Juxtaposition: The Farmer's Dilemma with BMPs for stream health

Photo Source: John Boyd , 1910 Available at: http://www.archives.gov.on.ca/english/on-line-exhibits/agriculture/pics/3403_farmer_strw_hat_1020.jpg

The Context:
A juxtaposition is defined by merriam-webster dictionary as: "the act or an instance of placing two or more things side by side; also : the state of being so placed." The farmer is in juxtaposition between a rock and a hard place.

A farmer doesn't set out farming in the morning with the goal of destroying the land he and his family relies on for their daily bread. Neither does he purposefully degrade the streambanks or pollute the water of the streams running through his property. In the morning he sets out to provide for himself and his family, "me and mine", and to keep a balance between what he owes to the bank and what he needs to survive. For centuries farmers have been allowing cattle to wade in streams, as this is a free source of water for the farmers to use to water their cattle. He isn't a bad person because he lets his cattle wade and drink from the stream, he is just making do with what he has. Neither is he to be despised because he spreads manure and fertilizer on his fields and the nitrates, phosphorus, and bacteria end up in the surface waters, causing crippling impairment for the aquatic life within. He is just farming the way that he knows how to in order to meet his budget.

It is well understood that agricultural activities are linked tightly with water pollution and stream degradation. ( Agouridis, C. T., 2005; Withers, P. J., & Hodgkinson, R. A., 2009) Some of the common problems which streams face due to pollutants running from agricultural land are, increased BOD due to nitrate, phosphorus and microbe contamination, algal blooms, sediment loading, and decrease in overall health of aquatic life in the streams. For further information about causes and effects of streambank erosion and sedimentation please see blog entry, published on 12 January 2010, entitled "A systems model of streambank erosion".

There has been a lack of understanding of the farmer's point of view in discussions of farming and its effects on the environment (Barnes, 2009). The media has made the farming community seem like uneducated, senseless and stubborn minded simpletons who hate nature and treehuggers. That is an unjust and clichéd misrepresentation of this demographic of people in our nation. Many farmers know that their farming practices are taxing the land and the streams. They watch as year after year their soil is depleted of nutrients and ever increasing amounts of their land is scoured and sent down stream. A farmer knows when his land is disappearing or decreasing in fertility, he knows his land like the back of his hand. He knows that just like the wrinkles in his face, trenches on his land that are formed from the erosion of his fields are deepening every year.

Through the Farm Bill the federal government provides grants and tax incentives in order for farmers to implement and maintain Best Management Practices (BMPs) for pollution prevention and control and for streambank stabilization and erosion control. Since these programs have been implemented hey have showed little long term success, despite millions of dollars of funding. However, in Augusta County, Virginia there is proof of successful long term implementation of BMPs.

Behavior Over Time:
* Implementation of BMPs across the US and in Augusta Co. , Virginia.
* Funding for BMPs by the federal government
* Funding for BMPs by the Virginia state government
* Financial pressure on farmers
a. Income
b. Real Estate Tax Increase
c. Operating expenses
* Stream water quality indices for Augusta Co., Virginia

Policies:
The Farm Bill 2009 - Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

Potential Issues or Concerns:
Problems from this policy are that the policy was previously underfunded and previously had a substantial failure in implementation and maintenance.

Study Purpose:
The purpose of this study is to determine what factors are influencing the decisions of farmers to implement the EQIP program or other BMPs presented by the federal or Virginia governments. It will also determine if there are any counter-balancing effects at play that cause the BMPs to eventual fail in implementation. It will allow policy makers and conservation technicians see where the negative reactions stem from in order to best advise farmers in their BMP implementation plans. It will address why the farmers are inclined or not inclined to implement BMPs and what is causing these reactions.

References:

Agouridis, C. T. (2005). Streambank erosion associated with grazing practices in the humid region. Transactions of the ASAE , 181.

Barnes, A. (2009). Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland. Agricultural Water Management , 96, 1715-1722. Withers, P. J., &

Hodgkinson, R. A. (2009). The effect of farming practices on phosphorus transfer to a headwater stream in England. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment , 131, 347-355.

Water, Water Everywhere, but Not a Drop to Drink

Photo Source: http://www.coonabarabran.local-e.nsw.gov.au/environment/2012/Image/water.jpg

Freshwater is becoming scarcer and many coastal communities are turning to desalination as a supplement for their freshwater supplies. However, desalination is an energy expensive process and in order to have the energy to desalinate water the power plants require more freshwater to produce the additional energy required to run the desalination plants. So when policy was enacted which implemented the desalination practices for an increase in the supply of freshwater there was an unintended consequence, increased energy and water usage, that is nearly unable to be adjusted for in the system. This water/energy nexus is very taxing on the system and decreases its net freshwater production and exacerbates the water shortage problem for the community.

The diagram below shows the two cycles and how they contribute to the dynamic system of freshwater desalination and its effect on the water and energy usage of the community. Please note that the Water/Energy Nexus cycle is reinforcing and causes continued increase in energy usage while the Seawater Supplementation cycle is balancing and seeks to account for and correct any shortage in the freshwater supply.

A systems model of streambank erosion

Streambank erosion is a huge problem for the health of streams in the United States and around the world. Some effects of streambank erosion on streams are the increase of suspended and settled sediment in the stream and extreme change of physical characteristics of stream causing decrease in baseload flow, change in meander and change in water depth. These changes have many negative effects on the aquatic life in the streams. Sedimentation of streams causes an increase in turbidity and a decrease in disolved oxygen. Sedimentation can also fill up interstitial spaces which small fish and invertebrates use for their survival.

It is proven that impervious surfaces have contributed to the huge increase in stormwater runoff. This increase in runoff has overwhelmed the carrying capacity of the streams and has caused the streams to flow with a velocity which causes scouring of the streambanks. The vegetal riparian buffers would have been able to lessen the effects of the stormwater surge on the stream. However most streams no longer have vegetal buffers or have had their buffers greatly reduced.

Another cause for streambank erosion is the practice of farmers allowing catle to wade in streams to cool down and drink water. Cattle destroy the vegetal buffer and greatly reduce streambank stability by trodding in and out of the streams, physically cleving off the streambank little by little.

These farming practices are being addressed by the US department of Agriculture (USDA). Through the USDA Farm Bill, Funding and tax credits are made available for farmers to use Best Management Practices (BMPs). This funding has greatly influenced farmers to use these BMPs and thus has been a method for rebuilding vegetal riparian buffers and stopping stream degradation by cattle and other livestock.

Urbanization has had huge negative impacts on stream water quality as it has been the major impetus for many activities causing stream degradation. The development of rural land has caused an increase in the land value surrounding the new development which cause economic pressures on the farms in those areas as they are required to pay the increase on their real estate property tax. Thus the farms respond by putting more cattle on their land to pay for the increase in the taxes. This has resulted in an increase in cows wading in the streams which has then caused an increase in streambank degradation.

Below is a diagram I constructed using Vensim PLE showing the many various factors associated with streambank degradation.

In order to understand the evolution of the problem I would need track change in stream depth and stream width. I would also need to know the change in the amount of Estimate Impervious Surfaces (EIS) over time. I would need data on the changes in property values through time. I would need to know to what extent rural land has been developed. These are the "hard" elements in the system.

The "soft" elements, ones which are not easily quantifiable, in this system are farming practices, social impact of policy changes on farmers, social and economic impact of development of rural land on farmers, and the rate of utilization of livestock fattening BMPs.

Introductory Post

I am an avid bird watcher and I have a border collie named "Pip" who is my hiking companion, She enjoys working sheep and keeping my chickens and horse in line :P Feel free to review the about me section to learn more about me and my interests. I am really enjoying my time here in Malta. Being involved with this program has given me so many great experiences and good friendships. After I have finished the SERM program I hope to be employed in the soil and water conservation field.