COMMENTARY: Conservation efforts can't fall by the wayside now

Thursday, November 3, 2005

COMMENTARY:
Conservation efforts can’t fall by the wayside now

By Caroline van Schaik

Remember the last time we had a nice rain shower, a real soaker that slowly filtered into the subsoil? No? There’s a reason: the all-day drizzle is increasingly rare. More of our moisture is coming from storm events that drop a month’s worth of rain in a few hours, says the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. We’ve seen our share of such storms in southeast Minnesota this fall. Those intense rains aren’t just hard on stressed-out farmers trying to get the crop in—they pose a significant threat to our soil. Unfortunately, public money that would help mitigate the impact of these rains has just been slashed.

We should pay attention to these rains because they are much more erosive, say scientists Jerry Hatfield and John Prueger in a paper published in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. It’s estimated that changes in precipitation patterns could be increasing erosion by as much as 95 percent in some areas. This is troubling considering the conservation strides farmers made in recent decades, thanks in large part to the adoption of such methods as minimum tillage. Farming that leaves more plant residue on the soil surface helps immensely, but Hatfield and Prueger express concern that even “state-of-the-art” soil management won’t be enough to deal with weather-induced soil erosion threats.

“We have conservation measures that were built for a climate scenario we no longer have,” Hatfield, who heads up the USDA’s National Soil Tilth Laboratory, recently told the Land Stewardship Letter.

Some farmers already utilize practices that handle intense rains well. During a study in Minnesota’s Sand Creek watershed, a dairy planted to hay and rotationally grazed pastures lost 53 pounds (a five-gallon bucket’s worth) of soil per acre during a June rainstorm. On a cornfield that had been chisel plowed— a sound conservation method—five tons of erosion per acre was still measured during that storm.

In this region, research by the University of Minnesota in cooperation with the Whitewater Watershed Project, the Pollution Control Agency, and the Multiple Benefits of Agriculture initiative showed that if we really believe in good water and saved soil, we should plant more pasture and hay: models predicted as much as a 75 percent to 90 percent reduction in sediment and nitrogen runoff when row-copped fields were converted to hay. A related Multiple Benefits of Ag study published in the journal BioScience (www.landstewardshipproject.org/programs_mba.html) found similar results in the Wells Creek sub-watershed near Frontenac.

These examples show how diverse farming that relies more on perennial plants can help deal with weather events that seem intent on moving soil and nutrients downstream at a brisk pace. But grass and hay aren’t economical without the presence of livestock. Federal programs penalize Minnesota farmers who opt not to plant corn and soybeans. Drive around with any farmers older than, say, 45, and they’ll point to operations that used to support pastures, hay and dairies. You can feel their dismay at this turn of farming in the shake of their heads.

If we are to meet the challenge of intense rainstorms, we must encourage diverse livestock and cropping systems in places like Logan Creek and Wells Creek. Recently a program that does just that came to the Root River watershed. The Conservation Security Program (CSP) pays for effective conservation on working farmlands. Well-managed pastures and hay, wildlife plantings and diverse crop rotations are now being rewarded in the Root. These measures will pay dividends to farmers and the paying public for years to come, even when those years bring intensive rains.

So why did the Senate Agriculture Committee vote Oct. 19 to gut the program financially? (CSP accounts for less that 1 percent of federal agriculture spending, but received 27 percent of the cuts.) Part of the answer lies in Committee Chairman Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ (R-GA) refusal to consider payment limits on commodity crop subsidies.

Fortunately, that is not the end of it. In November, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) will offer a commodity payment limitation amendment on the Senate floor. The savings from the $250,000 payment limit proposal would offset the cuts to conservation programs such as CSP, giving them a second chance at a time when we need them most. Sen. Mark Dayton (D-MN) supports payment limits. So far, Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has supported Sen. Chambliss’ position: no payment limits, and heavy conservation cuts. Call Sen. Coleman at 202-224-5641 and tell him to support Grassley’s amendment and save CSP.

We can’t control the rain. But we can turn its impact on the land into something positive for the people who farm that land and for everyone who pays farmers for good food and clean water.

Caroline van Schaik works in the Land Stewardship Project’s Lewiston office.

top

COMMENTARY: Conservation efforts can’t fall by the wayside now

COMMENTARY:
Conservation efforts can’t fall by the wayside now