U report proposes new approach to farm pollution

Environmentalists and farmers in Minnesota have been working--sometimes apart, sometimes together--to address farm runoff that impacts the state's lakes and waterways, whether due to sediment, bacteria or nutrients. There has been a lot of debate over how to go about making changes that protect water, but aren't so onerous as to put farmers out of business.

We covered a bit of the tug and pull, including competing scientists, here as part of Ground Level's new exploration of community issues surrounding water quality.

Since "nonpoint" pollution sources, including most individual farms, tend not to be regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, advocates and regulators have encouraged farmers to voluntary adopt conservation measures. Some of these have been incentivized by efforts like the Conservation Reserve Program, and many farmers in the state have taken ecological steps despite the siren call of high corn and soybean prices.

But now, with a growing stack of water quality studies yielding disappointing results, some environmental advocates argue that voluntary efforts aren't enough and tougher measures are needed. One interesting proposal--made in the comprehensive if underappreciated Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework report completed in January by the U's Deborah Swackhamer--is to establish agricultural management areas or AMAs.

[image]

The idea is to group together farmers within each of the state's 81 watersheds. The AMAs would function like mandatory co-ops and would be charged with meeting the watershed's pollution reduction goals. According to the framework, which was commissioned by the 2009 Legislature, the AMA plan could include matching funds to offset the cost of conservation measures.

The proposal is interesting because while overall reductions would be mandatory, the farmers within each AMA would have the autonomy to determine together how best to solve pollution problems. Writes Swackhamer, "This recommendation provides flexibility and self-determination for farmers, and the solution is performance-based rather than proscriptive to the farmer. It avoids treating each farm as a point source requiring its own permit."

Kris Sigford, water quality program director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, sees promise in AMAs. "It should be the next thing we try," she says. "I understand the benefit in setting the overall reduction goals and in having some flexibility in how we meet them." Her concern is that watersheds often include multiple counties and other management entities that could be difficult to coordinate. "The model could be successful," she says, "but it would require that we have more consistent watershed districts throughout the state."

Warren Formo, who represents farmers in his role as executive director for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Resources Coalition, also thinks AMAs could be a step in the right direction. "I think it's absolutely awesome to be thinking of agricultural management areas," he says. "We have to look at agriculture more specifically, rather than in generalities. Looking at each farm and an area and how farms are managed in that area is a better approach than just 'Ag is the problem.' This opens the door to a more productive discussion."

His ongoing support, however, would depend on how AMAs are defined. "It depends on the scale," he says, adding that he'd favor smaller, even more specific management areas. "The bigger the scale gets the harder it will be to manage."

Sigford and Formo, both of whom provided input to Swackhamer's framework, think some version of the AMA in Minnesota is likely. Sigford suggests it may take a different Legislature to get the idea off the ground. While Formo says, "It's out there. I would expect that over the next year it will continue to creep into discussions about water management and quality."

• Annandale watches special session for broadband help
• DNR pushes ahead with its groundwater planning
• Broadband providers seek $44 million from state fund
• Shifting rain could be lowering groundwater