Trouble Downstream: Upgrading Conservation Compliance: » Finding #3

Finding #3: Since geographic areas heavily associated with crop subsidies are linked with high levels of agricultural nutrient pollution, current conservation compliance policy misses an opportunity to prevent or reduce pollution that may be inadvertently subsidized by farm programs.

By design, conservation compliance does not explicitly address one of today’s most pressing agricultural-environmental problems: nutrient pollution. Excess runoff of commercial fertilizer and animal manure applied on cropland causes algae outbreaks in rivers and lakes (USDA ARS, 2003). The algae clog water intake pipes at industrial plants and municipal drinking water facilities.

Source: University System of Maryland. Photo credit: J. Burkholder.

Algae blooms can lead to “dead zones” which suffocate bottom-dwelling creatures like crabs and oysters, as well as fish unable to escape the resulting oxygen-deprived waters (See photo of fish kill). Nutrient pollution has also been linked to toxic microbes that cause lesions on fish and on humans, as well as short-term memory loss in humans who are exposed to the polluted water (CDC, 2004).

Dead zones occur throughout the world and are caused primarily from excess fertilizer and animal manure run-off, as well as, emissions from sewage treatment plants, urban and suburban run-off, and air emissions from vehicles. Examples of dead zones in the U.S. are in the Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, Corpus Christi Bay, Los Angeles River, and Puget Sound (WRI Earthtrends).

The largest dead zone in the country occurs at the mouth of the Mississippi River in the Gulf of Mexico each spring. In past years, the dead zone (pictured in the satellite image as the red coastal areas around Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) has encompassed some 5,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of Connecticut. Predictions for 2007 indicate that the dead zone will be the third largest on record, about 7,900 square miles or nearly the size of New Jersey (LUMCON, 2007).

While the soil erosion reduction efforts in conservation compliance plans indirectly reduce phosphorus nutrient pollution, as some phosphorus is bound to soil particles, plans focused on soil erosion do not directly address the problem of dissolved phosphorus nutrient pollution or nitrogen nutrient pollution, which do not adhere to soil particles.

Every year, over the last five-year Farm Bill, taxpayers provided between $8 and $17 billion in commodity crop subsidies and between $1 and $3 billion in disaster relief to farmers (Chite, 2007 and EWG Farm Subsidies Database). While subsidies are projected lower in the next five years because of the price-enhancing effect of ethanol production and other factors, commodity program expenditures alone are still projected to be about $7 billion annually (Chite, 2007). In addition, taxpayers spend, on average, $3 billion per year subsidizing crop insurance for farmers and crop insurance companies.

Source: Claassen, 2007.

Since these federal farm income support programs enable farmers to till cropland and apply fertilizers, they share responsibility for the agricultural soil erosion and nutrient pollution problems in our nation’s waters. More than 80 percent of the nation’s cropland with high or very high nitrogen runoff potential (dots on the USDA map) is receiving commodity program payments (dark green areas of the map) (Claassen, 2007).

It is reasonable for policy makers to expect farmers to reduce and control both soil erosion and nutrient pollution in cost-effective ways as a condition of taxpayer support. Taxpayers, on average, provide $45 to $100 per acre annually in commodity support payments to farmers in the highest nitrogen runoff areas. In contrast, nutrient management plans—plans that optimize crop yield while minimizing nutrient pollution—have a one-time cost, on average, of $5 to $15 per acre, according to the USDA, and costs of updating such plans are modest (Claassen, 2007).

As a further step, landowners and operators should be required to establish and maintain grass or tree buffers on a minimum area along streams and ponds. Such buffer zones would have multiple environmental benefits. A minimum setback with planted grassed buffers will trap sediment and nutrient runoff and reduce the amount of pollution reaching surface waters. A minimum setback, plus treatment of gully erosion, will help stabilize stream or shore banks and prevent bank erosion sediment from smothering aquatic habitat. Finally, a minimum setback will allow waterside habitat for wildlife and provide nesting and food resources. Several conservation programs, notably the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and the Conservation Reserve Program’s continuous buffer sign-up, provide taxpayer assistance for the express purpose of establishing and maintaining grass, shrub or tree buffers along water bodies.