost. Saseen
 called in river experts from the National
 OceSnic and  Atmospheric
 Administration and the Ohio River
 Basin Sanitation Commission to  help
 him quantify and track the spill so
 downstream communities could  be
 better prepared.
  Water suppliers began closing down
 Sunday morning as oil-contaminated
 water neared their intakes. The
 suppliers worked round-the-clock to
 find new  sources of clean water.
 Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey
 declared a state of emergency Monday,
 making state resources available  to
 assist in the water supply efforts.
  Water quality experts from EPA's
 Environmental Response Team in
 Edison, New Jersey, joined water
 companies and various authorities  to
 determine treatment technologies best
 suited to the unique circumstances.
 Pittsburgh officials and representatives
 of unaffected water suppliers worked to
 establish interconnections that could  be
 used to provide emergency water
 supplies. The Pennsylvania Emergency
 Management Agency provided "water
 buffaloes" (tanker trucks filled with
 potable water) to communities in danger
 of losing water service.
  Ashland Oil, for its part, did
 everything requested of it and more. At
 Saseen's direction, the company
 obtained four one-million gallon
 capacity barges to bring fresh water
 from the nearby Allegheny River to
 needy water suppliers.  High-ranking
 company  officials, including Chairman
of the Board John Hall, came to the
scene shortly after the spill, lending
support and promising to make
restitution for losses incurred.
  As the week progressed, eight water
suppliers in the three states along the
Monongahela and Ohio rivers (into
which the Monongahela flows) between
Jefferson Borough, Pennsylvania, and
Wheeling, West Virginia, were forced to
shut their intakes because of oil
contamination. Many of the affected
communities tried to plan for their
potential pollution problems but lacked
As the attention of the nation
turned towards spill clean-up
efforts,  area residents  caught
their first daylight glimpses of
their soiled river.
first-hand information about what they
could do.
  Finding even a minute to spare from
the clean-up effort seemed impossible,
but EPA officials realized that
face-to-face communication with these
downstream communities was
imperative. Three days after the spill,
Saseen and EPA Hazardous Waste
Management Division Director Steve
Wassersug met with state and local
officials in Wheeling. Television crews
followed them from the time their
helicopter landed at the Wheeling
airport until it departed 90 minutes
later. During that time, EPA officials
provided information and answered
questions. Community representatives
learned they were not fighting alone.
Another meeting in Huntington, West
Virginia, proved equally reassuring.
  One of the most important factors
which kept the spill from becoming a
major disaster was the cooperative spirit
and the iron will of Pittsburgh area
residents. Even before the Governor's
declaration of a state of emergency,
schools and  businesses began making
plans to conserve water and to close
down, if necessary, to make sure that
enough water would be available for
hospitals and those people, many of
them elderly, who depended on
hot-water or steam heat.  When the
situation worsened and schools  and
non-essential businesses were ordered
closed, compliance was near 100
percent.
  One could not read a newspaper or
switch on a radio or  television set
during the week of January 2-9 without
hearing pleas to conserve water. Several
stations established 24-hour call-in lines
so residents could talk  to someone who
had a basic knowledge  of the current
situation.
  No one took the oil spill lightly.
Tension was eased slightly by writing
and airing "fight songs" such as "Old
Man River" and "You Can't Hurry
Crud." The Pittsburgh Press even
created an official spill T-shirt.
  By the end of the crisis, nearly three
weeks after the  spill,  fewer than 25,000
people had gone without water for even
a short time. This was hailed as a
victory since water supplies for more
than a million people had been
threatened.
  However, the region faces the
problems of still-untold damage to the
river, which brings water  and a
livelihood to many Pittsburgh area
residents. In addition to forcing some
families out of their homes temporarily
and several thousand to go without
water in their homes  for up to a week,
the spill dealt a severe blow to the
recovery of the  Monongahela watershed.
Before the spill, an ecology once
poisoned by industrial waste was again
becoming a home for multitudes of fish
and migratory birds. Within a month of
the spill, oil in  the river water had all
but disappeared and water suppliers
were operating as usual, but there were
tons  of oil-stained sediments and
thousands of dead birds and fish.
  Of the almost one million gallons of
oil spilled, about half remains
unaccounted for and  is  presumed lost in
the environment. Studies have been
initiated to define the extent of
long-term damage but their conclusions
may  be months  or years away. Fish and
wildlife experts believe the oil spill will
set back the full recovery of the
Monongahela basin ecology by  a
number of years. No accurate estimate
of the monetary cost of  the spill and
subsequent emergency activities has
been made. The cause of the tank
collapse, which made its solid steel tear
like tin foil, is still being investigated.
  But what we do know is that the
character of the people  who fought and
lived through the spill is made of
stronger stuff, a

(Germann is Superfund Community
Relations Coordinator, EPA Region 3.J
APRIL 1988
                                                                                                                 37

-------
Environmental
Almanac:
A Tale  of  a
Big  Red  Oak

by Dennis W. Brezina
Flowers are Lovely; Love is/lower-like;
Friendship is a sheltering tree.
—From  Youth and Age,  Samuel Taylor
Coleridge
 Imagine ray surprise. In the middle of a
 meeting 1 was summoned to the phone
to hear my wife's breathless story. "I
was looking at the huge red oak out the
window," she said, "and all of a sudden
it crashed to the ground, shaking the
whole house." Thankfully, she was safe
since the tree had fallen away from the
house.
  Driving home, I thought about the
mess a  fallen oak tree must have made
in the formal gardens. The tree had
loomed somewhat menacingly over the
south slope just beyond the kitchen, its
large trunk bending down the hillside
away from the house at a precarious
angle—putting immense pressure on its
aged roots. High winds from an
unusually fierce summer thunderstorm
that afternoon toppled the majestic oak
onto an as-yet implanted part of the
gardens.
  Years before,  when clearing away the
dense thicket covering the
long-neglected flower gardens, I had
contemplated having the leaning oak
removed. Loggers came to cut down a
dozen large hardwoods on the edge of
the woods by our early 19th-century
manor house in Southern Maryland.
However, I decided not to touch the
cluster  of big trees around the house.
They had important jobs to do: give a
dignified atmosphere to the restored
manor, charm our bed and breakfast
guests,  and oversee the replanting of the
gardens.
  Now the plan was altered. What was I
to do about a tree half the length of a
football field, five feet in diameter at its
base, that was draped over the hillside?
One bed and breakfast guest teasingly
suggested that I hollow out the trunk
into another bedroom.
38
  At first I was inclined to have the
monster carted off. The intimidating
presence of the towering tree was still
very much on my mind. I  continued to
perceive it upright as the rigid
tyrannosaurus from which I  had not
been able to divert my eyes,  particularly
when I  passed near the window of the
family room upstairs. So why not get it
out of sight altogether, now that it had
fallen?
  Suprisingly, my feelings toward the
red oak began to change. As  I worked in
proximity to the tree, a kind of bond
developed. After clearing away the
smaller limbs and branches,  a half-hour
task each day for almost two months, I
decided to leave it on the  ground as a
centerpiece for that part of the gardens.
After all, the mighty oak had borne
witness to the colorful history of our
home and farm which dated back to
pre-Civil War days. Now,  as  a friend, it
deserved to stay.
  By my calculations, this old friend
went back about 125 years. (I counted
about 100 annual growth rings on the
lowest large limb, which was 75 feet
from the rotted base, suggesting that the
tree could have been 25 years old before
sprouting that limb.) As a sapling, the
oak had undoubtedly heard Colonel
Sprigg Harwood, a state legislator and
first owner of our home,  champion the
cause of the South during the Civil War.
  When the tree fell, Coleridge's
sentiment rang in my ears as I cleared
away the brush. Stripping down a trot:
might not seem like a friendly gesture.
But as I worked I knew, and 1 think the
tree did too, that I was tailoring it for a
permanent role in the yard. Of course, it
had to stay. Flowers could be planted in
beautiful patterns around the huge
trunk, once I completed sawing the
medium-sized limbs and splitting them
                                                             EPA JOURNAL

-------
into firewood. How impatient I was to
finish this task,  little realizing that it
would take more than a year with my
one-man Japanese cross-cut saw. sledge
hammer, and wedge.
  By fall, the tree's friendship helped
draw me even closer to the natural
world nearby. I  witnessed the early
signs of autumn with rapt enthusiasm.
More welcome than ever were the
grackles, doves, and robins flocking
together in response to the shorter days.
No less a thrill was watching the
ruby-throated hummingbirds pirouetting
among the end-of-summer  flowers
before taking their airborne ballet
southward. The mornings were cooler,
the days brighter.  The processes of
nature started to slow. And slow was
beautiful. Indeed,  it was so.
  Fierce snowstorms buffeted the tree,
now in its prone position,  draping it
and the surrounding slope in thick
blankets of white. I celebrated nature's
profound stillness, so typical of that
Appointments
         time of year. Juncos, white-throats.
         cardinals, and Carolina wrens flitted
         here and there to seek food in the
         grasses poking out of the nooks and
         crannies around the tree. No question,
         the fallen tree had a purpose. It was
         here for the duration.
           So was our friendship. My affection
         deepened as I grew to depend on the
         tree for more than  the enjoyment of the
         wildlife and flowers that gathered
         around it. For instance, I could jest
         about this friendship with others, saying
         that I was developing an  intimate
         relationship with an old friend and my
         wife seemed not to mind. In addition,
         the oak shielded the harsh north  winds
         while I gratefully sunned myself  now
         and then during February and
         March—an inexpensive alternative to
         vacationing in Florida. One day, when
         the snows had melted, I climbed  onto
         the trunk, carefully, or so I  thought,
         walking up and down to survey my
         domain. My slippers did not grip the
         bark firmly and I slid off the side,
                    tumbling head first into a crevice
                    between the trunk and another branch.
                    Miraculously, I was unhurt. Maybe this
                    was the tree's way of teaching me a
                    lesson. Watch your step in life, it
                    seemed to say in a friendly, caring way.
                      As a tribute to the red oak's
                    friendship and its centering effect on
                    the gardens—most especially  at iris time
                    when those bearded beauties  bloomed
                    in breathtaking profusion around the
                    trunk—I gave it  an official name. Two
                    laquered plaques—slices of one of its
                    limbs with the title burned into the
                    wood—hang  from either side  of the
                    trunk near the base. The tree  is now
                    known as the "Fallen  Oak Shopping
                    Mall." The other oaks, not to  mention
                    the beeches and hickories nearby, are
                    green with envy—well, at least for six
                    months of the year, c
                    (Brezina is a free-lance ivn'ter and
                    nature observer  from Hanvood,
                    Maryland.]
Robert H. Wayland III has
been appointed as Deputy
Assistant Administrator of
the Office of Policy,
Planning, and  Evaluation
(OPPE).
  Wayland has held a
number of vital positions
since joining the Agency  in
 1974 as a Congressional
 Liaison Officer. He was a
 Special Assistant to
 Administrator Lee M.
 Thomas and Deputy
 Administrator A. James
 Barnes. He was Director of
 the Policy and External Staff
 in the Office of Solid Waste
 and Emergency Response
 Policy and a program analyst

 APRIL 1988
in the Office of Enforcement.
  Prior to joining the Agency,
Wayland held  staff positions
in the U.S. Senate and House
of Representatives and was
Assistant to the General
Manager at the National
Transportation Safety Board.
  Wayland received his
bachelor's degree from
George Washington
University.

Donald  G. Barnes has been
appointed as the Director of
the Science Advisory Board
(SAB).
  Barnes has served as
Science Advisor to the EPA
Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Pesticides and
Toxic Substances since 1979.
From 1968 to 1979, Barnes
was an Associate Professor of
chemistry and physics at  St.
Andrews Presbyterian
College  in Laurinburg, North
Carolina.
  At EPA, Barnes has chaired
the Chlorinated Dioxin Work
Group for seven years; been a
consultant to the World
Health Organization: chaired
a group of scientists working
under the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization; and
served as a member for eight
years on the White House
inter-agency work group on
Agent Orange.
  Barnes received a
bachelor's degree in
chemistry from the College of
Wooster and his doctorate in
physical chemistry from
Florida State University. He
won the EPA Gold  Medal  in
1984 for leadership in dioxin
issues.
                              EPA's Assistant
                              Administrator for Water,
                              Lawrence J. Jensen, will be
EPA's Acting General
Counsel.
  Jensen has been with the
Agency since 1985, serving
in the Office of Water. Before
joining the Agency he served
as an Associate Solicitor lor
Energy and Resources at the
U.S. Department of the
Interior. Prior to that, he
served as the department's
Associate Solicitor for Indian
Affairs, and was a trial
lawyer in the Civil Division
of the U.S. Department of
Justice. Before coming to
Washington, Jensen was an
associate with the law firm of
                                                                                    39

-------
Jones, Waldo, Ilolbrook, and
McDonough in Salt Lake
City, Utah.
  Jensen received his
bachelor's degree in History
from the University of Utah.
and earned his law degree
from the J. Reuben Clark Law
School at Brigham Young
University,
Rebecca W. Hanmer.
currently Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Water, will
become Acting Assistant
Administrator for Water.
  Hanmer has performed in
many capacities since she
joined the Agency in 1970.
She began her career at the
Agency in the Office of
Federal Activities and
became the Director of that
office;. She has served in
Region 1 as Deputy Regional
Administrator and also in
Region 4 as Regional
Administrator. Upon
returning to headquarters,
she became a Special
Assistant to the
Administrator. I lanmer has
served as Acting
Administrator for Water
previously, and  as Director,
Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits.
  Hanmer received her
bachelor's degree from the
College of William and Mary
and her master's degree  from
The American University.
She has also  received many
awards at the Agency.
Karen V. Brown has been
named EPA's Asbestos
Ombudsman. She will focus
on asbestos-in-schools issues.
questions, and complaints.
Brown and her staff will
meet with affected
organizations and others to
explain and interpret the new
school regulations under the
Asbestos Hazards Emergency
Response Act (AHERA) and
will handle any questions or
problems they may have.
  This position as
ombudsman is not unfamiliar
to Brown; she also serves as
Small Business Ombudsman
for EPA's Office of Small and
Disadvantaged Business
Utilization. She has been
with EPA since 1981, where
she has held management
positions in the offices  of the
Administrator, Deputy
Administrator, and Assistant
Administrator for Solid
Waste and Emergency
Response.
  Prior to joining EPA.
Brown was a  chemist and
environmental specialist with
the District of Columbia's
Environmental Health
Administration and with two
business firms.
  Brown received her
bachelor's degree in biology
from the University of the
District of Columbia.
Don Clay, who has served for
two years as Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR), recently
became its Acting Assistant
Administrator.
  Clay has served as Director
of the Office of Toxic
Substances and as Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances. Prior to joining
the Agency he held
management, planning, and
engineering posts at the
Consumer Product Safety
Commission and served as
Deputy Assistant
Commissioner for Planning
and Evaluation at the Food
and Drug Administration.
  Clay received both his
bachelor's and master's
degrees in Chemical
Engineering from Ohio State
University.
Eileen Claussen, who has
served as Director of the
Office of Program
Development in OAR. has
become  Acting Deputy
Assistant Administrator in
that office.
  Claussen has served as a
consultant with Booz, Allen,
and Hamilton, Inc., and  with
the Boise Cascade Corp.  She
started her EPA career in the
                              Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
                              in 1972, where she served in
                              several positions. She became
                              Director of the OSW
                              Characterization and
                              Assessment Division in 1984
                              and stayed in that position
                              until 1987.
                               Claussen received her
                              bachelor's degree from
                              George Washington
                              University and her master's
                              degree from the University of
                              Virginia. She has received an
                              EPA award every year since
                              1973.
                                                                                         David L. Dull will take over
                                                                                         for Claussen as Acting
                                                                                         Director of the Office of
                                                                                         Program Development in
                                                                                         OAR.
  Dull has served in many
positions at the Agency.
including Staff Attorney for
Water and Hazardous
Materials Branch in Region 5;
Chief Attorney-Advisor for
Notice Review Branch, Office
of Toxic Substances (OTS);
OTS Branch Chief; and
Deputy Director of the OTS
Chemical Control Division.
Dull also served in several
positions before joining the
Agency. He has worked as an
Assistant Professor at three
major U.S. universities, as a
law  clerk with the Detroit
Edison Co., and as a Maitre
de Conferences in
Montpellier, France.
  Dull received his
bachelor's degree  in
chemistry from Pennsylvania
State University, his Ph.D in
chemistry from Stanford
University, and his J.D. from
Wayne State University Law
School. D
               EPA JOURNAL

-------
A tractor pulls plows through the
previous year's stubble to prepare for a
new crop. USDA photo.
Back cover: Gully erosion on a wheat
farm in Oregon. Cropland erosion—with
its environmental and economic
consequences—becomes increasingly a
problem when marginal lands are
brought into production during
agricultural "boom" times. Photo by
Cooperative Extension Services,
University of Idaho and Washington
State University.

-------

*

PSE3-
-




-------