We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Could this land be used for agriculture?
Probably not. The quality of soil is very important in determining what can grow in a particular area. Good soil is not so easy to come by. Soil should be considered another resource that we, as a population, must strive to protect.
Soil and Water Resources
Theoretically, soil and water are renewable resources. However, they may be ruined by careless human actions.
Soil
Soil is a mixture of eroded rock, minerals, partly decomposed organic matter, and other materials. It is essential for plant growth, so it is the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems. Soil is important for other reasons as well. For example, it removes toxins from water and breaks down wastes.
Although renewable, soil takes a very long time to form—up to hundreds of millions of years. So, for human purposes, soil is a nonrenewable resource. It is also constantly depleted of nutrients through careless use, and eroded by wind and water. For example, misuse of soil caused a huge amount of it to simply blow away in the 1930s during the Dust Bowl (seeFigure below). Soil must be used wisely to preserve it for the future. Conservation practices include contour plowing and terracing. Both reduce soil erosion. Soil also must be protected from toxic wastes.
The Dust Bowl occurred between 1933 and 1939 in Oklahoma and other southwestern U.S. states. Plowing had exposed prairie soil. Drought turned the soil to dust. Intense dust storms blew away vast quantities of the soil. Much of the soil blew all the way to the Atlantic Ocean.
Water
Water is essential for all life on Earth. For human use, water must be fresh. Of all the water on Earth, only 1 percent is fresh, liquid water. Most of the rest is either salt water in the ocean or ice in glaciers and ice caps.
Although water is constantly recycled through the water cycle, it is in danger. Over-use and pollution of freshwater threaten the limited supply that people depend on. Already, more than 1 billion people worldwide do not have adequate freshwater. With the rapidly growing human population, the water shortage is likely to get worse.
Too Much of a Good Thing
Water pollution comes from many sources. One of the biggest sources is runoff. Runoff picks up chemicals such as fertilizer from agricultural fields, lawns, and golf courses. It carries the chemicals to bodies of water. The added nutrients from fertilizer often cause excessive growth of algae, creating algal blooms (see Figure below). The algae use up oxygen in the water so that other aquatic organisms cannot survive. This has occurred over large areas of the ocean, creating dead zones, where low oxygen levels have killed all ocean life. A very large dead zone exists in the Gulf of Mexico. Measures that can help prevent these problems include cutting down on fertilizer use. Preserving wetlands also helps because wetlands filter runoff water.
Algal Bloom. Nutrients from fertilizer in runoff caused this algal bloom.
Summary
- Soil and water are renewable resources but may be ruined by careless human actions. Soil can be depleted of nutrients. It can also be eroded by wind or water.
- Over-use and pollution of freshwater threaten the limited supply that people depend on.
Review
- What is soil?
- Why is soil considered a nonrenewable resource?
- How much water is drinkable?
- Why would you expect a dead zone to start near the mouth of a river, where the river flows into a body of water?
The creatures living in the soil are critical to soil health. They affect soil structure and therefore soil erosion and water availability. They can protect crops from pests and diseases. They are central to decomposition and nutrient cycling and therefore affect plant growth and amounts of pollutants in the environment. Finally, the soil is home to a large proportion of the world's genetic diversity.
Soil Biology Primer
The online Soil Biology Primer is an introduction to the living component of soil and how it contributes to agricultural productivity and air and water quality. The Primer includes chapters describing the soil food web and its relationship to soil health and chapters about soil bacteria, fungi, protozoa, nematodes, arthropods, and earthworms.
The online Primer includes all of the text of the printed original, but not all of the images of the soil organisms. The full story of the soil food web is more easily understood with the help of the illustrations in the printed version.
Printed copies of the Soil Biology Primer may be purchased from the Soil and Water Conservation Society. Go to www.swcs.org
=> Copyright restrictions: Many photographs in the online Soil Biology Primer cannot be used on other We b sites or for other purposes without explicit permission from the copyright owners. P lease contact the Soil and Water Conservation Society at [email protected] for assistance with copyrighted (credited) images tagged throughout the online Primer.
=> The text, graphs, tables, non-credited photos, and graphics from USDA sources may be used freely however, please credit the Soil Biology Primer or this Web site.
Acknowledgements
The Natural Resources Conservation Service, with assistance from the Conservation Technology Information Center, provided leadership for this project. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Soil and Water Conservation Society thank many individuals, including the following, for their contributions.
SECTION 523.6. Cost-Share Incentive Funding for Soil and Water Conservation Land Improvement Measures
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply.
(1) Allocated funds--Funds budgeted through the State Board either allocated directly to a specific soil and water conservation district or to a cost-share incentive priority for utilization by multiple soil and water conservation districts. For the purposes of the chapter, funds directly allocated to a specific soil and water conservation district shall be referred to as a direct allocation.
(2) Applicant--A person who applies for cost-share incentive funding from the soil and water conservation district.
(3) Available funds--Monies budgeted, unobligated and approved by the State Board for cost-share incentive funding.
(4) Conservation practice(s)--The conservation land improvement measure(s) approved by the State Board and applied to the land to control soil erosion or improve the quality and/or quantity of water.
(5) Cost-share incentive funding--An award of money made to an eligible person for conservation land improvement measures pursuant to the terms of Agriculture Code §201.301.
(6) Cost-share incentive priority--A geographic location such as a watershed, a soil and water conservation district or other political subdivision boundary, or a specific agricultural or silvicultural activity, or a combination thereof, that is adopted by the State Board as a specified priority for receiving an allocation of cost-share incentive funding. Cost-share incentive priorities must be consistent with the purpose of controlling erosion, conserving water, and/or protecting water quality.
(7) District director--A member of the governing board of a soil and water conservation district.
(8) Eligible land--Those lands that are eligible for application of conservation land improvement measures using cost-share incentive funding.
(9) Eligible person--Any of the land holders eligible to apply for cost-share incentive funding or any person designated to represent the applicant as provided by a durable power of attorney, court order or other valid legal document.
(10) Eligible practices--Those conservation land improvement measures that have been approved by the State Board.
(11) Landowner--Any person, firm or corporation holding title to land lying within a soil and water conservation district.
(12) Maintenance agreement--A written agreement between the eligible person and the soil and water conservation district wherein the eligible person(s) agrees to implement and maintain all conservation practices included in the water quality management plan in accordance with the implementation schedule, all technical requirements of the applicable practice standards, and specified life expectancies of practices until such time that the certification of the State Board is withdrawn. The maintenance agreement shall specify that any practices installed through the payment of cost-share incentive funding, to any extent, must be maintained in accordance with the applicable practice standards and specified life expectancies regardless of whether or not the water quality management plan continues to be certified or not. Failure to maintain cost-shared practices may result in the requirement for all or a prorated portion of the cost-share funding to be returned to the State Board. It is the expectation of the State Board that a water quality management plan be maintained by the landowner for an indefinite period of time.
(13) Obligated funds--Monies from a soil and water conservation district's allocated funds or from a cost-share incentive priority which have been committed to an applicant after final approval of the application.
(14) Operating Unit--Land or lands, whether contiguous or non-contiguous, owned and/or operated in a manner that contributes or has the potential to contribute agricultural or silvicultural nonpoint source pollution to water in the state. An operating unit must be determined through mutual agreement by the holder of the water quality management plan, the soil and water conservation district, and the State Board.
(A) Contiguous lands under the same ownership and/or operational control must be considered one operating unit.
(B) Non-contiguous lands under the same ownership and/or operational control may be considered as more than one operating unit when there is mutual agreement by the soil and water conservation district and the potential holder of the water quality management plan unless the lands are associated with an animal feeding operation.
(C) An operating unit, when devised for an animal feeding operation, must at a minimum encompass all land or lands owned and/or operated by the holder of the water quality management plan that are used to produce feed that is consumed by the animals, as well as all land or lands owned and/or operated by the potential holder of the water quality management plan where manures or other agricultural by-products are beneficially used as a source of nutrients to produce food or fiber for any use.
(D) Land or lands within the scope of an existing operating unit for certified water quality management plan may not be separated from the existing operating unit to establish another operating unit unless the ownership of the lands being separated into a new operating unit has changed.
(E) Where mutual agreement regarding an operating unit's consistency with this section is not achieved by the potential holder of the water quality management plan, the soil and water conservation district, and the State Board, the State Board will make a final determination whether or not to certify the water quality management plan.
(15) Performance agreement--A written agreement between the eligible person and the soil and water conservation district wherein the eligible person agrees to perform conservation land improvement measures for which allocated funds are being paid.
(16) Practice standard--A technical specification for a conservation practice within the NRCS FOTG that contains information on why and where the practice should be applied, and sets forth the minimum quality criteria that must be met during the application of that practice in order for it to achieve its intended purpose(s).
(17) Priority system--The system devised by the soil and water conservation district, under guidelines of the State Board, for ranking approved conservation practices and for facilitating the disbursement of allocated funds in line with the soil and water conservation district's priorities.
(18) Program year--The period from September 1 to August 31.
(19) Soil and water conservation district (SWCD)--A governmental subdivision of this state and a public body corporate and politic, organized pursuant to Chapter 201 of the Agriculture Code.
(20) State Board--The Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board organized pursuant to Chapter 201 of the Agriculture Code.
(c) Stakeholder Process. The State Board shall use a stakeholder process to develop cost-share incentive priorities, goals and performance measures for cost-share incentive priorities, and routinely share the results of program activities with stakeholders to gather input for program improvement actions.
(A) Establish a procedure to allocate funds to a specific SWCD or to cost-share incentive funding priorities for utilization by multiple soil and water conservation districts.
(B) Establish conservation practices eligible for cost-share incentive funding and their standards, specifications, maintenance and expected life.
(C) Establish maximum cost-share rate for each conservation practice approved for cost-share incentive funding.
(D) Establish, prior to September 1 of each year, the minimum cost-share incentive funding amount that may be made under the program and the maximum cost-share incentive funding amount that an eligible person may be obligated from in any one program year.
(E) Provide verification to a SWCD that an application qualifies for cost-share incentive funding from a selected cost-share incentive priority prior to SWCD obligation of funds.
(F) Perform clerical, administrative and record-keeping responsibilities required for carrying out cost-share incentive funding activities.
(G) Receive and maintain monthly reports from SWCDs which have been directly allocated an amount of cost-share incentive funding showing the unobligated balance of allocated funds as shown on each ledger at the close of the last day of each month.
(H) Receive requests for reallocated funds and funds reverted from participating SWCDs that received a direct allocation.
(I) Act on appeals filed by applicants.
(J) Process vouchers and issue warrants for cost-share to eligible recipients.
(A) Designate, from State Board approved list, those conservation practices that will be eligible for cost-share incentive funding in their SWCD.
(B) Administer cost-share incentive funding with funds allocated by the State Board if the SWCD received a direct allocation.
(C) Establish, under guidelines of the State Board, the priority system to be used for evaluation of applications for incentive funding through a direct allocation to the SWCD, and to be used for evaluation of applications for cost-share incentive priorities.
(D) Establish the period(s) of time, under the guidelines of the State Board, for accepting applications and announce the availability of cost-share incentive funding locally.
(E) Accept and process cost-share incentive funding applications.
(F) Determine eligibility of lands and persons for cost-share incentive funding under guidelines established by the State Board.
(G) Notify applicants of the SWCD's decisions on approval of applications.
(H) File approved applications in the SWCD's copy of the applicant's water quality management plan.
(I) Obligate allocated funds for applications receiving final approval.
(J) Provide or arrange for technical assistance to applicants, or approve applicant and provide for an alternate source of technical assistance.
(K) Certify completed conservation practices to the State Board prior to payment.
(L) Submit required reports on the unobligated balance of directly allocated funds and on accomplishments to the State Board.
(e) Administration of Funds.
(1) Allocation of Funds. The State Board may allocate funds appropriated from general revenue fund and other sources for cost-share incentive funding among particular soil and water conservation land improvement measures, specific SWCDs, among areas of the state through cost-share incentive priorities, or a combination thereof, and may adjust such allocations throughout the year as available funds and SWCD needs and priorities change in order to achieve the most efficient use of state funds. The State Board may designate a portion of the funds allocated to a SWCD or to cost-share incentive priorities to reimburse SWCDs for obligations incurred in administering cost-share incentive activities.
(2) Approval of Cost-share Incentive Priority Allocations. The State Board may allocate cost-share incentive funding to priorities identified by the State Board, local SWCDs through the stakeholder process described at subsection (c) of this section, and other entities. Higher consideration will be given to priorities recommended through the stakeholder process. Priorities will be approved consistent with the purpose of cost-share incentives specified at subsection (a) of this section. A cost-share incentive priority shall exist for no more than two program years without re-approval by the State Board.
(3) Requests for Direct Allocations. SWCDs within areas designated for cost-share program may submit requests for a direct cost-share incentive fund allocation to the State Board. Such requests must be submitted by September 1st of each program year, and must include a description of how the allocation will control soil erosion, conserve water, and/or protect water quality. Allocations requested to address documented problems with water quality will be considered before other requests, and any request will be subject to the availability of funds after allocations are made to approved cost-share incentive priorities as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection.
(4) Approval of Direct Allocations to SWCDs. The State Board shall consider and approve, reject or adjust SWCD requests for direct allocations giving consideration to the amount of available funding not already allocated to cost-share incentive priorities, relative need for funding and SWCD workload and fund balances, as well as other information deemed necessary by the State Board. Only SWCDs for which the State Board has established an allocation are eligible to directly claim cost-share incentive funds.
(5) Maximum Allowable Amount of Cost-Share Funds per Operating Unit. The maximum allowable amount of cost-share funds that may be applied to any single operating unit is $15,000. This provision applies only to general revenue funds appropriated by the Texas Legislature to assist program participants with the implementation of soil and water conservation land improvement measures as allowed by Agriculture Code §201.301. In cases where the funding for cost-share incentives originates from sources other than appropriations made directly to this program by the Texas Legislature, the maximum allowable amount of cost-share incentive funding per operating unit will be established by the terms of the contractual agreement providing the funds until otherwise specified by the State Board.
(f) Eligibility for Cost-Share Incentive Funding.
(1) Eligible person. Any individual, partnership, administrator for a trust or estate, family-owned corporation, or other legal entity who as an owner, lessee, tenant, or sharecropper, participates in an agricultural or silvicultural operation and has a certified water quality management plan on an operating unit within a SWCD shall be eligible for cost-share incentive funding.
(2) Ineligible for Cost-Share Assistance. State Board Members and State Board Employees are governed by a July 17, 2003, State Board policy that prohibits persons employed by the State Board and members of the State Board from entering into a cost-share (financial assistance) agreement while employed or serving on the State Soil and Water Conservation Board.
(3) Conflict of Interest for Cost-Share Assistance. District Directors and District Employees must follow all WQMP guidelines, complete all required WQMP forms, and recuse themselves from any and all discussions and considerations of the application for a WQMP contract.
(A) District Directors and District Employees must recuse themselves in any situation in which a relative, as defined by Chapter 573, Government Code, Nepotism Prohibitions, has applied for a WQMP contract.
(B) SWCD Board minutes are required to reflect that any District Director or District Employee recuse himself/herself from the deliberation on a contract and there was no undue influence regarding consideration of a contract.
(C) These same prohibitions apply to certifying work performed on a contract and any certification for payment of financial assistance under an approved WQMP contract.
(4) In accordance with the terms of this chapter an eligible person may receive cost-share only once for an operating unit. The State Board, on a case-by-case project or watershed basis and in consultation with the SWCD, may grant a waiver to this requirement in situations where:
(A) Research and/or advanced technology indicate(s) a plan modification to include additional measures to meet Texas surface water quality standards is needed
(B) The operating unit is significantly increased in size by the addition of new land areas or the amount of animal waste production is significantly increased requiring additional conservation practices, not previously cost-shared, in order to meet Texas surface water quality standards
(C) More stringent measures become necessary to meet Texas surface water quality standards
(D) A landowner has assumed the responsibility of a maintenance agreement in cases where the landowner was not the applicant or
(E) A landowner has previously received cost-share through this program but an additional practice or practices has/have been subsequently mandated by state law or the laws, rules, or regulations of a political subdivision. This waiver is only applicable to the mandated practice or practices and may not be applied more than one time to a single practice.
(5) Eligible land. Any of the following categories of land shall be eligible for cost-share incentive funding:
(A) Land within the State that is privately owned by an eligible person.
(B) Land leased by an eligible person over which he/she has adequate control and which land is utilized as a part of his/her operating unit.
(C) Land owned by the State, a political subdivision of the State, or a nonprofit organization that holds land in trust for the state.
(6) Ineligible lands. Allocated funds shall not be used:
(A) To reimburse other units of government for implementing conservation practices.
(B) On privately owned land not used for agricultural or silvicultural production.
(7) Eligible purposes. Cost-share incentive funding shall be available only for those eligible practice measures included in a certified water quality management plan and determined to be needed by the SWCD to:
(B) Improve water quality and/or quantity.
(8) Eligible practices. Conservation practices which the State Board has approved and which are included in the applicant's approved water quality management plan shall be eligible for cost-share incentive funding. The list of eligible practices will be approved as needed by the State Board. The SWCDs shall designate their list of eligible practices from those practices approved by the State Board. SWCDs may request the State Board's approval to offer cost-share incentive funding for conservation practices not included in the State Board's list of approved practices. The use of special conservation practices is limited to those measures that can solve unique problems in a SWCD and which conform with one or more of the purposes of the program. Requests for special conservation practices will be filed in writing with the State Board in time to obtain action and notification in writing from the State Board of its decision(s) prior to announcing the availability of cost-share incentive funding locally for the program year. Conservation practices may be included in a SWCD's list of eligible practices offered for cost-share incentive funding only as approved by the State Board.
(9) Requirement to file an application. In order to qualify for cost-share incentive funding, an eligible person shall file an application with the local SWCD.
(10) Persons required to sign applications and agreements. All applications and agreements shall be signed by:
(A) The eligible person and
(B) the landowner in cases where the eligible person does not hold title to the land constituting the operating unit.
(g) Cost-Share Incentive Funding Processing Procedures.
(1) Responsibility of applicants. Applicants for cost-share incentive funding for conservation practices shall:
(A) Complete and submit an application to the SWCD.
(B) Where an applicant does not have an approved water quality management plan and has not determined the anticipated total cost of the requested measure(s), he/she, as part of the application, may request assistance from the SWCD in developing such plan and determining costs.
(C) After being notified of approval and obligation of funds by the SWCD, request technical assistance through the SWCD to design and layout the approved practices or request approval of alternate sources of technical assistance.
(D) Secure any approved contractor(s) needed and all contractual or other agreements necessary to construct or perform the approved practice(s). Cost-share will not be allowed for work begun before the application is approved.
(E) Complete and sign performance and maintenance agreements and any amendments to those agreements.
(F) Supply the documents necessary to verify completion of the approved practice(s) along with a completed and signed certification of cost.
(2) Responsibilities of SWCDs. SWCDs shall:
(A) Establish the period(s) of time for accepting applications, under the guidelines of the State Board, and announce the availability of cost-share incentive funding locally.
(B) Accept cost-share applications at the SWCD's office.
(C) Determine eligibility of lands and persons for cost-share incentive funding under either the SWCD's local program for a direct allocation or under a cost-share incentive priority. If an applicant's land is in more than one SWCD, the respective SWCD boards of directors will review the application and agree to oversee all works, administrate all contracts and obligate all funds from one SWCD or prorate the funding between SWCDs.
(D) Give initial approval to those applications that meet the eligibility requirements.
(E) Evaluate the initially approved applications under either the SWCD's priority system for a direct allocation or under a cost-share incentive priority and give final approval to the high priority applications that can be funded.
(F) For applications that may qualify for a cost-share incentive priority, submit the applications to the appropriate State Board office for confirmation of qualification and availability of funds.
(G) Obligate funds for the approved conservation practices that can be funded and notify the applicant(s) that his/her conservation practice(s) has/have been approved for cost-share incentive funding and to proceed with installation. Allocated funds must be obligated by the last day of April of the fiscal year allocated. All unobligated allocations, regardless of whether they exist in a direct SWCD allocation or a cost-share incentive priority, shall become unallocated on May 1st of each year and may be reallocated to other priorities at the discretion of the State Board to ensure the most efficient use of cost-share incentive funds.
(H) Determine compliance with standards and specifications and certify completed conservation land treatment measure(s) that meet standards.
(3) Amended Applications for Allocated Funds.
(A) In the event that an adjustment to the estimated cost of conservation practice(s) is necessitated by the final design, the applicant shall either agree to assume the additional cost or complete and submit an amendment to his/her application for allocated funds to the SWCD for approval or denial by the SWCD. If the obligated funds originate from a cost-share incentive priority, the SWCD will confer with the State Board to determine if additional funds are available.
(B) The SWCD may elect to adjust the amount of funds obligated for the conservation practices, provided funds are available, or to request additional funds from the State Board. If the obligated funds originate from a cost-share incentive priority, the SWCD will confer with the State Board to determine if additional funds are available.
(C) In the event additional funds are not available, the conservation practice(s) may be redesigned, if possible, to a level commensurate with available funds, provided the redesign still meets practice standards established by the State Board or the applicant can agree to assume full financial responsibility for the portion of the cost of conservation practice(s) in excess of the amount authorized.
(4) Performance Agreement. As a condition for receipt of cost-share incentive funding for conservation practices, the eligible person receiving the benefit of such incentive funding shall agree to perform those measures in accordance with standards established by the State Board. Completion of the performance agreement and the signature of the eligible person are required prior to payment.
(5) Maintenance Agreement. A written maintenance agreement must be signed between the eligible person and the soil and water conservation district wherein the eligible person(s) agrees to implement and maintain all conservation practices included in the water quality management plan in accordance with the implementation schedule, all technical requirements of the applicable practice standards, and specified life expectancies of practices until such time that the certification of the State Board is withdrawn. The maintenance agreement shall specify that any practices installed through the financing of cost-share incentive funding, to any extent, must be maintained in accordance with the applicable practice standards and specified life expectancies regardless of whether or not the water quality management plan continues to be certified or not. Failure to maintain cost-shared practices may result in the requirement for all or a prorated portion of the cost-share funding to be returned to the State Board. Completion of the maintenance agreement and all appropriate signatures are required prior to payment.
(A) The SWCD shall determine eligibility of the applicant to receive payment of cost-share incentive funding, and provide certification to the State Board that measure(s) have been installed consistent with established standards.
(B) The State Board shall issue warrants for payment of cost share incentive funding.
(7) Applications Held in Abeyance Because of Lack of Funds. In those cases where funds are not available, the applications will be held by the SWCD until allocated funds become available or until the end of the program year. When additional funds are received, the SWCD will obligate those funds. The SWCD may shift all unfunded applications held in abeyance because of lack of funds that are on hand at the end of a program year to the new program year or require all new applications as it deems appropriate.
(8) Applications Denied for Reasons Other Than Lack of Funds. Applications for funds which are denied by the SWCD directors for other than lack of funds shall be retained in the records of the SWCD in accordance with the SWCD's established record retention policy. Written notification of the denial shall be provided to the applicant along with the reason(s) that the application was denied.
(9) Applications Withdrawn. An application may be withdrawn by the applicant at any time prior to receipt of cost-share incentive funding by notifying the SWCD in writing that withdrawal is desired. Applications withdrawn by the applicant shall be retained in the records of the SWCD in accordance with the SWCD's established record retention policy.
(A) An applicant may appeal the SWCD decisions relative to his/her application for allocated funds.
(B) The applicant shall make any appeal in writing to the SWCD which received his/her application for allocated funds and shall set forth the basis for the appeal.
(C) The SWCD shall have 60 days in which to make a decision and notify the applicant in writing.
(D) The decision of the SWCD may be appealed by the applicant to the State Board.
(E) All appeals made to the State Board shall be made in writing and shall set forth the basis for the appeal.
(F) All State Board decisions shall be final.
(h) Maintenance of Practices.
(1) Requirements for maintenance of practices applied using cost-share incentive funds will be outlined in the eligible person's water quality management plan and reviewed with the eligible person at the time of application.
(2) A properly executed maintenance agreement shall be signed by the successful applicant prior to receipt of payment of cost-share incentive funding from the SWCD for a conservation practice(s) installed.
(3) The SWCD will request refund of all or a prorated portion of the cost-share incentive funding paid to an eligible person when the applied conservation practice(s) has not been maintained in compliance with applicable design standards and specifications for the practice during its expected life as agreed to by the eligible person. The State Board may grant a waiver to this requirement on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the SWCD.
(4) Failed Practice Restoration.
(A) When conservation practices that have been successfully completed and which later fail as the result of floods, drought, or other natural disasters, and not the fault of the applicant, the applicant may apply for and SWCD may allocate additional cost-share incentive funds to restore them to their original design standards and specifications. These funds must come from either a current direct allocation to the SWCD or from a current cost-share incentive priority with confirmation from the State Board from the current program year.
(B) When conservation practices that have been successfully completed and which later fail as the result of error or omission on the part of the State Board staff, the SWCD staff, or the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service staff while assisting the SWCD, and not the fault of the applicant, the State Board may approve additional cost-share incentive funds to restore the measure(s) to the correct design standards and specifications where an investigation approved by the Executive Director or his designee shows good cause. These funds must come from either a current direct allocation to the SWCD or from a current cost-share incentive priority with confirmation from the State Board from the current program year.
(5) In cases of hardship, death of the participant, or at the time of transfer of ownership of land where a conservation practice(s) has been applied using cost-share incentive funding and the expected life assigned the practice has not expired, the participant, heir(s), or buyer(s) respectively, must agree to maintain the practice(s) or the participant, heir(s) or the buyer by agreement with seller must refund all or a prorated portion of the cost-share incentive funds received for the practice as determined by the SWCD. The State Board on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the SWCD may grant a waiver to this requirement.
(i) Determining Status of Practices During Transfer of Land Ownership.
(1) A seller of agricultural land with respect to which a maintenance agreement is in effect may request the SWCD to inspect the practices. If the practices have not been removed, altered, or modified, the SWCD shall issue a written statement that the seller has satisfactorily maintained the permanent practice as of the date of the statement.
(2) The buyer of lands covered by a maintenance agreement may also request that the SWCD inspect the lands to determine whether any practice has been removed, altered, or modified as of the date of the inspection. If so, the SWCD will provide the buyer with a statement specifying the extent of noncompliance as of the date of the statement.
(3) The seller and the buyer, if known, shall be given notice of the time of inspection so that they may be present during the inspection to express their views as to compliance.
(j) Reporting and Accounting. The State Board shall receive and maintain required reports from SWCDs showing the unobligated balance of directly allocated funds as shown on each ledger at the close of the last day of each month.
(k) Pursuant to Agriculture Code §201.311, one or more SWCDs may be designated to administer portions of this section as determined by the State Board.
Dr. Hugh Hammond Bennett (left) and Mr. Roach Stewart of Duke Power Company attend a picnic for tenant farmers of the Duke Power Company near Mooresville, N.C.
&ldquoLand must be nurtured not plundered and wasted.&rdquo &ndash Hugh Hammond Bennett . Read more quotes from NRCS&rsquo first chief.
A huge dust storm moves across the land during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
For more than 80 years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has been a pioneer in conservation, working with landowners, local and state governments, and other federal agencies to maintain healthy and productive working landscapes.
On April 27, 1935 Congress passed Public Law 74-46, in which it recognized that "the wastage of soil and moisture resources on farm, grazing, and forest lands . . . is a menace to the national welfare," and it directed the Secretary of Agriculture to establish the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as a permanent agency in the USDA. In 1994, Congress changed SCS&rsquos name to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to better reflect the broadened scope of the agency&rsquos concerns.
The creation of the Soil Conservation Service represented the culmination of the efforts of Hugh Hammond Bennett, &ldquofather of Soil Conservation&rdquo and the first Chief of SCS, to awaken public concern for the problem of soil erosion. Bennett became aware of the threat posed by the erosion of soils early in his career as a surveyor for the USDA Bureau of Soils. He observed how soil erosion by water and wind reduced the ability of the land to sustain agricultural productivity and to support rural communities who depended on it for their livelihoods. He launched a public crusade of writing and speaking about the soil erosion crisis. His highly influential 1928 publication &ldquoSoil Erosion: A National Menace&rdquo influenced Congress to create the first federal soil erosion experiment stations in 1929.
With the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as President in 1932, conservation of soil and water resources became a national priority in the New Deal administration. The National Industrial Recovery Act (P.L. 73-67) passed in June 1933 included funds to fight soil erosion. With this money, the Soil Erosion Service (SES) was established in the Department of Interior with Hugh Bennett as Chief in September 1933. SES established demonstration projects in critically eroded areas across the country to show landowners the benefits of conservation.
Perhaps no event did more to emphasize the severity of the erosion crisis in the popular imagination than the Dust Bowl. Beginning in 1932, persistent drought conditions on the Great Plains caused widespread crop failures and exposed the region's soil to blowing wind. A large dust storm on May 11, 1934 swept fine soil particles over Washington, D.C. and three hundred miles out into the Atlantic Ocean. More intense and frequent storms swept the Plains in 1935. On March 6 and again on March 21, dust clouds passed over Washington and darkened the sky just as Congress commenced hearings on a proposed soil conservation law. Bennett seized the opportunity to explain the cause of the storms and to offer a solution. He penned editorials and testified to Congress urging for the creation of a permanent soil conservation agency. The result was the Soil Conservation Act (PL 74-46), which President Roosevelt signed on April 27, 1935, creating the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) in the USDA.
After 1935, SCS expanded its soil conservation program nationwide with a several-fold increase in the number of demonstration projects. Labor provided by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), the Civil Works Administration (CWA), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) supported this work. SCS&rsquos technical experts worked to advance scientific understanding of erosion processes and to develop effective conservation practices. SCS&rsquos network of regional nurseries selected and increased the seeds and plants necessary for conservation work.
In 1936, the agency assumed responsibility for performing surveys and devising flood control plans for selected watersheds under the authority of the Flood Control Act of 1936 (P.L. 74-738). In 1938, in a major reorganization of USDA&rsquos land management program, the Secretary of Agriculture made SCS responsible for administering the Department&rsquos drainage and irrigation assistance programs, the snow survey and water supply forecasting program, as well as the Water Facilities, Land Utilization, and Farm Forestry programs. The addition of these responsibilities made SCS the USDA&rsquos lead private lands conservation agency.
As early as 1935 USDA managers began to search for ways to extend conservation assistance to more farmers. They believed the solution was to establish democratically organized soil conservation districts to lead the conservation planning effort at the local level. To create a framework for cooperation, USDA drafted the Standard State Soil Conservation Districts Law, which President Roosevelt sent to the governors of all the states in 1937. The first soil conservation district was organized in the Brown Creek watershed of North Carolina on August 4, 1937. Today, there over three thousand conservation districts across the country.
The decade after World War II was a time of growth for SCS. Congress increased appropriations for soil conservation programs. The Secretary made SCS the lead agency responsible for technical oversight of the &ldquopermanent&rdquo type conservation measures installed with cost-share funds under the Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP). During this time the number of soil conservation districts continued to increase, as did the number of cooperators working with SCS to develop conservation plans for their farms.
Hugh Bennett stepped-down as Chief in 1951 and retired from federal service in 1952. The same year Secretary of Agriculture Charles Brannan unified USDA soils works when he merged the Soil Survey into SCS. Brannan also transferred most of SCS&rsquos research activities to the Agricultural Research Service and gave the Forest Service responsibility for administering SCS&rsquos Land Utilization Projects. In 1953, as part of a major reorganization of the USDA, SCS&rsquos regional offices were eliminated and the technical role of state offices was enhanced. At this time, SCS&rsquos nurseries relinquished their plant production role, but continued to select plants for conservation uses at Plant Materials Centers
Perhaps the most important development in the Post-War era came with passage of the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act (P.L. 84-566) in 1954. Watershed planning has been an important part of the agency&rsquos mission since the 1930s. Hugh Bennett recognized that successful soil and water conservation required addressing resource concerns at the watershed scale. SCS organized its early demonstration projects on a watershed basis. With passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936, SCS began watershed investigations to determine the most effective methods to control erosion and prevent floods. The Flood Control Act of 1944 (PL 78-534) authorized SCS to begin work on its first eleven watershed projects. The Agricultural Appropriations Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-156) authorized an additional 63 projects. With the support of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Congress gave SCS permanent watershed planning authority with passage of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L. 84-566). Since 1944, SCS, now NRCS, has constructed nearly 11,000 dams on some 2,000 watershed projects that continue to provide flood control, water supplies, recreation, and wildlife habitat benefits.
With arrival of another prolonged drought in the 1950s Congress passed the Great Plains Conservation Program which focused financial assistance for conservation in the Plains states. SCS provided financial and technical assistance to meet multiple objectives of conservation and economic stability. During this period, SCS also began to provide technical assistance for the Soil Bank Program which paid rental payments for retired cropland and provided financial incentives to farmers for planting protective cover crops.
In the 1960s, under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, SCS&rsquos role expanded to address new concerns in the countryside in the cities. The agency began to emphasize rural development and recreation as conservation planning objectives. Creation of the Resource Conservation and Development program (RC&D) in 1962 allowed SCS to work with landowners in areas larger than small watersheds or conservation districts to develop long term economic development plans for the entire project area. SCS also began to focus on providing recreational benefits with its projects. SCS also began to become more involved in suburbanizing areas where farmland was being developed as commercial and residential areas. These initiatives were part of a broader effort by the USDA to extend its services to all of American not just the parts that live in rural areas or engage in production agriculture.
The 1960s and 1970s was a time of broad popular concern about the health of the environment. Expressed most prominently in the first Earth Day demonstration in 1970, these concerns led to the creation of a national framework of environmental policies during that changed the way SCS put conservation on the ground. The National Environmental Policy Act (P.L. 91-190), signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon, required federal agencies to evaluate and report on the environmental impacts of their activities. Water quality and non-point source pollution became important areas of concern with passage the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments (P.L. 92-500) in 1972 and the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217) in 1977. The protection of wetlands emerged as critical issue with SCS participation in the Water Bank program, which provided incentives to landowners to protect wetland habitat.
During the 1970s, SCS also gained greater authority to monitor and assess the nation&rsquos natural resource base. Congress authorized the National Resources Inventory (NRI) in the Rural Development Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-419) to better understand the implications of land use changes for soil erosion. The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-192) extended this authority and required USDA to regularly report to Congress on the condition of the soil and water resources on non-federal lands as part of a process for developing more effective conservation policies and laws.
The farm crisis of the 1980s created an opening for the implementation of innovative conservation policies developed as part of the Resource Conservation Act (RCA) process. The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198), with its Sodbuster, Swampbuster, and Highly Erodible Lands provisions, made conservation a prerequisite for participation in USDA programs. It also established the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to provide rental payments to farmers for putting cropland into grass or trees. Another important development during this period was the widespread adoption of conservation tillage practices, which has led to a significant reduction in soil erosion. SCS working with its partners played a significant role working to administer these programs and develop the necessary tools and technology to make these conservation innovations possible.
In a number of areas the NRCS has participated in what might be termed &ldquorestoration&rdquo projects to reverse previous land, channel and wetland alterations. In 1994 NRCS assumed management of the Wetland Reserve Program which had been authorized in the 1990 farm bill. Funds provided for restoration as well as long-term or permanent easements. SCS geologists and landscape architects coordinated a Federal effort to produce a &ldquoStream Corridor Restoration&rdquo manual. The manual placed emphasis on use of vegetation rather than structural works for stream corridor restoration. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), authorized in the 1985 farm bill, provided for long-term (10-year) rentals of cropland and establishment of vegetation on the reserve acres. In requiring vegetative cover, the SCS placed great emphasis on native species of grass. The nurseries and plant materials centers, which had been selecting plants for conservation uses since the beginning of the agency, now put an emphasis on selecting native seeds and plants for use in prairie and wetland restoration. They had also worked with the National Park Service to select and increase native seed and plants for the National Parks.
In 1994, Congress initiated a major reorganization of the USDA and renamed SCS the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to better reflect the broad scope of the agency&rsquos mission. These changes marked the beginning of two major trends that have defined the Service&rsquos role in conservation since. The first is NRCS&rsquos growing responsibility for administering financial assistance for conservation programs. The other increases many times over in the amount of financial assistance available for conservation. The result over the last two decades has been a proliferation of innovation programs that give conservationists and landowners the necessary means to protect our nation&rsquos natural resources.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service continues to fulfill the conservation legacy established in 1935 by Hugh Hammond Bennett even as it adapts to changing concerns and takes on new responsibilities to address present and future challenges. Through decades of experience, SCS and, now NRCS, has developed numerous science-based tools and standards in agronomy, forestry, engineering, economics, wildlife biology and other disciplines that local NRCS field office conservationists use in helping landowners plan and install conservation practices. NRCS professional are guided by a conservation philosophy instilled in the Service from experience. This is to assess the resources on the land. Evaluate the conservation problems and opportunities. Look to different sciences and disciplines for solutions. Integrate all into a conservation plan for the whole property. Through implementing conservation on individual projects, contribute to the overall quality of life in the watershed or region. And, always work closely with land users so that the conservation plan reconciles with their objectives. These principles have served well as a foundation for addressing conservation challenges now for seventy-five years and will continue do so in the future.
Water resources
Water resources are sources of water that are useful or potentially useful to humans.
It is important because it is needed for life to exist.
Many uses of water include agricultural, industrial, household, recreational and environmental activities.
Virtually all of these human uses require fresh water.
Only 2.5% of water on the Earth is fresh water, and over two thirds of this is frozen in glaciers and polar ice caps.
Water demand already exceeds supply in many parts of the world, and many more areas are expected to experience this imbalance in the near future.
It is estimated that 70% of world-wide water use is for irrigation in agriculture.
Climate change will have significant impacts on water resources around the world because of the close connections between the climate and hydrologic cycle.
Due to the expanding human population competition for water is growing such that many of the worlds major aquifers are becoming depleted.
Many pollutants threaten water supplies, but the most widespread, especially in underdeveloped countries, is the discharge of raw sewage into natural waters.
6.28: Soil and Water Resources - Biology
When dry soil is crushed in the hand, it can be seen that it is composed of all kinds of particles of different sizes.
Most of these particles originate from the degradation of rocks they are called mineral particles. Some originate from residues of plants or animals (rotting leaves, pieces of bone, etc.), these are called organic particles (or organic matter). The soil particles seem to touch each other, but in reality have spaces in between. These spaces are called pores. When the soil is "dry", the pores are mainly filled with air. After irrigation or rainfall, the pores are mainly filled with water. Living material is found in the soil. It can be live roots as well as beetles, worms, larvae etc. They help to aerate the soil and thus create favourable growing conditions for the plant roots (Fig. 26).
Fig. 26. The composition of the soil
If a pit is dug in the soil, at least 1 m deep, various layers, different in colour and composition can be seen. These layers are called horizons. This succession of horizons is called the profile of the soil (Fig. 27).
Fig. 27. The soil profile
A very general and simplified soil profile can be described as follows:
a. The plough layer (20 to 30 cm thick): is rich in organic matter and contains many live roots. This layer is subject to land preparation (e.g. ploughing, harrowing etc.) and often has a dark colour (brown to black).b. The deep plough layer: contains much less organic matter and live roots. This layer is hardly affected by normal land preparation activities. The colour is lighter, often grey, and sometimes mottled with yellowish or reddish spots.
c. The subsoil layer: hardly any organic matter or live roots are to be found. This layer is not very important for plant growth as only a few roots will reach it.
d. The parent rock layer: consists of rock, from the degradation of which the soil was formed. This rock is sometimes called parent material.
The depth of the different layers varies widely: some layers may be missing altogether.
The mineral particles of the soil differ widely in size and can be classified as follows:
Distinguisable with naked eye
The amount of sand, silt and clay present in the soil determines the soil texture.
In the field, soil texture can be determined by rubbing the soil between the fingers (see Fig. 28).
Farmers often talk of light soil and heavy soil. A coarse-textured soil is light because it is easy to work, while a fine-textured soil is heavy because it is hard to work.
Expression used by the farmer
Expression used in literature
The texture of a soil is permanent, the farmer is unable to modify or change it.
Soil structure refers to the grouping of soil particles (sand, silt, clay, organic matter and fertilizers) into porous compounds. These are called aggregates. Soil structure also refers to the arrangement of these aggregates separated by pores and cracks (Fig. 29).
The basic types of aggregate arrangements are shown in Fig. 30, granular, blocky, prismatic, and massive structure.
Fig. 29. The soil structure
When present in the topsoil, a massive structure blocks the entrance of water seed germination is difficult due to poor aeration. On the other hand, if the topsoil is granular, the water enters easily and the seed germination is better.
In a prismatic structure, movement of the water in the soil is predominantly vertical and therefore the supply of water to the plant roots is usually poor.
Unlike texture, soil structure is not permanent. By means of cultivation practices (ploughing, ridging, etc.), the farmer tries to obtain a granular topsoil structure for his fields.
Fig. 30. Some examples of soil structures
When rain or irrigation water is supplied to a field, it seeps into the soil. This process is called infiltration.
Infiltration can be visualized by pouring water into a glass filled with dry powdered soil, slightly tamped. The water seeps into the soil the colour of the soil becomes darker as it is wetted (see Fig. 31).
Fig. 31. Infiltration of water into the soil
Repeat the previous test, this time with two glasses. One is filled with dry sand and the other is filled with dry clay (see Fig. 32a and b).
The infiltration of water into the sand is faster than into the clay. The sand is said to have a higher infiltration rate.
Fig. 32a. The same amount of water is supplied to each glass
Fig. 32b. After one hour the water has infiltrated in the sand, while some water is still ponding on the clay
The infiltration rate of a soil is the velocity at which water can seep into it. It is commonly measured by the depth (in mm) of the water layer that the soil can absorb in an hour.
An infiltration rate of 15 mm/hour means that a water layer of 15 mm on the surface of the soil, will take one hour to infiltrate (see fig. 33).
Fig. 33. Soil with an infiltration rate of 15 mm/hour
A range of values for infiltration rates is given below:
The infiltration rate of a soil depends on factors that are constant, such as the soil texture. It also depends on factors that vary, such as the soil moisture content.
i. Soil TextureCoarse textured soils have mainly large particles in between which there are large pores.
On the other hand, fine textured soils have mainly small particles in between which there are small pores (see Fig. 34).
Fig. 34. Infiltration rate and soil texture
In coarse soils, the rain or irrigation water enters and moves more easily into larger pores it takes less time for the water to infiltrate into the soil. In other words, infiltration rate is higher for coarse textured soils than for fine textured soils.
ii. The soil moisture content
The water infiltrates faster (higher infiltration rate) when the soil is dry, than when it is wet (see Fig. 35). As a consequence, when irrigation water is applied to a field, the water at first infiltrates easily, but as the soil becomes wet, the infiltration rate decreases.
Fig. 35. Infiltration rate and soil moisture content
iii. The soil structure
Generally speaking, water infiltrates quickly (high infiltration rate) into granular soils but very slowly (low infiltration rate) into massive and compact soils.
Because the farmer can influence the soil structure (by means of cultural practices), he can also change the infiltration rate of his soil.
The soil moisture content indicates the amount of water present in the soil.
It is commonly expressed as the amount of water (in mm of water depth) present in a depth of one metre of soil. For example: when an amount of water (in mm of water depth) of 150 mm is present in a depth of one metre of soil, the soil moisture content is 150 mm/m (see Fig. 36).
Fig. 36. A soil moisture content of 150 mm/m
The soil moisture content can also be expressed in percent of volume. In the example above, 1 m 3 of soil (e.g. with a depth of 1 m, and a surface area of 1 m 2 ) contains 0.150 m 3 of water (e.g. with a depth of 150 mm = 0.150 m and a surface area of 1 m 2 ). This results in a soil moisture content in volume percent of:
Thus, a moisture content of 100 mm/m corresponds to a moisture content of 10 volume percent.
Note: The amount of water stored in the soil is not constant with time, but may vary.
During a rain shower or irrigation application, the soil pores will fill with water. If all soil pores are filled with water the soil is said to be saturated. There is no air left in the soil (see Fig. 37a). It is easy to determine in the field if a soil is saturated. If a handful of saturated soil is squeezed, some (muddy) water will run between the fingers.
Plants need air and water in the soil. At saturation, no air is present and the plant will suffer. Many crops cannot withstand saturated soil conditions for a period of more than 2-5 days. Rice is one of the exceptions to this rule. The period of saturation of the topsoil usually does not last long. After the rain or the irrigation has stopped, part of the water present in the larger pores will move downward. This process is called drainage or percolation.
The water drained from the pores is replaced by air. In coarse textured (sandy) soils, drainage is completed within a period of a few hours. In fine textured (clayey) soils, drainage may take some (2-3) days.
After the drainage has stopped, the large soil pores are filled with both air and water while the smaller pores are still full of water. At this stage, the soil is said to be at field capacity. At field capacity, the water and air contents of the soil are considered to be ideal for crop growth (see Fig. 37b).
Little by little, the water stored in the soil is taken up by the plant roots or evaporated from the topsoil into the atmosphere. If no additional water is supplied to the soil, it gradually dries out.
The dryer the soil becomes, the more tightly the remaining water is retained and the more difficult it is for the plant roots to extract it. At a certain stage, the uptake of water is not sufficient to meet the plant's needs. The plant looses freshness and wilts the leaves change colour from green to yellow. Finally the plant dies.
The soil water content at the stage where the plant dies, is called permanent wilting point. The soil still contains some water, but it is too difficult for the roots to suck it from the soil (see Fig. 37c).
Fig. 37. Some soil moisture characteristics
The soil can be compared to a water reservoir for the plants. When the soil is saturated, the reservoir is full. However, some water drains rapidly below the rootzone before the plant can use it (see Fig. 38a).
When this water has drained away, the soil is at field capacity. The plant roots draw water from what remains in the reservoir (see Fig. 38b).
Fig. 38b. Field capacity
When the soil reaches permanent wilting point, the remaining water is no longer available to the plant (see Fig. 38c).
Fig. 38c. Permanent wilting point
The amount of water actually available to the plant is the amount of water stored in the soil at field capacity minus the water that will remain in the soil at permanent wilting point. This is illustrated in Fig. 39.
Fig. 39. The available soil moisture or water content
Available water content = water content at field capacity - water content at permanent wilting point . (13)
The available water content depends greatly on the soil texture and structure. A range of values for different types of soil is given in the following table.
Available water content in mm water depth per m soil depth (mm/m)
The field capacity, permanent wilting point (PWP) and available water content are called the soil moisture characteristics. They are constant for a given soil, but vary widely from one type of soil to another.
Part of the water applied to the soil surface drains below the rootzone and feeds deeper soil layers which are permanently saturated the top of the saturated layer is called groundwater table or sometimes just water table (see Fig. 40).
Fig. 40. The groundwater table
The depth of the groundwater table varies greatly from place to place, mainly due to changes in topography of the area (see Fig. 41).
Fig. 41. Variations in depth of the groundwater table
In one particular place or field, the depth of the groundwater table may vary in time.
Following heavy rainfall or irrigation, the groundwater table rises. It may even reach and saturate the rootzone. If prolonged, this situation can be disastrous for crops which cannot resist "wet feet" for a long period. Where the groundwater table appears at the surface, it is called an open groundwater table. This is the case in swampy areas.
The groundwater table can also be very deep and distant from the rootzone, for example following a prolonged dry period. To keep the rootzone moist, irrigation is then necessary.
A perched groundwater layer can be found on top of an impermeable layer rather close to the surface (20 to 100 cm). It covers usually a limited area. The top of the perched water layer is called the perched groundwater table.
The impermeable layer separates the perched groundwater layer from the more deeply located groundwater table (see Fig. 42).
Fig. 42. A perched groundwater table
Soil with an impermeable layer not far below the rootzone should be irrigated with precaution, because in the case of over irrigation (too much irrigation), the perched water table may rise rapidly.
So far, it has been explained that water can move downward, as well as horizontally (or laterally). In addition, water can move upward.
If a piece of tissue is dipped in water (Fig. 43), the water is sucked upward by the tissue.
The same process happens with a groundwater table and the soil above it. The groundwater can be sucked upward by the soil through very small pores that are called capillars. This process is called capillary rise.
In fine textured soil (clay), the upward movement of water is slow but covers a long distance. On the other hand, in coarse textured soil (sand), the upward movement of the water is quick but covers only a short distance.
more than 80 cm up to several metres
Erosion is the transport of soil from one place to another. Climatic factors such as wind and rain can cause erosion, but also under irrigation it may occur.
Over a short period, the process of erosion is almost invisible. However, it can be continuous and the whole fertile top layer of a field may disappear within a few years.
Soil erosion by water depends on:
Erosion is usually heaviest during the early part of irrigation, especially when irrigating on slopes. The dry surface soil, sometimes loosened by cultivation, is easily removed by flowing water. After the first irrigation, the soil is moist and settles down, so erosion is reduced. Newly irrigated areas are more sensitive to erosion, especially in their early stages.
There are two main types of erosion caused by water: sheet erosion and gully erosion. They are often combined.
Sheet erosion is the even removal of a very thin layer or "sheet" of topsoil from sloping land. It occurs over large areas of land and causes most of the soil losses (see Fig. 44).
The signs of sheet erosion are:
- only a thin layer of topsoil or the subsoil is partly exposed sometimes even parent rock is exposed- quite large amounts of coarse sand, gravel and pebbles in the arable layer, the finer material has been removed
- exposure of the roots
- deposit of eroded material at the foot of the slope.
Gully erosion is defined as the removal of soil by a concentrated water flow, large enough to form channels or gullies.
These gullies carry water during heavy rain or irrigation and gradually become wider and deeper (see Fig. 45).
SWS ONLINE
The Soil and Water Sciences Department offers graduate-level certificate programs in:
- Biodegradation and Bioremediation
- Global Agroecology
- Soil Ecosystem Services
- Soil, Water, and Public Health
- Sustainable Agroecosystems
- Sustainable Land Resource and Nutrient Management
- Wetland and Water Resource Management
The programs can be completed entirely online and are available to on-campus students as well. The distance learning delivery mode allows students in remote locations to complete course assignments and communicate with faculty and other students anywhere and in their own time. The program maintains the high academic standards of the University of Florida.
The certificate programs are designed for scientists, extension agents, consultants and others for professional development and continued education. Individuals working in, or interested in learning more about, soil and water resource management can become certified in a body of knowledge in these specializations without formally pursuing graduate degrees if they so desire. These certificate programs are not to be confused with certification programs. The certificates are awarded by the University of Florida and also designated on the student's UF transcript.
About the Programs
Each certificate includes a total of 12 semester hours of required core courses and elective courses. In addition to the course requirements for the graduate certificate program, the student must pass a competency exam that is based on the core courses completed (and does not impact GPA).
See individual Certificate Program details and their core and elective requirements, including course syllabi and descriptions, below. Note that course offerings in specific semesters may be subject to change.
Certificate Program Course Requirements
The courses included in this certificate program are intended to provide the student with a solid background in soil science, a fundamental understanding of basic processes controlling the fate of pollutants in soils, and the theoretical basis for remediation of contaminated lands.
Core Courses Required
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, offered in the fall and spring
SWS 6262 Soil Contamination and Remediation, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 6366 Biodegradation & Bioremediation, 3 credits, offered in the spring
Elective Courses (Choose One)
SWS 5305C Soil Microbial Ecology, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5605C Environmental Soil Physics, 3 credits, offered in the fall
Apply For: Biodegradation & Bioremediation Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Biodegradation and Bioremediation certificate program, contact Dr. Andrew Ogram ([email protected], 352-294-3138).
This certificate was developed to provide students with a basic foundation in agroecological principles along with a unique hands-on experience at an international partner institution. We indeed felt it was critical to develop an opportunity for students to experience the range of diverse cropping systems worldwide, to network, and to build a strong foundation in global agroecology. Students are required to do a research internship at one of our partner institutions. They will be placed under the supervision of a researcher there and will be involved in the research underway at the time of their visit. There is no expectation for students to conduct their own research. Students can also choose to take a course from this partner institution while visiting.
Core Courses Required
ALS 5155 Global Agroecosystems, 3 credits, offered in the fall
ALS 5905 International Research Immersion, 3 credits, offered in the fall/spring/summer
Each student must spend some time abroad at one of our partner institutions, during which time students are expected to participate in ongoing research at the host institution with resident faculty mentors. During this time, the student can enroll in distance education classes offered by the program and/or attend local classes offered by the international institution (at your own costs). Following this experience, the student presents a seminar to his/her UF advisor describing their involvement in the research at the partner institution.
Elective Courses (Choose One)
AGR 5511 Crop Ecology, 3 credits, offered in the fall
AGR 6422C Environmental Crop Nutrition, 3 credits, offered in the fall
AGR 5444 Ecophysiology of Crop Production, 3 credits, offered in the spring
AGR 5230C Florida Grasslands Ecosystems, 4 credits, offered in the spring
PLS 5632C Integrated Weed Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5208 Sustainable Agriculture & Urban Land Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5246 Water Sustainability, 3 credits, offered in the spring
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, offered in the fall and spring
IPM 5305 Principles of Pesticides, 3 credits, offered in the spring
Apply For: Global Agroecology Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Global Agroecology certificate program, contact Dr. James Estrada, [email protected]
The functions performed by ecosystems that ensure natural cycles (e.g. water, carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen), processes and energy flows continue to provide an environment that supports life, including human life. Learn about valuation of services provided by soils and ecosystems from local to global scales and sustainable land resource management. This certificate program integrates the assessment of biogeochemical properties across complex soil-landscapes as well as socio-economic and cultural values.
Core Courses Required (Choose Two - Six Credits)
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall and spring
SWS 5224 Environmental Biogeochemistry, 3 credits, letter graded, offered spring of odd years
SWS 5234 Environmental Soil, Water, and Land Use, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall
Elective Courses (Choose Two - Six Credits)
AGG 6503 Nanotechnology in Food, Agriculture, and Environment, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every spring
SWS 5305C Soil Microbial Ecology, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall
SWS 5551 Soils, Water, and Public Health, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every spring
SWS 5721C GIS in Land Resource Management, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall
SWS 6134 Soil Quality, 3 credits, letter graded, offered in the fall of even years
SWS 6262 Soil Contamination and Remediation, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall
SWS 6932 Forest and Soil Ecosystem Services, 3 credits, letter graded, offered every fall
Apply For: Soil Ecosystem Services Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Soil Ecosystem Services certificate program, contact Dr. Zhenli He ([email protected], 561-468-3922 x109).
Soil and water quality are critically linked to the health of both ecosystems and human populations. Learn the various ways that soils, water, and public health interact, and how those interactions can be predicted, quantified, and controlled.
Core Courses Required
PHC 6313 Environmental Health Concepts in Public Health, 3 credits, offered in the fall on-campus, every spring and even year summer C-Semester online
SWS 5308 Ecology of Waterborne Pathogens, 3 credits, offered in the spring on-campus and online
SWS 5551 Soils, Water, and Public Health, 3 credits, offered in the spring on-campus and online
Elective Courses (Choose One)
PHC 6052 Introduction to Biostatistical Methods, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 6262 Soil Contamination and Remediation, 3 credits, offered in the fall on-campus and online
SWS 6366 Biodegradation and Bioremediation, 3 credits, offered in the spring on-campus and online
SWS 6992 Aquatic Toxicology, 3 credits, offered in the spring on-campus and online
Apply For: Soil, Water, and Public Health Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Soil, Water, and Public Health graduate certificate program, contact Dr. Andrew Ogram ([email protected], 352-294-3138).
The courses included in this certificate program, offered in collaboration with the Agronomy Department, are intended to provide the student with a diverse, interdisciplinary background that emphasizes sustainability, resource management, valuation of ecosystem services, system productivity, and profitability. See the Agroecology at UF website for more information.
Core Courses Required
ALS 5155 Global Agroecosystems, 3 credits, offered in the fall
AGR 5444 Ecophysiology of Crop Production, 3 credits, offered in the spring
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, offered in the fall and spring
Elective Courses (Choose One)
AGR 5511 Crop Ecology, 3 credits, offered in the fall
AGR 6422C Environmental Crop Nutrition, 3 credits, offered in the fall
PLS 5632C Integrated Weed Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5208 Sustainable Agricultural and Urban Land Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5246 Water Resource Sustainability, 3 credits, offered in the spring of odd years
Apply For: Sustainable Agroecosystems Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Sustainable Agroecosystems certificate program, contact Romain Gloaguen ([email protected], 352-294-1591).
Soils perform various functions including (i) food and biomass production, (ii) environmental interaction (storage, filtering and transformation of nutrients and contaminants), (iii) serve as biological habitat, and more. To manage this critical zone minimizing adverse impacts on the environment while optimizing production and services requires knowledge of sustainable land resource and nutrient management.
Core Courses Required
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, offered in the fall and spring
SWS 5234 Environmental Soil, Water, and Land Use, 3 credits, offered in the fall
Elective Courses (Choose Two)
SWS 5115 Environmental Nutrient Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall of even years
SWS 5208 Sustainable Agricultural and Urban Land Management, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5551 Soils, Water and Public Health, 3 credits, offered in the spring
SWS 5605C Environmental Soil Physics, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 5716C Environmental Pedology, 4 credits, offered in the spring
SWS 6134 Soil Quality, 3 credits, offered in the fall of even years
Apply For: Sustainable Land Resource and Nutrient Management Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Sustainable Land Resource and Nutrient Management certificate program, contact Dr. Allan Bacon ([email protected], 352-294-3119).
Water is critical to sustain life, agricultural production and preservation of natural ecosystems such as wetlands. Understanding the hydrologic cycle, soil-water interactions, and how anthropogenic activities influence water balance and quality is essential for sustainable water resource management. Wetland management generally involves activities that can be conducted within, and around wetlands, both natural and man-made (constructed), to protect, restore, manipulate, or provide for their functions and values. To reduce wetland losses, improve and preserve soil and water quality of wetlands requires knowledge on wetland biogeochemistry. Assessment of ecological indicators is critical to optimize management of wetland ecosystems.
Core Courses Required
SWS 5050 Soils for Environmental Professionals, 3 credits, offered in the fall and spring
SWS 5248 Wetlands and Water Quality, 3 credits, offered in the fall
Elective Courses (Choose Two to Three, 6 Credits Required)
SWS 5247 Hydric Soils, 2 credits, offered in the as a hybrid course in the spring
SWS 5716C Environmental Pedology, 4 credits, offered in the spring
SWS 6134 Soil Quality, 3 credits, offered in the fall of even years
SWS 6448 Biogeochemistry of Wetlands and Aquatic Systems, 3 credits, offered in the fall
SWS 6932 Wetlands and Watershed Seminars, 1 credit, offered in the fall and spring
Apply For: Wetland & Water Resource Management Certificate
Contact:
For questions about the Wetland and Water Resource Management certificate program, contact Dr. Mark Clark ([email protected], 352-294-3115).
Eligibility
Applicants must have earned a Bachelor’s degree. Students wishing to enroll in one of these graduate certificate programs should have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in soil and water science or an equivalent degree in an allied field such as geology, natural resources, biology, ecology, hydrology, microbiology, environmental science, horticultural science, environmental engineering, agricultural engineering or agronomy. If your bachelor's degree is not in soil and water science or you don't have an equivalent degree in an allied field, you will generally have to complete pre-requisite courses at a local institution before applying for admission to the graduate certificate program. It is not necessary to be admitted to the Graduate School to earn a certificate, but students who later enroll in a graduate program may petition to transfer up to 15 UF graduate-level credit hours (grade B or better) to their graduate degree program. To qualify for a certificate, students must have an overall GPA of 3.0 or better for the entire program. A grade of C in one course only will be accepted, providing the overall 3.0 average is maintained. No grade below C will be accepted.
Tuition & Fees: Fall 2020 - Summer 2021
$542.57 Per Credit Hour For Graduate Certificate Courses (Course Level 5000 - 9999). See the breakdown of the Fall 2020 - Summer 2021 Distance Education Grad Cert Tuition and Fees. Please note that tuition and fees are subject to an increase and are reviewed in late June/early July for the upcoming academic year.
Enrollment
Important Note: Enrollment is restricted to one graduate certificate program offered in the Soil and Water Sciences Department. Requests for enrollment in more than one graduate certificate program offered in the Soil and Water Sciences Department will not be approved.
Apply at least 1 month before the semester begins. Fall 2021 semester begins August 23rd, and Spring 2022 semester begins January 5th.
Submit the online application and pay the $30 application fee for the graduate certificate program you are interested in joining, at least one month prior to the semester beginning. In the certificate application process, the Office of Admissions must complete the following review before your application is referred to your department:
- Determination of satisfactory conduct record
- Application fee payment of $30
- Validation of transcripts and degrees
- Verification of residency classification
You are required to send an official transcripts to the UF Office of Admissions as soon as possible after applying:
UF Office of Admissions
201 Criser Hall
P.O. Box 114000
Gainesville, FL 32611-4000
Prerequisites and Computer Requirements
Prior to enrolling in any course, the student must ensure that either the prerequisites for the course, if any, have been met, or he or she must obtain approval from course instructor to waive the requirement. Students must have a computer with access to the internet and a UF Gatorlink account. High-speed connections to the internet are a prerequisite.
Soil and Water Stewardship Week Is April 29-May 6
St. Paul, Minn. – In the Land of 10,000 Lakes, Minnesotans have a great love for their lakes, rivers, streams and the great outdoors. For over 70 years, Minnesota’s Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) have been hard at work protecting our state’s critical soil and water resources by working with landowners on programs and practices that support conservation, healthy working lands, and clean water. The Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) honors and celebrates that work as part of Soil and Water Stewardship Week, April 29 – May 6, 2018.
“As Minnesotans, we all have a role to play in protecting the quality of our soil and our water. Protecting these great resources requires individual action and partnerships from the local to federal level. SWCDs have a strong connection to, and understanding of, the unique resource opportunities and challenges in their areas.” BWSR Executive Director John Jaschke said. “They are able to connect with landowners and are invaluable in helping Minnesota meet its natural resource goals.”
In Minnesota, there are 89 soil and water conservation districts working in both urban and rural settings.
“Soil and Water Conservation Districts are locally led and the staff that lead each district are knowledgeable about resource issues within their communities,” said LeAnn Buck, Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts Executive Director. “They focus on providing soil and water conservation services to private landowners, which is essential because seventy-eight percent of Minnesota’s lands are private.”
This is the 63 rd annual Soil and Water Stewardship week, organized by the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) to promote resource conservation across the country. NACD relies on each conservation district to encourage stewardship through educational programs, field days and workshops. Each year, over 3,000 conservation districts participate in the event, making Stewardship Week one of the largest national conservation programs in the world.
This year the theme is “Watersheds: Our Water, Our Home” and will highlight the importance of caring for one of the most critical resources in the world, water. Governor Mark Dayton has made the protection of Minnesota’s water quality a top priority of his administration.
BWSR is the state soil and water conservation agency, and it administers programs that prevent sediment and nutrients from entering our lakes, rivers, and streams enhance fish and wildlife habitat and protect wetlands. The 20-member board consists of representatives of local and state government agencies and citizens. BWSR's mission is to improve and protect Minnesota's water and soil resources by working in partnership with local organizations and private landowners
Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture (1993)
1Soil and Water Quality: New Problems, New Solutions
Since 1970, agricultural policymakers have been confronted with a new and vexing set of problems. Water quality problems resulting from the presence of nutrients, pesticides, salts, and trace elements have been added to an historical concern for soil erosion and sedimentation. Economic problems in the 1980s intensified concern about the loss of family farms and rural development issues. Maintaining the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete in international markets became a central tenet of agricultural policy, and agriculture became a central issue in international trade talks (e.g., General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). At the same time profound structural changes were occurring in the agricultural sector and new technologies were changing the face of agricultural production. The search for solutions to these different but related problems has dominated debate over agricultural policy.
SOIL AND WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Soil and water quality problems caused by agricultural production practices are receiving increased national attention and are now perceived by society as environmental problems comparable to other national environmental problems such as air quality and the release of toxic pollutants from industrial sources.
Severe soil degradation from erosion, compaction, or salinization can destroy the productive capacity of the soil and exacerbate water pollution from sediment and agricultural chemicals. Sediments from eroded croplands
interfere with the use of waterbodies for transportation threaten investments made in dams, locks, reservoirs, and other developments and degrade aquatic ecosystems. Nutrients accelerate the rate of eutrophication of lakes, streams, and estuaries and nitrogen in the form of nitrates can cause health problems if ingested by humans in drinking water. Pesticides in drinking water can become a human health concern and have been suggested to disrupt aquatic ecosystems. Salts can be toxic at high enough levels and can seriously reduce the uses to which water can be put. In some areas, toxic trace elements in irrigation drainage water have caused serious damage to fish, wildlife, and aquatic ecosystems.
Soil Quality
Renewed concern about soil erosion led to major new initiatives in the 1985 Food Security Act (PL 99-198 also known as the 1985 farm bill) (Table 1-1). For the first time, to be eligible for farm program benefits, agricultural producers were required to implement a soil conservation plan for their highly erodible croplands. A conservation plan was required for highly erodible land converted to cropland, and Congress also established the Conservation Reserve Program to pay producers to take highly erodible land out of production.
Sheet and rill erosion remains an important problem, causing soil degradation on about 25 percent of U.S. croplands (Figure 1-1). Other forms of erosion&mdashsuch as wind, gully, and ephemeral gully erosion&mdashare also important and, if quantified, would expand the reported area of cropland on which erosion causes soil degradation. Conservation Compliance and Sodbuster, which are provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act, should result in substantial reductions in erosion caused by both wind and water. If these provisions are fully implemented and if the conservation practices remain in place, the United States will have taken a large step toward solving a soil erosion problem that has plagued U.S. agriculture since settlement by Europeans began.
Even as major strides toward erosion control are being taken, however, new concerns about the soil resource are emerging. Compaction is increasingly noted as a factor that degrades soils and reduces crop yields, but no comprehensive data on the extent or severity of compaction are available. Salinization of soils, particularly in the western part of the United States, is causing serious and often irreversible damage where it is occurring (Table 1-2 and Figure 1-2).
Investigators are also concerned about more subtle forms of soil degradation, such as declining levels of organic matter in the soil and
TABLE 1-1 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Soil and Water Quality Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture Programs
Conservation Reserve Program
Provides annual rental payments to landowners and operators who voluntarily retire highly erodible and other environmentally critical lands from crop production for 10 years.
Conservation Compliance Program
Requires that producers who produce agricultural commodities on highly erodible cropland implement approved erosion control plans by January 1, 1995, or lose eligibility for USDA agricultural program benefits.
Requires that producers who convert highly erodible land to cropland for the production of agricultural commodities do so under an approved erosion control plan or forfeit eligibility for USDA agricultural program benefits.
Bars producers who convert wetlands to agricultural commodity production from eligibility for USDA agricultural program benefits, unless USDA determines that conversion would have only a minimal effect on wetland hydrology and biology.
Agricultural Conservation Program
Provides financial assistance to farmers for implementing approved soil and water conservation and pollution abatement practices.
Conservation Technical Assistance
Provides technical assistance by the Soil Conservation Service through county Conservation Districts to producers for planning and implementing soil and water conservation and water quality improvement practices.
Great Plains Conservation Program
Provides technical and financial assistance in Great Plains states to producers who implement total conservation treatment of their entire farm or ranch operation.
Provides technical and financial assistance to local organizations for flood prevention, watershed protection, or water management.
Resource Conservation and Development Program
Assists multicounty areas in enhancing conservation and water quality, wildlife habitat and recreation, and rural development.
Rural Clean Water Program
An experimental program that ends in 1995 that provides cost-sharing and technical assistance to producers who voluntarily implement best-management practices to improve water quality.
Provides information and recommendations on soil and water quality practices to landowners and operators, in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service and county Conservation Districts.
Provides annual rental payments for preserving wetlands in important migratory waterfowl nesting, breeding, or feeding areas.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Programs
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program
Requires states and territories to file assessment reports with EPA identifying navigable waters where water quality standards cannot be attained or maintained without reducing nonpoint source pollution. States must also file management plans with EPA identifying steps that will be taken to reduce nonpoint source pollution in those waters identified in the state assessment reports. Grants are available to states with approved management plans to help implement nonpoint source pollution control programs.
Provides for identification of nationally significant estuaries threatened by pollution, preparation of conservation and management plans, and federal grants to prepare the plans.
Requires states to submit assessment reports on the status and trends of lake water quality, including the nature and extent of pollution loading from point and nonpoint sources, and methods of pollution control to restore lake water quality. Financial assistance is provided to states to prepare assessment reports and to implement watershed improvements and lake restoration activities.
Regional Water Quality Programs
Provides for cooperation between EPA and other federal agencies to reduce nonpoint source pollution in specified regional areas such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, the Gulf of Mexico Program, and the Land and Water 201 Program in the Tennessee Valley region.
Wellhead Protection Program
Requires each state to prepare and submit to EPA a plan to protect from pollution, including from agricultural sources, the water recharge areas (areas where water leaching below the land surface replenishes the groundwater supplies tapped by wells) of wells that supply public drinking water.
Requires the implementation of enforceable management measures to protect coastal zones from nonpoint source pollution.
SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 1989. Conservation and water quality. Pp. 21-35 in Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and Outlook. Report No. AR-16. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
FIGURE 1-1 Percentage of land eroding by sheet and rill erosion at greater than the soil loss tolerance level. Minor land includes farmsteads, strip mines, quarries, gravel pits, borrow pits, permanent snow and ice, small built up areas, and all other land uses that do not fit into any other category. Source: Derived from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Summary Report: 1987 National Resources Inventory. Statistical Bulletin No. 790. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
the attendant degradation of soil structure, the soil's water-holding and nutrient-holding capacities, and biological activity (Larson and Pierce, 1991). The effect of soil degradation on carbon dioxide emissions is also receiving greater attention (Lal and Pierce, 1991).
Water Quality
Even as the 1985 Food Security Act was being debated, policymakers began to recognize that the intensification of agricultural production that gained speed in the 1970s was leading to a new set of environmental problems. Clark and colleagues (1985), for example, reported that sediments in U.S. waterways caused $2.2 billion in damage every year.
TABLE 1-2 Cropland and Pastureland Soils Affected by Saline or Sodic Conditions
Total Cropland or Pastureland
NOTE: ''Other" refers to Hawaii and the Caribbean region.
SOURCE: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1989. The Second RCA Appraisal: Soil, Water, and Related Resources on Nonfederal Land in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Nitrates, pesticides, salts, and trace elements were increasingly reported in the nation's lakes, rivers, and groundwater bodies.
These new concerns for the broader environmental effects of agricultural production led to increased attention to agriculture as a source of nonpoint source pollution problems in the 1987 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 100-4) and the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (PL 101-508), as well as to new initiatives in the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act (PL 101-624 also known as the 1990 farm bill) (Tables 1-1 and 1-3).
Surface Water Quality
Agricultural production has been identified as a major source of nonpoint source pollution in U.S. lakes and rivers that do not meet water quality goals (Figure 1-3). Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and sediments, major pollutants closely associated with agricultural production, affect surface water quality in the United States (Figure 1-3) and loadings of these pollutants have increased in agricultural watersheds (R.A. Smith et al., 1987). Pesticides have also been reported in surface waters, often at high concentrations in the spring following pesticide application to
FIGURE 1-2 Farm production regions used in this report. Alaska and Hawaii are included in the Pacific region.
crops (Baker, 1985 Thurman et al., 1991), although the mean annual concentrations were low. The total loadings of nutrients and pesticides into estuaries such as the Chesapeake Bay have become serious problems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990a). In the western United States, the pollution of surface waters with salts in waters drained from irrigated agricultural lands has become both a national and an international problem (National Research Council, 1989a). The long-standing concern about salt damage from irrigated agriculture has now been augmented with concerns about the delivery of toxic trace elements such as selenium (National Research Council, 1989a).
Groundwater Quality
Agricultural chemicals are also being detected in groundwater bodies. Nitrates have been widely reported in both shallow and deep aquifers, although rarely at levels exceeding health standards (Holden et al., 1992 Power and Schepers, 1989 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988, 1990b). Pesticides have been found less frequently and at much lower levels than nitrates, usually at concentrations below human health standards (Holden et al., 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990b), although pesticides have been found at greater concentrations in surficial aquifers (Hallberg, 1989a).
TABLE 1-3 New Initiatives in the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act
Conservation Compliance, Sodbuster, and Swampbuster Programs
Potential penalties for violating provisions of these programs increased to include loss of eligibility for Agricultural Conservation Program, Emergency Conservation Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Agricultural Water Quality Protection Program, Environmental Easement Program, and assistance under the Small Watersheds Program. USDA is given more flexibility in assessing penalties.
Conservation Reserve Program
Provides for the extension of enrollment of land into the Conservation Reserve Program until 1995 and establishes priority areas for the enrollment of lands in Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Long Island Sound regions.
Creates a new Wetland Reserve Program to offer long-term easements to producers who restore wetlands or who protect riparian corridors and critical wildlife habitats.
Agricultural Water Quality Protection Program
Provides for annual incentive payments to producers who implement a USDA-approved water quality protection plan. Incentive payments are for 3 to 5 years in duration and require the producer to keep records of the inputs used, yields achieved, and results of well water tests, soil tests, or other tests for each year in which incentive payments are received.
Environmental Easement Program
Provides for long-term protection of environmentally sensitive lands or to reduce water pollution by offering long-term or permanent easements to producers who retire lands already enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program, in the Water Bank Program, or lands in riparian areas, critical wildlife habitats, or other environmentally sensitive areas that, if cropped, would prevent a producer from complying with state of federal environmental goals.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Resources and Technology Division. 1991. Conservation and water quality. Pp. 23-41 in Agricultural Resources: Cropland, Water, and Conservation Situation and Outlook. Report No. AR-23. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
FIGURE 1-3 Sources and types of nonpoint source pollution in affected U.S. rivers and lakes. Source: A. E. Carey. 1991. Agriculture, agricultural chemicals, and water quality. Pp. 78-85 in Agriculture and the Environment: The 1991 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Environmental Risks
The damage to agricultural productivity caused by soil degradation and the effects of drinking water contaminated with nitrates, pesticides, salts, or trace elements on human health have, to date, been the driving forces behind the increased concerns over soil and water quality. More recently, however, the pervasive effects of human activities, particularly agricultural activities, on ecosystems and the ecological risks of these activities have received more attention. The effects of sediment, pesticide, nutrient, salt, and trace element loads on aquatic ecosystems may, in the long-term, prove to be more important than their potential effects on human health. In surface water and groundwater, levels of these pollutants that are below human health standards may still be high enough to damage ecosystems. Assessment of the ecological risks of soil and water quality degradation may increasingly become the yardstick used to measure the damage caused by soil and water quality degradation (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board, 1990).
SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS
The expansion of environmental issues on the agricultural agenda has led to calls for a reassessment of agricultural production practices and for the development of sustainable production systems that are environmentally sound as well as profitable (Harwood, 1990 Madigan, 1991 National Research Council, 1989b). Development of policies and programs that can be used to change agricultural production practices, however, has not proved easy.
Factors Influencing Solutions
Each year U.S. food and fiber producers make millions of individual decisions that ultimately affect soil and water quality. Producers do not, however, make these decisions in a vacuum. They are influenced by their personal situations, the quantity and quality of the resources and technologies to which they have access, market prices, agricultural policies, environmental regulations, the use rights producers hold for the resources on their property, and the recommendations producers receive from public- and private-sector experts.
Figure 1-4 shows how the market environment, agricultural policies, environmental regulations, and private- and public-sector recommendations influence producers' decisions (Creason and Runge, 1990).
Figure 1-4 Interactions of factors that influence producers' decisions. Source: J. R. Creason and C. F. Runge. 1990. Agricultural Competitiveness and Environmental Quality: What Mix of Policies Will Accomplish Both Goals? St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy.
Each of these influences signals to producers the commodities they should produce and the technologies they should use. These choices, in turn, influence the farm's impact on the environment. This interaction of signals makes a policymaker's job difficult. It is not often clear how a change in policy will ultimately affect the decisions that producers make.
Worries about the potential for trade-offs between protecting soil versus water, protecting surface water versus groundwater, and reducing loadings of nitrates versus loadings of pesticides have also confounded the policy making process. The multiplicities of potential objectives and best-management practices suggested to address those objectives have also made the choice of policies seem complicated. Simple recommendations that call for increased residue cover to reduce erosion or that suggest the installation of grassed waterways are no longer adequate to deal with the broader environmental problems facing agricultural producers.
State and Local Government Policies
The policies made by local and state governments are increasingly important factors. Local and state governments have often taken the lead in developing new programs and approaches for dealing with soil and water quality problems. Integrating the activities of various levels of government with various federal agencies has become an increasingly important element of environmental policy for agriculture.
Characteristics of the Agricultural Sector
The agricultural sector is too often discussed as if it were a homogeneous collection of uniform farms managed by similar producers. Many policies and programs are also based on the assumption of a "typical" producer.
SOIL CONSERVATION IN COON CREEK, WISCONSIN
In the early 1930s the Coon Creek Basin in southwestern Wisconsin was designated the first Soil Erosion Control Demonstration Area in the United States. The area is marked by steep slopes and narrow valleys, with relief of about 135 m (430 feet). The productive soils were formed from loess (an unstratified calcareous silt that overlies various sedimentary rock units on the steep slopes) and alluvial deposits. Settlers arrived in about 1850, and land clearing and cultivation continued until about 1900.
In the early 1930s, when the soil conservation program began, the area showed the effects of 80 years of poor land management. At that time the soils were both degraded and eroded. The levels of sediments from sheet, rill, gully, and channel erosion were more than the streams could transport: more than 2 m (6 feet) of sediment was deposited in one 10-year period (McKelvey, 1939).
The area was characterized by rectangular fields on steep slopes, up-and-down plowing of slopes, poor crop rotations, lack of cover crops, and overgrazed and eroding pastures and woodlands. Erosion, compaction, and depletion of organic matter and nutrients had degraded soil quality. Active rills and gullies were widespread, and the channels of the small upland tributary streams were entrenched and eroding. Studies here and in the general region showed that the conversion to agricultural land use was accompanied by increased flooding as well as erosion and sedimentation. The hydrologic changes, in turn, also caused major changes in the physical or geomorphic characteristics of the stream channels (Knox, 1977).
The conservation demonstration project instituted widespread land treatment measures. The project increased the use of contour tillage and contour strip-cropping, instituted longer rotations with various cover crops, and
In reality, farms differ in the commodities they produce, their soil quality, and their topography. Ownership patterns differ, too. Beef cattle farms are often small-scale, part-time farm operations with only a few head of cattle, whereas poultry enterprises tend to resemble vertically integrated industries ("vertically integrated" refers to an industry in which a single company provides the control) (Reimund and Gale, 1992). Cash grain farms most closely match the popular perception of agriculture: family farms run by owner-operators (Reimund and Gale, 1992).
Just as farms are diverse, producers are also a diverse set of people who have a variety of goals: profit maximization, minimization of management time, maintenance of a certain life-style, protection of personal independence, desire to obtain a certain social status, and observation of a particular environmental or religious ethic. In addition, producers have different levels of skills, different levels of access to resources, and different sources of information. Such differences&mdashparticularly
incorporated manure and crop residues into the soil. By the 1970s, when the area was reinvestigated by researchers from the U.S. Geological Survey, the conversion was complete and conservation tillage was being introduced as well (Trimble and Lund, 1982).
Even with these changes, aggregate land use had changed little since 1930 the proportion of land in row crops, cover crops, and pastureland had changed little. Land management, however, had improved dramatically. The calculated erosion rates decreased by more than 75 percent, from more than 3,400 metric tons/km 2 (15 tons/acre) in 1934 to about 720 metric tons/km 2 (3 tons/acre) in 1975. The linear extent of gullies was reduced by 76 percent, with medium and large gullies nearly eliminated by 1978 (Fraczek, 1988). Trimble and Lund (1982) also systematically studied sedimentation rates in sediment basins and along the bottomlands of streams. Sediment deposition rates decreased by 98 percent or more from 1936 to 1945.
Although erosion and sedimentation rates were still greater in the 1970s than before settlement and cultivation, the soil conservation programs greatly reduced erosion and sedimentation. Rills and gullies had mostly disappeared. The improved land management and soil quality increased water infiltration, decreasing runoff, reducing peak runoff and flood flows, and decreasing the erosion potential of streams as well.
The area is a good example of the changing concerns for water quality and the need for improvements in input efficiency and input management approaches. In the 1990s, some watersheds in this area have been established as demonstration areas for Wisconsin's Nutrient and Pest Management Program and some areas have been designated atrazine (a pesticide) management areas, to focus on more recent concerns for nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide impacts on groundwater and surface water quality.