By WESLEY D. SEITZ
Reducing soil loss
Ag Task Force plans water cleanup NATURE can't create a river without getting the water dirty. This basic fact has to be remembered in understanding and dealing effectively with water pollution. The water that fills our streams, rivers, lakes and reservoirs comes from rainwater which drains off the land or leaches through the soil. The problem is that when water flows over land or through soil, it gets "dirty" — it always has and it always will. Another fact that must be considered is that some of the substances which are classed as water pollutants when present in high concentrations are necessary, at lower levels, to support aquatic life. The challenge in cleaning up our streams is to maintain an acceptable level of water quality while at the same time allowing the production of food and fiber and other needed goods. In the case of agriculture, farming activities change the natural system's operation. Some changes have adverse impacts on the ecosystem, and thus it is necessary to modify the way in which agricultural activities interact with other natural processes. If Illinois could change its farming practices to reduce soil loss by 100 million tons per year, the state would be one step closer to cleaning up its streams and rivers. Sediment eroded from fields, suspended in water and deposited in lakes and riverbeds is an example of "nonpoint pollution" — so called because the pollutants do not come from a single source like a factory or a sewage plant but are carried in runoff from large areas like farms, cities, mines and construction sites. Along with sediments, possible pollutants from agricultural sources include pesticides, plant nutrients (fertilizers) and livestock wastes as well as runoff from fruit production and forestry activities. Agricultural nonpoint pollution problems are the proverbial "can of worms" — a tangle of relationships among natural processes, economic need and agricultural technology. Since the physical characteristics of farms are so varied, a common solution to pollution problems does not exist; solutions must be tailored to individual farms. Also, there are instances where reducing one problem makes another worse. Essentially, the job is to limit the degree to which crop production increases the natural process of soil erosion. The recently completed process of creating a plan to control agricultural pollution in Illinois is similarly complex and requires careful examination. The process involved the federal Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the state Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), federal, state and local agriculture officials and many farmers, environmentalists and other citizens in the potentially controversial work of cleanwater planning. It all began in 1972 when the goal of fishable and swimable lakes and streams was established by the federal government with the passage of amendments (Public Law 92-500) to the Water Pollution Control Act. The planning activities under discussion here are known as "208 planning" reflecting the section number of the act requiring it. From 1972 to 1976 the USEPA's highly publicized activities under the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 were directed toward the control of pollutants discharged by industrial and municipal sources. Millions of dollars of federal aid were provided to reduce the pollution load from these "point" sources. Several years ago it became clear that this effort would not achieve the desired water quality goals because of the pollutants generated from diffuse or, as termed in the act, "nonpoint" sources. Thus the USEPA began the 208 planning process to develop means to control runoff from urban areas, construction sites, mining areas and agricultural production activities. Rather than doing the planning at the federal level, the states were required to designate those areas with substantial nonpoint problems. As a result, plans for the control of these problems were initiated by regional planning agencies: the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago; the Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan and Regional Planning Commission, East St. Louis; and the Greater Egypt and Southeastern Illinois Regional Commission, covering a 10-county mining area in southern Illinois. Subsequently, the Natural Resources Defense Council was successful in a suit forcing the USEPA to require such planning efforts in the remainder of the areas. The state of Illinois selected the IEPA as the lead agency to direct the planning activities and control the funds for the nondesignated areas of the state. A total of over $10 million was allocated to the state to support the area and statewide efforts. The IEPA had used citizen task forces to develop plans or policy statements on several previous occasions. Based on this experience, and due to the federal requirement that planning include public participation, several citizen bodies were formed to develop plans for controlling nonpoint pollution. The charge from the USEPA to the IEPA was given to two task forces: the Task Force on Urban Stormwater (including cities outside of the East St.
WESLEY D. SEITZ 18/June 1978/Illinois Issues Louis and Chicago areas) and the Task Force on Agricultural Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution. The 75-member agricultural task force, chaired by James Frank, IEPA's agricultural advisor, held its first meeting in July 1976. The task force was divided into six working subcommittees. Reports from the subcommittees were reviewed by the task force and approved for distribution to five regional advisory committees consisting of farmers, agricultural representatives, local officials and other interested citizens. In addition, a Technical Advisory Committee and a Statewide Policy Advisory Committee reviewed and commented on both the agricultural and the urban cleanwater plans, which were also reviewed by the IEPA. This process involved about 250 people — most of them agriculturally oriented — in developing the agricultural plan, and numerous citizens were briefed during the 22-month planning process through a monthly newsletter and several "telenet" programs. In March 1978, the preliminary plans of the agricultural task force were presented and discussed in a series of public meetings across the state, further increasing the number of citizens involved.
The task force's plan was developed in three components: (1) a problem assessment completed in May 1977; (2) a list of "best management practices" which can be used in various combinations to control soil loss and other problems, submitted in November 1977, and (3) the preliminary report recommending control measures and the means to implement them, released for public comment in March. The task force is now engaged in completing the final version of its plan which it hopes to present to the IEPA early this summer. After being reviewed and perhaps modified by the IEPA, the plan goes to Gov. James R. Thompson for his consideration. It will then be submitted to Region V of the USEPA for approval in the spring of 1979. Once approved, it must be funded and any statutory changes implemented by the Illinois General Assembly. This article focuses on task force recommendations concerning the closely related problems of soil erosion, plant nutrients and pesticides — and on two other important areas: what farmers think about soil loss control and what the people involved in the planning activities thought about the process itself. Soil erosion is recognized by the task force as one of the basic problems. It is estimated that the gross soil loss in Illinois averages over 180 million tons per year. Not all of this gets into the waters of the state; in fact, less than half of it probably does. The rest settles out before it reaches a stream, perhaps on low-lying land, perhaps in a drainage ditch. Of the 180 million tons, almost 140 million comes from the surface of cropland, 10 million comes from pasture, 5.5 million from forest and 4 million from other agricultural land. In addition, approximately 7 million tons may be eroding from stream banks and 9 million from gullies on all classes of land. It is estimated that over 10 million acres of cropland average less than three tons of soil loss per acre per year, a level that is generally believed to be acceptably low. All counties have some of this type of acreage: Hardin County has the least with 4,600 acres, and Iroquois the most with 295,000 acres. All counties also have some cropland with an average soil loss of over 10 tons per acre per year: 31 counties have cropland with over 30 tons and another 22 have cropland with over 50 tons of soil loss per acre per year. Over 1.7 million acres of Illinois cropland average more than 20 tons per acre per year of soil loss. If these losses were reduced to generally accepted limits set for maintenance of productivity — 3 to 5 tons per acre per year — surface soil losses would drop by 104 million tons, on the average, per year from all agricultural land in the state. The largest reductions would occur in LaSalle, Randolph, Henry, Adams and Jefferson counties: Each would experience a reduction in loss of over 2 million tons. Alexander County is the only county that would experience
June 1978/Illinois Issues/19
an estimated reduction of less than 100,000 tons. It should be obvious that the problem of soil erosion is experienced throughout the state and that there are areas without problems similarly scattered. In addition, the problem is not uniform within counties or even on single farms. It is common to find individual fields with both high and low soil loss rates, primarily because the slopes are not uniform. Erosion also varies from year to year and during the year. Heavy erosion episodes occur when heavy rainstorms fall on susceptible soil unprotected by vegetation. Sediment carried from fields to streams has adverse effects on water quality. Suspended sediment reduces light penetration, impairing plant growth and lowering visibility for sight-feeding fish. It is also a safety hazard for recreation users of water and increases wear on pumps and boat motors. It lessens the esthetic appeal of water and generally increases treatment costs for municipal and industrial uses. Deposited sediment takes up space in reservoirs designed to store water, creates undesirable shallow areas in lakes, covers fish spawning areas and reduces the productivity of aquatic organisms on which fish and waterfowl depend. It also obstructs drainage and navigation — making expensive dredging necessary — and increases flood damage. Sediment can carry disease and infectious organisms, as well as heavy metals, pesticides and plant nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) into the water. Of these, pesticides and plant nutrients are most closely related to agricultural activities and got the most attention from the task force.
The plant nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, cause problems when they are present in lakes and reservoirs in excessive quantities. They stimulate the growth of algae and aquatic plants, to the extent that this surplus growth cannot be supported and dies. When the mass of plant life dies, the decomposition process uses all of the oxygen in the water and fish die. Thus, the nutrients so necessary for the aquatic ecosystem can result in its destruction. This process does occur naturally, but the buildup of sediment, creating shallow, weedy areas, and the addition of the nutrients can cause eutrophication to occur many, many years earlier than it would under natural conditions. The plant nutrient subcommittee pointed out that a direct relation between fertilizer use and water quality has not been established. In areas of the state where the level of nitrogen in streams is high, there are also high levels of organic matter in the soil, a natural source of nitrogen in streams. The subcommittee further states that if there is a problem relating to nitrogen fertilizer use, it is much more likely to come from too much fertilizer applied at the wrong time than from appropriate applications needed for crop production. The subcommittee also found that a major cause of excessive phosphorus losses may be applications of fertilizer at rates beyond that necessary for crop production. However, it is likely that even if application rates were at levels needed for crop production and if all appropriate soil conservation measures were used, the phosphorus level might still exceed the standard. The way plant nutrients move off the land and into the water further complicates the problem. Phosphorus is bound tightly to soil particles and thus moves off the land with the soil when soil erosion occurs. Nitrogen, in contrast, leaves the soil both with surface runoff water and with the water that filters through the soil. Since soil conservation practices generally control erosion by reducing surface runoff and increasing infiltration, they will likely reduce phosphorus but may increase nitrogen losses to streams. An analogous situation exists with pesticides. Some are soluable in water and others are bound to soil particles. Also, some soil conservation practices, for example minimum or zero tillage (which leaves a protective cover of crop residue on the ground), require heavier use of pesticides to control weeds and insects. On the other hand, a shift in crop rotations to control erosion may 20/June 1978/Illinois Issues also result in reduced insect problems. The extent of the pesticide problem has been reduced by the ban of certain pesticides, such as DDT, which are highly persistent and which tend to accumulate in certain species of fish. Since residues of these substances still remain in the soil, they continue to enter the waters of the state. With the use of pesticides that degrade more rapidly and that do not accumulate in fish, the problem of pesticides from agricultural activities in fish has probably been. reduced. However, a more intensive monitoring system may find that some problems do exist, and data should be gathered on the acceptibility of new pesticides prior to their use in Illinois. Other problems associated with pesticides relate to the disposal of the approximately one million five-gallon pesticide containers that are used each year and the proper disposal of rinse water from sprayers. Since these containers are used on almost every farm in the state, it is very difficult to control how they are handled. Improper disposal of a container with concentrate in it, or the improper dumping of rinse water, can cause a fish kill because of the heavy dose possible. The second major activity of the task force was to lay out the techniques that can be used to control pollution from agricultural sources. In the terminology of the federal law, these are "best management practices" (BMP), the problem solution that is most reasonable from technical, economic and social perspectives. The federal EPA recognized the complexity of the problem when it said, "A practice or mix of practices that could be a feasible solution to a potential pollution problem in one situation, may not be feasible in another, or even may aggravate the problem. Thus, the feasible, implementable BMP, must be determined on a site-by-site basis with full consideration of overall management objectives." Each of the subcommittees of the task force developed a long list of practices that could be used in various situations. In the soil erosion case, these practices include changes in crop rotation — perhaps from continuous row crops to a rotation with wheat, oats or hay included; the installation of terraces, contours, grass waterways, etc., and the adoption of conservation tillage which minimizes the number of trips a farmer makes over his fields disturbing protective crop residues and turning over the soil. A change from moldboard plowing (which turns the ground over to a depth of 8 to 10 inches and leaves it without a protective residue) to chisel plowing (which leaves some residue from the previous crop) or zero tillage (in which spring planting is done through last year's crop residues without seedbed preparation) would do much to control soil losses. Paralleling the complex interaction of problems, the appropriate remedy is often not a single change but a series of modifications, termed by the task force a "best management system." Since the appropriate system varies from farmer to farmer, there must be great flexibility in
June 1978/Illinois Issues/21 any program to control soil erosion. While there are exceptions, as discussed above, the reduction of soil erosion will also reduce plant nutrient and pesticide losses. Control of soil erosion was identified by the subcommittee on pesticides as a major technique to control pesticide losses. The pesticide subcommittee also identified procedures for handling the pesticides and pesticide containers in order to avoid contamination of waters. In addition, pesticide use can be reduced by crop rotations which also slow the development of resistance to the pesticide and prolongs its effective use. The plant nutrient group indicated the appropriate rates for and timing of fertilizer applications. Such decisions can be made based on soil tests to determine additions necessary to meet crop needs. It is clear that the major thrust of the task force is to rely on a voluntary program using existing organizations and agencies. The University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service is identified as an appropriate organization to conduct an expanded education program. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service would continue to administer the cost-sharing programs aimed at encouraging more rapid adoption of controls. A statewide conservation program would be developed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, and local soil and water conservation districts would encourage farmers to adopt practices necessary to meet soil loss goals. Soil loss goals set by the subcommittee on soil erosion proposed to reach the approved tolerance limits (an average of 3 to 5 tons per acre per year) by the year 2020. When the goal is reached, no soil losses would exceed these limits established to maintain the productivity of the soil. Proposed interim goals are an average maximum soil loss of 10 tons per acre per year by 1990 and 7 tons by 2010. The task force believes this would substantially reduce the amount of sediment in Illinois rivers. The pesticide group advocates the appointment of a board to supervise and coordinate existing agencies and activities and a research program to test new pesticides. It advocates an expanded educational program dealing with pesticide use, alternatives and container disposal. Plant nutrient recommendations are also in the area of increased education and research. On April 24 the Task Force on Agricultural Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution voted on final recommendations for all phases of its plan except soil erosion. It called for voluntary control measures very much along the lines of the preliminary report described in this article. The soil erosion subcommittee requested more time to discuss possible revisions, including: (1) shortening of the time allowed for total implementation of soil loss goals and closer spacing of interim goals; (2) a more detailed description of agency responsibilities, and (3) a consideration of incentives — such as tax incentives — which would encourage conservation practices without altering the voluntary nature of the plan. If the subcommittee's final proposals are not approved by the task force, another meeting will be called. What happens after the plan is submitted depends on the policy makers — the IEPA, the governor, the USEPA, the Illinois General Assembly — and, ultimately, on the farmers.
21/June 197 8/Illinois Issues
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
