A recent study in the journal, Water Policy, compares the water supply histories of four major cities: San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Adelaide, Australia. The major conclusion of the report was that urban water conservation, recycling, and desalination can’t nearly come close to the level of water conservation that can be provided by upstream farmers. The authors conclude that the conservation of 5 to 10 percent of agricultural irrigation in upstream watersheds in agricultural areas could satisfy a city’s entire water needs.

There are a couple of issues, however, that make the depleting water situation look rather bleak. As James Workman outlines in his terrific series of essays on water scarcity, urban water saving methods and technologies may be ineffective, and he also questions whether municipalities, from an economic standpoint, truly want their citizens to conserve water. In addition, as the authors point out in the study, farmers and ranchers won’t, typically, implement water conservation measures unless there is financial incentives for them to do so.

So, what can be done? In the interview linked below, Brian Richter, a freshwater scientist with The Nature Conservancy argues for the creation of urban-rural partnerships where farmers and ranchers are rewarded by municipalities for the water they conserve. For instance, Richter mentions water markets that have been established in Australia and the Edwards Aquifer in Texas. In this scenario, farmers and ranchers would “sell any ‘saved’ water to other farmers, cities, or environmental interests as long as it does not harm other water users or the environment.”

A similar, incentives-based approach, is being utilized by Sand County Foundation in the Midwest through its Agricultural Incentives program, which offers Midwestern farmers financial incentives to implement water conservation practices that keep water, and its nitrogen and phosphorous content, on the land and out of waterways. As part of this program, the Foundation has entered into a partnership, called Yahara WINs, with several municipalities, landowners, and other organizations to help reduce phosphorous and nitrogen runoff from agricultural lands into waterways in the Madison, Wisconsin area. Sand County Foundation also launched a program, Water As A Crop™, now operating a pilot program in Texas, which pays financial incentives to landowners who implement water conservation practices.

Water scarcity, obviously, is not something to be taken lightly, but it’s fairly clear that the agricultural community plays an integral role in the issue. So, these incentive-based urban-rural and private-public partnerships are a step in the right direction.

Will cities ever get smart about water use?

By Robert Lalasz, Grist

If the definition of insanity is making the same mistakes over and over, then many cities have taken a certifiable approach to securing their water supplies — and they need some radical therapy before taking the big economic, ecological, and human hits that come with a permanent state of thirst.

That’s the conclusion from a new study in the journal Water Policy, whose authors compared the water supply histories of four cities — San Diego, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Adelaide, Australia. Among the lessons learned? Urban water conservation, recycling, and desalination aren’t silver bullets. In fact, the best solution may lie upstream with farmers — saving just 5-10 percent of agricultural irrigation in upstream watersheds could satisfy a city’s entire water needs.

But the time to act is now, argues Brian Richter, a senior freshwater scientist at The Nature Conservancy and the study’s lead author — he says a global urban water crisis is already here. Below, Richter tells us more about what cities need to do to say on the right side of dry. Read more …

Excess manure running off of farmlands into waterways is a significant issue across the nation, negatively impacting the quality of soil, water, and wildlife. In Wisconsin, county conservationists play a major role in working with farmers who wish to develop crop rotation and other nutrient management practices to reduce the runoff. The conservationists also often find state and federal funding to help farmers implement these nutrient reduction methods.

However, proposed cuts in Wisconsin’s upcoming budget may mean fewer county conservationists across the state, leading to less encouragement for farmers to voluntarily engage in conservation programs. The proposed budet calls for funding cuts for two programs in the Agriculture Resource Management Division of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). The first is a carryover from the previous budget, which reduces funding for county conservation offices. Critics fear that this will lead to staffing cuts. The second slashes DATCP’s budget for soil and water resource management by 50 percent. This fund provided financial assistance to farmers who wished to utilize soil and water conservation programs.

Although DATCP Secretary Ben Brancel claims that the conservation programs can survive with less funding, others aren’t so sure, pointing to a state law that requires DATCP to develop conservation practices that meet the DNR’s performance standards for farms. In its fiscal estimate, DATCP projected that this effort would require an additional 40 county conservation staffers.

If you are interested in learning more, DATCP will hold five public hearings on the proposed changes. A hearing will be held from 2:30 to 4:30 p.m. and 6 to 8 p.m., Thursday, April 4, in the State Agriculture Building, Room 106, located at 2811 Agriculture Drive in Madison.

Photo: USDA NRCS

Farmland conservation efforts take double hit in Walker budget

By Jessica Van Egeran, The Cap Times

Earlier this month, after a substantial rainfall on top of the snow-covered farm fields across Dane County, an all-too-familiar problem arose that pulled Dane County conservationist Pat Sutter away from a conference where attendees were discussing the very situation he was headed off to fix: manure runoff.

As Sutter knows all too well, the slick conditions caused by the rain work against keeping manure, in this case liquid manure, in its place.

“It’s like putting waste on top of a parking lot,” he says. “It can’t be absorbed. It’s going to run off.”

The result was nine calls from Dane County residents to his office. The liquid manure from nearby farmland had flowed onto the callers’ properties and in one case into the basement of a house.

“This is not the first conference I’ve had to split on to address calls,” says Sutter, who manages Dane County’s Land Conservation Division. “We didn’t have enough folks to address the problems and we like to get out within 24 hours. It’s amazing how a day can change things if you don’t respond timely to situations.”

In Dane County, 111 farms encompassing 67,000 acres of land have permits that allow the spreading of liquid manure when the ground is frozen or snow-covered. This activity is only allowed with a permit. Read more …

Wisconsin is experiencing some deep budget cuts to land and water conservation efforts, which is being felt by state conservation offices at the county level. As the article below states, cuts at the county level will have an immediate impact on Wisconsin agriculture.

Cap Times writer Margaret Krome traveled around Wisconsin, asking farmers how these budget cuts will affect their farms:

Sam Zimmerman, a Marathon County dairy farmer is concerned that this will negatively affect the conservation tradition his grandfather started on the farm. In addition, county conservation staff have acted as the catalyst for Zimmerman receiving state and federal assistance for various conservation projects.

Joe and Christy Tomandl said that county conservation funding helped their farm, and others, get off the ground. They also cite county conservationists for helping them implement a grazing plan, as well as keeping their farm up to environmental standards.

For Richard Wagner, as well as the Tomandls, their relationship with county conservationists is mutually beneficial. Farmers can benefit financially from conservation practices and the county and state can, too.

Robert Grove, a crop farmer in Racine County, said that county conservationists help him achieve much more than what he would be able to do on his own.

“It doesn’t seem fair that the state is always pushing for conservation but then they cut the exact help we need to make it happen,” Grove said.

Wisconsin is just an example of the impacts budget cuts can have on conservation efforts. It’s clear that cuts to county conservation offices will hurt farmers, ranchers, and foresters on a number of levels.

Photo: USDA NRCS

Farmers explain how land conservation cuts hurt

By Margaret Krome, The Cap Times

Wisconsin’s agricultural economy was most recently estimated as bringing $52 billion into the state each year. Across the state, with manure from all of those cows, hogs, sheep and goats, and with the millions of acres of plowed ground, it’s the land conservation department in each county that works with Wisconsin farmers and other landowners to protect the natural resources that are the foundation for this industry and that are crucial to state residents, while helping farmers stay profitable.

Because of their crucial role statewide, county conservationists are funded largely from the state budget. Unfortunately, Gov. Walker’s proposed budget was not kind to local land conservation, making permanent cuts to that funding, from about $9.3 million in the 2009-2011 budget down to $8 million, in addition to cutting by over half other funding to protect water quality.

This matters, because soil erosion rates are increasing, reversing decades of progress. Not only is the impact readily seen in lakes and streams, but increasing runoff also erodes the foundation of Wisconsin’s agricultural economy.

These cuts would come on top of previous cuts; any flexibility that existed in the system has long since been removed.

I talked with farmers of various sizes and kinds across Wisconsin about these cuts. They make the case better than anyone of the powerful importance of county conservation staff to the state’s economy and its long-term agricultural prospects. Read more …

Beverly Bell and Tory Field recently wrote an interesting piece for the Huffington Post about the global food market and the impact it has on producers and consumers at the local level.

They write that food is a great unifier for the world’s citizens, but control of food production and distribution is increasingly being taken out of local hands and directed on the international level, detached from the populace.

However, Bell and Field argue that a movement for food sovereignty is underway. This is a movement that calls for the production, management, and distribution  of food, land, and agricultural systems to be placed back into the hands of citizens, giving them more of an opportunity to make the decision to consume locally produced food.

Another important element to this concept is the role of the producer. This movement wants farmers and ranchers, especially small-scale operations, to have the ability to produce products for local consumption under local control, rather than be affected by international market forces. For this to happen, though, activists in this movement are working at local, regional, national, and international levels to help ensure fair trade and economic systems, limiting imports to help protect local markets.

The major obstacle in this movement is the money and power that opposes it. Large landholders, corporations, many governments of industrialized countries, and organizations like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) tend to prefer the status quo, meaning that this food sovereignty movement, although a great idea on paper, has quite a long way to go to become a reality.

Food sovereignty: Think globally, eat locally

By Beverly Bell & Tory Field, Huffington Post

The first group of protestors at Occupy Wall Street publically delivered 23 complaints, outlining the ways in which corporations control our daily lives. Number four asserted, “They have poisoned the food supply through negligence and undermined the farming system through monopolization.”

How we feed ourselves and each other is the backbone of how, historically, we have organized our communities and societies. The ways in which we arrange our agricultural systems make evident our larger worldviews. Food literally and figuratively connects us to each other, to our ancestors, to our cultures, and to the earth. Maybe all food should be acknowledged as soul food (with a low bow to Southern cooking) because it is, in fact, that deep.

A movement is afoot to put food, land, and agricultural systems back in the hands of citizens. One element has long been considered the overarching essential around the world, though it is only beginning to make an appearance in this U.S. This is food sovereignty, a combination of farming practices, marketing systems, and policy choices which together allow every people to make decisions about, produce, and consume its own local, healthy, and culturally appropriate food. Food sovereignty calls for the democratic participation of the population in shaping food and trade policies. It promotes the right of small growers to have control over their land and production, to grow for domestic consumption under local control. It also promotes ecological agriculture. Read more …

Unfortunately, it often takes a natural disaster or series of disasters, to make policymakers take notice. Such is the case with the agricultural industry, which has been struggling with severe drought amidst other hardships.

On February 14, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing called, “Drought, Fire, and Freeze: The Economics of Disaster for America’s Agricultural Producers.” The first panel of witnesses included representatives from the USDA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The second panel consisted of a rancher from Montana, a corn and soybean farmer from Indiana, a Michigan cherry farmer, and a Nebraska crop and livestock producer.

The majority of the discussion centered on crop insurance and conservation. The main point about crop insurance was that it needs to apply to all types of farmers. It was noted that specialty crop producers in some states don’t have access to crop insurance. In terms of conservation, the farmers taking part in the hearing were asked to discuss how government-sponsored conservation programs have helped them cope with disaster. The testimony focused on the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP). Most of the producers said that practices such as no-till, cover crops, and buffer strips, helped them get through droughts, floods, and deep freezes.

The important takeaway here is the look of crop insurance and conservation programs is dependent on the Farm Bill. As it stands now, these programs are in danger of being dropped, so it’s encouraging that producers, such as those involved in this hearing, are making their voices heard.

Natural disasters spur cop insurance and farm conservation discussion

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

On Thursday, February 14, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing on “Drought, Fire, and Freeze: The Economics of Disasters for America’s Agricultural Producers.”  The first panel of witnesses consisted of Dr. Joe Glauber, USDA’s Chief Economist, and Dr. Roger Pulwarty, Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Integrated Drought Information System.  The second panel included Leon LaSalle, a rancher from Montana, Anngie Steinbarger, a corn and soybean farmer from Indiana, Jeff Send, a cherry farmer from Michigan, and Ben Steffen, a diversified crop-livestock producer from Nebraska.

Crop Insurance

Much of the testimony and the questions that followed focused on the need for an improved crop insurance program, one that works for all types of producers.  In fact, Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) repeatedly noted that specialty crop producers in many states do not have access to crop insurance.

The hearing was a good reminder that if risk management and crop insurance is to be the primary farm safety net, it needs to work for all of agriculture, including young and beginning farmers, fruit and vegetable growers, organic farmers, and those involved in dairy and livestock production. Read more …

As the debate rages on over the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops, Greg Jaffe, a writer for “The Atlantic,” addresses some common myths about this phenomenon. His bottom line is that genetically modified foods have the potential to reduce hunger and improve the environment but several factors need to be taken into consideration before they can be deemed to have a significant positive impact on agriculture.

The myths he addresses in the article, which is linked below, are as follows:

Myth: “Frankenfoods” made with GE ingredients are harmful to eat.
Jaffe writes that no reliable evidence has emerged to indicate that eating GE foods has detrimental health effects.

Myth: FDA approves GE foods before we eat them.
According to Jaffe, the FDA does not approve foods or ingredients made from GE crops. The agency has, however, adopted a voluntary process where seed developers submit data showing that their product is “substantially equivalent” to non-GE seed and that using the product poses no new health risks.

Myth: Monsanto and other seed developers are the main beneficiaries of GE crops
Although it is true that seed developers make a profit off of these products, Jaffe contends that farmers benefit, as well, allowing them to significantly cut back on the use of expensive pesticides. In addition, Jaffe cites a University of Minnesota study in which it was found that non-GE crop farmers benefited from having neighbors who grow GE crops due to the decreased insect presence in the area.

Myth: GE crops are environmentally sustainable
Jaffe writes GE seeds might provide environmental benefits, but their long-term sustainability comes into question. He states that weeds and insects have the ability to adapt, citing that various weeds are showing tolerance to some of Monsanto’s best selling products.

Myth: Mandatory GE labeling would increase consumer choice
Some argue that labeling GE foods as such gives consumers the option of whether or not to purchase these products. Jaffe argues that this is unnecessary, however. Non-GE products have already begun labeling themselves. In addition, he writes that GE crops are becoming so prevalent that consumers should assume that any ingredient made from corn or soybeans, which is A LOT of them, likely has some GE component to it.

Myth: GE is the best way to increase farm productivity and reduce world hunger
Again, GE crops have the potential to have significant positive impacts, but Jaffe writes that other components are needed to make this happen. For instance, better irrigation equipment, post-harvest storage, and improved roads, especially in developing countries, are needed to truly make GE crops impactful on productivity and hunger reduction. Also, in general, GE crop farmers are often using these crops with farming practices that are unsustainable. So, several factors need to be improved, worldwide, before any claims can be made as to their positive effect  on agriculture and society.

What you need to know about genetically engineered food

By Greg Jaffe, The Atlantic

American farmers started growing genetically engineered (GE) crops (which are also commonly referred to as “GMOs”) in 1996, and now plant 165 million acres annually. Food manufacturers estimate that 70 percent of processed foods contain at least one ingredient made from GE crops. But along with such rapid adoption of a scary-sounding technology have come myths propagated by proponents and opponents. Here are some facts that sometimes get lost in the hype–and that will come as a surprise to people on both sides of the constant arguments.

Read more …

Sand County Foundation‘s work on behalf of the land ethic relies on good science.  Deeply as philosophical and political beliefs may move us, our work involves us inescapably with the physical world, specifically what Aldo Leopold liked to call the biosphere:  that part of our world that affects life.  We are therefore led to consider carefully what the best science tells us is happening, and what might happen in the future, to the biosphere, independently of all other considerations.

Earlier this week the U. S. Department of Agriculture released a survey of the literature concerning the actual and potential effect on American agriculture of climate change.  This report, to which dozens of experts from inside and outside of the government contributed, predicted a “drastic and harmful effect” on agriculture, with very serious implications for the farm economy as well as the environment.  We commend it to our readers; it certainly has gotten our attention.

- Joseph Britt, Sand County Foundation

Report: Climate change could devastate agriculture

By Christopher Doering, Gannett Washington Bureau

Climate change could have a drastic and harmful effect on U.S. agriculture, forcing farmers and ranchers to alter where they grow crops and costing them millions of dollars in additional costs to tackle weeds, pests and diseases that threaten their operations, a sweeping government report said Tuesday.

An analysis released by the Agriculture Department said that although U.S. crops and livestock have been able to adapt to changes in their surroundings for close to 150 years, the accelerating pace and intensity of global warming during the next few decades may soon be too much for the once-resilient sector to overcome.

Read more …

For many years, the amount of American family farms has been in steady decline. The average age of farmers continues to rise and fewer and fewer young people are choosing farming as a career.

The article below cites census data that tell us that the amount of farmers that have been farming 10 years or fewer has declined by 10 percent since 1982. The situation is further complicated by the increase in large, industrial farms that make it difficult for smaller, family farms to compete.

The USDA, however, seems willing to combat this trend. U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack recently announced a “microloan” program intended to help beginning farmers. The loans, of up to $35,000 are aimed at new/young producers, particularly minority farmers and veterans interested in agriculture, who want to have a direct-to-consumer type of business. Secretary Vilsack believes that this will help bolster the local and regional food movements, citing a 60 percent increase in these types of growers over the past three years.

Aside from these loans, there are other reasons for optimism. Farm Services Agency loans have increased since 2009 with 40 percent of those going to small farmers. In addition, enrollment in agricultural programs at several colleges and universities appears to be increasing.

Will this be enough to slow the loss of family farms? That remains to be seen, but we know that assistance programs like this, combined with a young, passionate, energized, and innovative agricultural community (we’ve met plenty of them) can only help improve matters.

Is the USDA sparking a sustainable ag revolution?

By Steve Holt, Take Part

For years, the dominant trend in United States farming has not been a positive one: The crop of veteran farmers is at or nearing retirement age, and the next generation is less willing to fill their shoes.

Census data has shown that the percentage of beginning farmers—those in their current farming operation for less than ten years—has declined steadily, by more than ten percent, since 1982. This is happening, in part, because the nationwide shift away from family farms to large, industrial operations means that many would-be small farmers simply cannot justify investing in a declining industry.

But a new federal policy, announced by United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week, aims to change that calculus by offering smaller loans to farmers who are just starting out. The best news? The microloans could bolster sustainable agriculture in a big way.

Read more …

Following a decade of below-average precipitation and above average temperatures, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reports that Lake Huron and Lake Michigan are at the lowest levels ever recorded. The other Great Lakes are well below average, as well.

This, obviously, has negative environmental consequences, but it also has negative economic and recreational impacts on the shipping and tourist industries.

Dredging of the St. Clair River has also been identified as a significant contributing factor to the lower water levels. The Army corps is considering a series of “speed bumps” at the bottom of the river to help slow the water flow from the two lakes.

As the article below states, without some sort of measures to maintain or enhance water levels, it will take several years of consistent rain to return the Great Lakes to normal levels.

Two Great Lakes at shallowest levels ever recorded

Associated Press

Two of the Great Lakes have hit their lowest water levels ever recorded, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Tuesday, capping more than a decade of below-normal rain and snowfall and higher temperatures that boost evaporation.

Measurements taken last month show Lake Huron and Lake Michigan have reached their lowest ebb since record keeping began in 1918, and the lakes could set additional records over the next few months, the corps said. The lakes were 29 inches below their long-term average and had declined 17 inches since January 2012.

The other Great Lakes, Superior, Erie and Ontario, were also well below average.

“We’re in an extreme situation,” said Keith Kompoltowicz, watershed hydrology chief for the corps district office in Detroit.

Read more …

Japan has finally listed a ban on U.S. beef imports that it put in place in 2003 in response to the “mad cow” scare. Japan was the largest importer of U.S. beef in 2003, so this is great news for American beef producers. However, as the article below points out, it is a silver lining in the midst of other hardships facing cattle ranchers. They must also contend with rising feed prices and a persistent drought that has diminished water supplies and harmed grazing lands.

However, America’s farmers and ranchers are resilient folks. We hope the lifting of this ban is the start of a string of good news for beef producers.

Photo credit: Kevin Kiley

A break for embattled ranchers

By Stephanie Strom and Hiroko Tabuchi, The New York Times

Reflecting diminishing fears over mad cow disease, Japan eased its decade-old restriction on imports of American beef on Monday, but industry experts said beef producers faced many more challenges to reverse a prolonged slump that has pared the nation’s herd to its lowest level in 60 years and sent prices soaring.

A Japanese government council that oversees food and drug safety cleared a change in import regulations that would permit imports of meat from American cattle 30 months old or younger, rather than the current 20 months.

The change is set to take effect on Friday for American beef processed after that date, and shipments could start arriving in Japan in mid-February, according to the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Japan, the world’s largest net importer of food, instituted the ban in 2003 after bovine spongiform encephalopathy, an illness more commonly known as mad cow disease, was found in a single cow in Washington State. Humans are thought to catch the disease’s fatal human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, by eating meat, including the brain and spinal cord, from contaminated carcasses.

Japan eased the ban in 2006 but only for meat from cattle 20 months or younger. Japanese officials argued that the incidence of the disease was higher in older animals.

Read more …