Water Quality Report

I was surprised to hear this. I think of water pollution as a problem from the past but I guess not.

http://www.kare11.com/news/local/mpca-miss-river-quality-good-until-it-gets-to-st-cloud/392661310

Odd that this comes out as the Gov is getting push back on the 50′ buffer zone.

More so when we take a look at the contaminates they are talking about. Just a fleeting thought.

PS I’m all for the 50′ buffer. The only thing it can do is good for the water and habitat.

Now I’m not a land owner/farmer that’s having this land taken out of production either.

Haven’t fully read through it yet, but spent some AM going over it.

Biggest issue for me is that MN river watershed. The wetland graph was staggering. I fished above the confluence for years, only seeing it last year and the night and day difference is crazy. There are times late in the year above the SAF and I can see 6′ down easy.

Main issue for pollutants seem to be ecoli. Are there any studies of runoffs from people’s yards full of dog crap, or even the residue? Would be a sweet deal to tax pets somehow for further cleanup of the stuff they pollute our waters with.

suzuki wrote:

I was surprised to hear this. I think of water pollution as a problem from the past but I guess not.

Nope, more than 40% of Minnesota’s waters are impaired or polluted..

On the ecoli note, they can take a water sample and using the DNA make up, trace it back to its origins: livestock, humans, or naturally there.. maybe even pets? Unsure of any studies, would be a interesting study.

I’m normally sympathetic to landowners and farmers, but this pushback on the buffer strip is something that I just don’t get. Sorry to be blunt about it, but a lot of the objections are BS.

First, nobody farms right to the water’s edge on a drainage or creek. Why? Because it’s a constant hassle, it’s getting flooded, it’s wet in the spring an had to plant, etc, etc. So in the vast majority of situations, there ALREADY is a buffer. It may not be 50 feet of buffer, but nobody’s planting corn 6 inches from the water line.

The second issue I want to call out is that farming is a business. Show me ANY business that’s not impacted by some form of environmental regulation and has to comply at a cost to the business? That’d be everybody. The idea that somehow the farmers are getting singled out here is bunk. The bottom line is environmental regs are a fact of life for all businesses.

Finally–and I get theat this is highly anecdotal–but still, I know a few farmers that are as close to the “traditional family farmer” as is left these days. To a man, all these guys are FOR the regulation.

Now some of this is self-serving because there is a benefit to farmers that is not talked about often, a lot of farmers are tired of having to clean out clogged culverts and dredge ditches at their own cost because the guy upstream won’t plant buffers and is letting all his soil erode. But the idea that farmers don’t care about the land and water is BS. The vast majority of them care greatly about it.

Most of this objection is driven by MEGA corporate farms and their lobby in St. Paul. As with most MEGA businesses, theses outfits want as little regulation as possible because the land, to them, is just another piece of equipment that “produces”. Use it up, throw it away, move on to make money someplace else.

It’s surprising to a lot of people when they find out how much of Minnesota is now owned by large corporations with addresses in New York or Deleware. Even I found a new one the other day. A large tract of farmland in south central MN owned by a company with HQ in Bermuda.

Grouse

Good reply Grouse. I know small farmers who are brow beaten half to death with regulations and I know that it costs them big time to comply. Corporate farms write this stuff off or ignore some regulations simply because its cheaper to pay a fine than comply. Kind of reminds me of the emissions credits big factories use instead of cleaning up their exhaust.

The buffers not only help keep siltation in check and help keep some of the pollutants out of the water, they provide wildlife with some sanctuary.

If you guys all want the farmers to give up a percentage of their income and livelihood for water quality and to benefit wildlife then why doesn’t everybody donate the same percentage to ducks unlimited or pheasants forever. A lot of these projects sound good to people that don’t have it affect their pocketbook. There are places a 50 foot buffer are needed. There are places it should be wider than that. There are also places that 50 feet on each side is ridiculous. A blanket regulation is not the answer.

No business should be allowed to urine in our watersheds. Farmers with a half a brain have seen this writing on the wall long time ago, and just from an ethical standpoint why wouldnt they want to? It’s 50′, and it’s a start, not a fix all.

I’m just saying 50 foot buffer on a crick that is a foot wide or 200 feet wide is stupid. And a buffer doesn’t stop diddly if you don’t do any other conservation. I don’t tell you how to do your business so don’t tell me how to do mine.

nick_harrison wrote:

A blanket regulation is not the answer.

Nick, being that you’re from the Great State of Iowa, I’m guessing this doesn’t effect you except you’ll benefit from cleaner water since you live down stream, but that’s a moot point.

In reading the law it’s self, there are alternatives to the buffer depending on the lay of the land or water in this case. My point is that it’s not a blanket reg.

Also, I agree with you. The buffer shouldn’t be the only conservation practiced.

It looks like the farmers up against Hinkle Creek are doing a find job of buffering the creek already with the exception of a few down stream of Garrison.

Brian,
You are right that this law does not affect me but I don’t like seeing fellow Farmers get railroaded by people from the big city that think they know how to farm their farm better than the guys that have been doing it for generations. And as for implying that we don’t do a good job of conservation on our land is just plain ignorance. You have never been on our farm and never will. We are great stewards of the land and will continue to be. Just wish government and people from town would mind their own business. And for the record I love Iowa and would never want to live anywhere else.

Guess I’ve been told.

@Wildman

The majority of my hometown neighbors and relatives farm in MN. But, I’ll be the first to say they are not going to go out of their way to protect the water. Their farming practices IMO are outdated. Just because they’ve been letting pesticides and manure flow into the rivers and lakes near them unbuffered doesn’t make it right. It’s just the way they’ve been doing it so why change.

When I drill a hole 300yrds out from an incoming stream on a local lake and straw and brown water boils out of the hole is that a “good job” at conservation? Nick you probably do a great job but I know for a fact here in MN we do not. Many of the farmers here need to be told what to do.

In the farmers defense, golf courses and fancy lake homes with their ultra green lawns up to the waters edge are no better. We NEED regulation.

When it comes down to it there are farmers that are good at this and there are farmers that don’t care. I personally hate the fact that any government has to get involved. I would love to live in a world where we didn’t have to have the government telling people what to do but the reality is in some ways that is not possible. For example, I’m happy that other drivers on the road are required to have insurance on their cars (I know not all do). That way if somebody runs into my truck or my boat, or possibly injures a member of my family…at least there is a better chance they are covered. The same principle applies. If the farmer up stream is not practicing good land use, and it is affecting you negatively that really sucks if there is nothing that can be done about it. Also, the farmers that are not using good practices to keep the water clean are making all farmers look bad.

Ryan P wrote:

The same principle applies. If the farmer up stream is not practicing good land use

I can guarantee the farmers feel they are doing “all they can” to preserve water quality. Just ask any farmer. The problem is everyone’s definition of water quality preservation is different. That’s where the law is needed, to keep people on the same page.

It’s common practice around here to drain every inch of wetland you can. It’s also common to spread manure on top of the ice and snow so that when spring comes it can all get washed to the nearest stream, lake or river. I’ve talked to many farmers about this and I quote, “this is not a water quality issue”.

Joe Scegura wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ryan P wrote:</div>

It’s also common to spread manure on top of the ice and snow so that when spring comes it can all get washed to the nearest stream, lake or river. I’ve talked to many farmers about this and I quote, “this is not a water quality issue”.

What!? The farmers I know spread it as fertilizer with no intention of it washing away.

Joe Scegura wrote:

The problem is everyone’s definition of water quality preservation is different. That’s where the law is needed, to keep people on the same page.

I think this is a common problem. Maybe more of a problem interpreting the current definition. The legal lingo used in law to describe just about anything just plain sucks for people who haven’t studied law. Clear definitions should be concise and clear to lay people.

Minnesota is working on rolling out a water quality initiative that would allow farmers to opt into the program to measure their improvements over time. There would incentives if they do this. I work for a company helping to sign up farms as part of a pilot. There could be some changes based upon recent legislation but, by and large of the farms we talk to, farms of all sizes, are in favor of water quality.

However, the economics of farming, particularly historically low grain prices, forces these guys to make tough decisions. Being environmentally friendly has economic impacts. I’m not here to make excuses for anyone but this is a complicated issue.

One other point, look to other states and what they have done on water legislation based upon total usage and runoff. California has very strict standards. Other countries also have strict standards. At some point, government will force this issue.