Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agriculture. Show all posts
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Riparian Buffer Analysis
A while ago I wrote about buffer zones, water quality, and agriculture. This is a quick update on that. I've been working on a research project that looked at different types of imagery analysis to determine if there is a good way to identify potential violators for inspection or closer monitoring. The short answer is, not the way I did it but there probably is a way, it just isn't likely worth the extra time and cost. Visual inspection of imagery is relatively easy, fast, and accurate enough (and much cheaper than some of the other program-based alternatives). I've written it up formally, available upon request, but thought I'd post an annotated figure that gives the general idea of the methods and findings.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Farmland and Conservation
In much of the country, including here in Minnesota, farming is a major economic activity. It is also a major source of water pollution in the form of nutrient and sediment runoff as well as pesticide contamination. While farming is necessary to feed a nation, and large scale farming is generally more efficient at producing food than small scale production (as is the case with most industrial enterprises), the way it is often undertaken in this country, and in particular the way that it is practiced in the Midwest, South, and California, is highly problematic from environmental, nutritional, and economic perspectives.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Yet another news roundup
More substantive posts are coming, I promise, now that work is back to a normal level.
This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.
Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.
Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.
This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.
Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.
Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)