St. Louis Post-Dispatch / April 10, 2001 / BY: Gary Mast
THE RIVER
When Charles Dickens first saw the Mississippi River in 1842, he was astounded, describing it as "an enormous ditch, running liquid mud at 6 miles per hour and obstructed everywhere by huge logs and whole forest trees."
It's a classic description of unchecked soil erosion. We're doing better than that today, not just with the Mississippi River, but also with smaller rivers and streams throughout America, thanks to improvements farmers have made in the way they manage their lands. We can do more, however.
Dickens lived in grimy old London, so he knew about stuff that flowed out of factories and sewers into the River Thames. We'd call that "point-source" pollution today. For the past half-century, American industry, taxpayers and consumers have been paying to reduce pollution from known points. And we've made great progress.
Now the attention is turning to so-called "non-point source" pollution. It's the stuff that's in our rivers and streams, but it can't be pinpointed to a specific site of entry. Sediment, fertilizer and pesticides from farm fields are major contributors. Several governmental initiatives are working to reduce the non-point source pollutants in streams.
Sediment loss may be the most serious pollutant. Sedimentation chokes aquatic life, spoils streams for recreation and poses problems for water treatment facilities. Manure, pesticides and fertilizer attached to soil particles also enter the stream.
These pollutants can be reduced, and soil and water conservation districts and the Natural Resource Conservation Service have been working with farmers for half a century to implement sound practices on farms. Buffer strips can be planted along streams. Trees can be planted to firm up river banks. And grass can be planted in the waterways that drain fields.
Millions of acres of farmland have been converted to conservation tillage or no-till. Instead of plowing and disking their fields every year, farmers leave the stubble from the harvested crop to hold topsoil in place. Using modern seed drills, they plant through the stubble. No-till, in combination with other practices, greatly reduces farm field runoff.
Another technique is to plant a "cover crop" in the fall, after harvest. This planting of rye or oats is done solely to hold topsoil in place during the winter. When the cover crop is dead in the spring, seeds are planted through it.
Such practices are costly or require special knowledge and commitment. In the case of buffer strips, farmers must take productive land out of production. Cover crops involve time and purchase of seed.
Although all of society benefits if farmers take these steps, currently only the farmer pays. Unlike point-source pollution, where a manufacturer can pass along the increased environmental costs, farmers cannot. They have no control over the prices paid for their commodities. In fact, farmers are getting about the same price for a bushel of corn that they received in 1978, actually a few cents less. Compare that with the price increases for pollution-controlled cars or electricity from environmentally regulated power plants.
Society is demanding cleaner streams and purer water, and government is responding with initiatives mandating improvements. The best way to reach the goal is for the government to provide stewardship incentive payments or "green payments." If a farmer converted his land to no-till, he would receive a per-acre payment. The addition of buffer strips or grassy waterways would trigger another payment. Planting a cover crop would be another incentive. The program should also provide technical support and reward farmers who already apply conservation practices.
Americans have spent billions to clean up industrial pollution, but little has been done to help solve farm-related environmental issues. Americans want the cheapest and safest food and the cleanest water possible. They want wildlife to thrive in rural areas. Green incentives, provided through the next farm bill, would involve everyone in achieving these goals. That's as it should be. We are all in this together.
NOTES: COMMENTARY Gary Mast, Millersburg, Ohio, is first vice president of the National Association of Conservation Districts and a dairy farmer who uses conservation practices.
Copyright 2001 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Inc.:
