-
Why Bother
Deanna's article this week was Dead On. I work in environmental compliance for our counties largest employer. Because of my job, I was appointed by the MPCA to serve on an advisory board for a TMDL for the Minnesota River. The Minnesota has many problems. The TMDL was specifically to look at and reduce sources of phosphorous during 5 year low flow periods. The last event was 8 years ago and had an impact of 2 weeks. Phosphorous is an issue also during high flow periods. Why was this rather insignificant event targeted? The sources of phosphorous during low flow are from point sources. These sources are regulated. There is a potential for an ax over the neck.
The agricultural industry has a fair political clout in rural America. If we are ever to see improvement in overall river quality, we sportsmen are going to have to get more involved. We have to develop our own clout to get the attention of regulators.
Thanks Deanna - Keep up the good work
-
As a farmer and a fisherman, I'm torn on this one. I'm not sure what they're farming to have posphorous levels that high (seems it might even be reaching a level that is detrimental to the crop)m but I suspect more that they just aren't rotating, or able to rotate plantings as well as they should.
As a fisherman, my interest lies in protecting the environment of my passion. As a farmer (and I don't rely on farming to make my living), I know how critically important the Industry is toour economy, and the incredible difficulties that already exist in the second oldest profession on Earth.
Its going to come down to money, eventually (likely long after we're dead and gone), and at that point, we fishermen will lose. Agriculture is an economic producer, whereas fishing is not (at least it is negligible when compared to agriculture).
I don't know what the solution is (I suspect there actually isn't one, in the long run, most improbably). But I also suspect that this is an indication of inefficiency, and the beginning echos of a death-knell for the small farmer (500 acres and less). The solution, to me, appears to be more efficient rotation. If you have a small farm (less than 500 acres, and depending on the crop, that could not be enough either), you simply can't rotate enough to produce a profitable crop each year.
So, if that is actually the scenario, do you sht down the family farm, or do you shut down the fisherman?
Or....and here is an interesting consideration...do you invest in research/infrastructure for solutions that might accomodate both?
In my mind, I think that ultimately the best we can hope for is to postpone the inevitable. We have an obligation to do that, even if we know what the ultimate outcome will be.
------------------
Kramer
Oh, I'm out there baby! And I'm loving every minute of it!
-
Great article, LF.
In my opinion it is much easier for all of us to blame problems on people so far away (them) that we can excuse our own inaction by saying we can't make a difference. Thus we feel no guilt. Many organizations ( for example Trout Unlimited) are proving that people can make a difference at the local level. The solutions may not be perfect but they are infinitely better than doing nothing. Your call to action is VERY important.
-
It is indeed a very complicated issue. I am trying to be accusatory, and am in no means placing blame only on farmers. MPCA modeling would indicate that more sediment and fertilizer runnoff comes from urban storm drains than from ag land. When rainfall lands on roof tops, and asphalt, traditionally there is little to slow it down and thus deposit sediment before the water enters a stream. The technical solution is to slow the water down, allow infiltration, and/or filtration to remove sediments. We drained the wet lands - we need to create something to replace them.
Politically the answers are more complicated. Regulations exist for Pollution Control Agencies to control industries and municipalites that discharge through a pipe. Put in a pipe, you first get a permit. To get a permit, you meet certain standards. Stuff comming out of pipe is easily measurable.
In Southwestern Minnesota, they can't even tell you how many improper individual septic systems exist, or heaven forbid, who owns them. They just know that many of the small streams don't meet fecal coliform standards.
I don't have answers, a year ago, I didn't have a clue about the issues. I have gotten involved with local watershed groups, I attend PCA Information Meetings, and will be joining some of the local save the river groups. White43 will laugh and tell you that I am just sucking up as a representative of bad guy industry, but he will also tell you that I love to fish. My kids love to fish, and my grandkids love to fish. I want to protect some for them.
Thanks for providing a forum for me to rant.
Dennis
-
I'm dyslexic - and not much of a proof reader!! I really am NOT trying to be accusatory!
-
Kramer,
We're talking primarily about hay crops and chicken farming...two of the absolute worst agricultural offenders in terms of runoff phosphorous contamination. But here's the crux of the problem as I see it:
1. Most of Northern AR is coming under a mitigation plan to reduce phosphorous runoff from ag. Waste-water treatment plants (the #2 offender in the White River Basin) have recently come into voluntary compliance with much stricter standards of Phosphorous emissions. Obviously, the plan is not unworkable or too big a burden for the REST of Northern Arkansas...just the Crooked Creek watershed.
2. The reason being given for exempting the CC watershed farms is simply this: the water from CC doesn't leave the state of AR until it flows down the Miss River into LA. If it doesn't leave the state, none of the neighboring states can sue. FYI, what triggered most of the water quality initiatives in AR in recent years has been a successful lawsuit by the State of Oklahoma against AR, and threats from MO to do likewise if AR didn't take appropriate action. So what these AR farmers, politicians, and political appointees are saying is, "If we're only polluting AR, then we can keep on polluting. Woo-hoo!"
3. Contrary to what you may believe about fishing and ag, sport fishing is a HUGE economic influence in SWMO and Northern AR...especially trout and bass fishing. Ask anyone who lives in or visits the region very often. In the tourism town of Branson alone (a mere fraction of what goes on in the Mountain Home, AR area!), the Missouri Dept. of Conservation (MDC) estimates trout fishing (not nearly as big as bass fishing) contributes $13 million/year to the local economy. I bet bass fishing in the Tri-Lakes region easily surpasses that 10 times over...maybe quite a bit more. Now move on downstream of CC to the Cotter, Flippin, Mountain Home, Norfork area of AR and you will see that the combined economic impact of trout, bass, and striper fishing is probably on par with the ag impact for the same region; and that it DWARFS our paultry take from fishing here in MO!
4. The point is that sport fishing IS big business, but it always seems to be taking a back seat to the powerful ag and hydropower lobbies in the region. And it's high time the tables were turned a bit more in favor of protecting these world-reknowned fishery resources.
------------------
Fishing the Ozarks
-
Consider this, I live in a different country in fact the other side of the world. Not so many years ago I was a small dairy farmer we had no subsidies no kickbacks rebates or anything else that would have made life a little easier. One thing I did establish as the soil was mostly made up of pumice and perlite which would more likely turn to concrete than pug(ie harsh volcanic pyroclastic soil)was a wetland for effluent from the cowshed, this worked wonderfully with flaxes and bog plants, not only was it working well but it encouraged birdlife and we had lizards where no lizards were meant to be. Over the number of years the soil surrounding it build up naturally into a rich tenable topsoil. The coliform levels at the far end of it was the same as soil from another part of the farm which was not only on top of a hill but never fertilised either. Along came legislation the effluent pond and subsequent wetlands had to be demolished by order of local government we had to dig a new oxidation pond lined with concrete and rubber with a cap on it. The sludge had to be cleaned regularly and put somewhere which meant it got sprayed on the soil, which in the area means everytime it rains the topsoil goes too. The birds went and the reptiles did as well, we paid over a $1000 a year just in permits for the privilege of having a ruddy great pond of filth.
Unfortunately many farmers around the world believe that fertiliser is the way to go, its expensive and if the soil isnt looked after properly or isnt of great humus quality run off will occur, in some ways local government isnt helping.
In short, we took the long term approach and conditioned the soil rather than throwing fertiliser at it, it was costly in terms of grass growth but worth it, in the end government legislation and well meaning but short sighted environmentalists put us out of business in the way we wanted to farm. It is easy to forget each soil type and each region is different what works for one may not work for another and in extreme cases be detrimental
No matter where in the world you are there are well intentioned people on both sides. Maybe education in other types of farming could be the key? Or dairy farmers learning to grass feed as opposed to cereal feed or planting species which will retain runoff. You never know.
[This message has been edited by Jo (edited 25 January 2005).]
-
Jo is dead-on to what I alluded to in my post. Shutting down the farmer, or shutting down the fisherman is only a temporary fix that will ultimately result in an imbalance that we may or may not be able to reverse. Those type "solutions" don't actually address the problem, they only shift the burden. The only viable, real, long-term solution is to find a way for both to coexist.
Agriculture is Arkansas' 2nd most productive industry (trailing only the manufacturing of all durable goods produced in Arkansas). That being the case, the farmer is going to win this round if it is approached as an "us against them" issue.
I wonder what would happen if local TU chapters invested in researching alternative farming methods, or crops. For example, there isn't much farmed timber, and certainly very little growth in that industry in Arkansas. Imagine a TU chapter actively supporting and assisting the timber farmer, and aggresively trying to grow the Industry.
It won't happen, but it would produce better results. They just wouldn't be tangible NOW, so it won't be considered viable.
------------------
Kramer
Oh, I'm out there baby! And I'm loving every minute of it!
-
Nobody has said anything about shutting down the farmers in the CC watershed or elsewhere in AR. The plan which has been devised by NRCS and EPA to reduce Phosph. runoff is being adopted across N AR. They're simply trying to exempt the CC watershed farmers...about 2 dozen of them. Their ONLY argument for WHY they want the exemption is that CC water never leaves the state, so they won't be sued for bad water.
CC is a Blue Ribbon Smallmouth stream and it empties into the White River (trout fishery) at Cotter, AR. CC has been the scene of a lengthy and controversial fight over gravel mining for the past decade or more, also. CC's environmental significance should not be overlooked just because they can't be sued by a neighboring state over it. In point of fact, ONE SINGLE RESIDENT of the state who uses CC in some way could file the same sort of lawsuit that the state of OK won vs. the state of AR over the same issue.
I grew up on farms. I've managed farms for wildlife benefit and production. I KNOW they can coexist, and so do our conservation organizations and gov't regulatory bodies. A lot has changed since the 1970s days of antagonism. NO ONE has stated that the proposed regulations will put farmers out of business. They're simply arguing that if they can't be sued by a neighboring state then there is no sense in reducing the pollution. That is a TERRIBLE reason to seek an exemption.
------------------
Fishing the Ozarks
-
And if that is the case, kiss those waters goodbye.
That's been my point all along. There is really little debate on which side will win this issue if it is approached as "us against them." In that scenario, the farmers have obviously already won the battle, thus the proposed action. And if the approach continues to be an "us against them" issue, they will win the war as well.
The proposed action is a fine example of the scenario you cite JC. Its a "fix it for today" solution that does nothing but shift the burden of a problem we still aren't dealing with.
I don't believe that over the course of time, recreational fishing will ever supplant the requirements and benefits of agriculture. Were we dealing with commercial waters, the outcome would be uncertain, but we aren't. From an economic standpoint, one is a major contributor, while the other is merely a distraction.
Without cooperation and mutually beneficial solutions, we're only prolonging the inevitable. We aren't changing anything. Those streams may not die in my lifetime, but unless we change something, they're going to die. And shutting down the farmers isn't a practical solution. It simply isn't going to be allowed to happen.
Cooperation and compromise are our best hope, IMO.
------------------
Kramer
Oh, I'm out there baby! And I'm loving every minute of it!