The following article debunks the myths that you might encounter when reading
up on the buffer issue. It was written by a retired professional from the MPCA.
--Judy Chucker
Talking points we hear most:
One Size Fits All – It’s hard to understand how critics continue to make this
claim. The bill explicitly provides for alternative conservation measures in
cases where a 50 foot buffer does not provide water quality protection. This
includes the possibility of variable width buffers. The local soil and water
conservation district must sign off on the plan, as is only proper.
The science isn't clear – Actually, compared to many other agricultural
conservation practices, the science is pretty clear about the effectiveness of
grass buffers. The Agricultural BMP Handbook for Minnesota 2012, developed by
consultants for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, provides
research-based estimates of average pollutant removal for properly installed
grass buffers:
Pollutant
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
Number of Entries
Source
Sediment
86
76
91
6
1
Total Phosphorus
65
38
96
4
2, 3
Nitrogen
27
27
27
1
3
Atrazine
58
45
71
6
1
Metolachlor
72
68
78
6
1
Cyanazine
69
59
77
6
1
1.
– Arora et al., 1996
2.
– Webber et al., 2009
3.
– Eghball et al., 2000
Sediment: 86%; Phosphorus: 65%; Nitrogen: 27%; Atrazine: 58%; Metolachlor
(Dual): 72%; Cyanazine (Bladex): 69%
Project manager for this MDA project was Dr. Adam Birr, Ph.D. soils, U of M,
now executive director of Minnesota Corn Growers.
http://www.eorinc.com/documents/AG-BMPHandbookforMN_09_2012.pdf
It amounts to taking the land from the landowner: First of all, in most cases
the buffer strip requirement doesn’t amount to much. In two counties which are
enforcing the current buffer law – Dodge and Olmsted – county staff found that
in the majority of cases, less than an acre of land was needed to bring
landowners into compliance with the 50-foot buffer.
In general, land is held in ownership as a bundle of property rights – some
private, some public. In 1986 the state determined that the right to
continuously till land adjacent to certain streams (waters of the state) was
inconsistent with providing high quality streams. This affects only one of the
land-use rights, leaving others intact: haying, hunting, turning around
equipment, etc.
If left untilled, the riparian buffer provides important ecosystem services,
including wildlife habitat, fish food (insect) habitat, carbon sequestration,
pollutant filtering and stream corridor conservation. The 50-foot buffer
normally lies within the floodplain of the stream, meaning that the stream
occupies this land during part of the year. Access of a stream to a natural,
vegetated floodplain is required for stream health. Ecologically speaking, the
floodplain is part of the stream. Streams cannot survive simply as ribbons of
water running between dirt banks.
Looked at another way, failure of farmers to prevent field runoff to streams
incurs a cost on the public in the form of water quality impairments locally,
as well as far downstream. Farmers are in effect consuming public goods by
using streams for disposal of field runoff. In the aggregate, this cost is
huge. The public might ask why farmers should be allowed to do this without
compensating them.
No compensation exists under current programs – This is not the case. Grant
County has brought most of its landowners into compliance through extensive use
of the Conservation Reserve Program/continuous signup. Other counties could do
likewise. However, making the need to comply with state environmental laws
contingent on funding is not sound policy. Farmers have long benefitted from
taxpayer supported programs for price supports, loan guarantees, the ethanol
mandate, crop insurance and, finally, revenue insurance. In the mid-90s the
federal government developed a policy of “cross-compliance”, whereby farmers
had to comply with certain minimum conservation provisions to be eligible for
federal supports. There is no reason why states should not complement this
approach, especially considering the extent to which farm organizations
succeeded in weakening the intent of the 1985 farm bill, in which
cross-compliance was introduced.
Unfair to single out farmers – Rules affecting farmers’ right to discharge
pollutants to public waters are fewer and weaker than rules applicable to other
industrial sectors and government utilities. It is because many of these other
sectors have made significant progress in reducing their pollution that
agriculture today stands out as the state’s leading contributor of pollution to
public waters. If anything, farmers have been singled out for favorable
treatment. Ask any MPCA enforcement staff to compare working on feedlots
compared to any other industrial sector. The word “sacred cow” is bound to come
up.
We should wait and study it further – The Agricultural BMP Handbook for
Minnesota 2012 finds that filter strips (buffers) remove 76-91% of sediment,
38-96% of phosphorus, etc., based on peer reviewed research. Soil conservation
professionals are very knowledgeable about how to properly design filter
strips, together with complementary conservation practices, to ensure optimal
performance. Indeed, each riparian site needs to be “studied” in order to
design the most appropriate conservation system. However, the idea that more
research is needed to test the efficacy of buffer strips in general is
ludicrous.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Bell" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 3:03:46 PM
Subject: [mou-net] water protection
As the MOU representative To the Minnesota Environmental Partnership (MEP) I
urge you to contact your legislators to support the proposed buffer zone along
our waterways to give needed protection.
Tom Bell
Grey Cloud Island
5868 Pioneer Rd. S.
St. Paul Park, MN 55071
651-459-4150
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
----
Join or Leave mou-net: http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=mou-net
Archives: http://lists.umn.edu/archives/mou-net.html
