U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–881 PDF 2014

THE BENEFITS OF PROMOTING SOIL HEALTH 

IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, 

AND FORESTRY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Serial No. 113–23 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture 

agriculture.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, Chairman 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas 

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

DOUG LAMALFA, California 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana 

COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

FILEMON VELA, Texas 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

PETE P. GALLEGO, Texas 

WILLIAM L. ENYART, Illinois 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

NICOLE SCOTT, Staff Director 

KEVIN J. KRAMP, Chief Counsel 

TAMARA HINTON, Communications Director 

ROBERT L. LAREW, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY

GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

SCOTT R. TIPTON, Colorado 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VANCE M. MCALLISTER, Louisiana 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota, Ranking 

Minority Member 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

SUZAN K. DELBENE, Washington 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Lucas, Hon. Frank D., a Representative in Congress from Oklahoma, opening 

statement .............................................................................................................. 4 

Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from Pennsylvania, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Walz, Hon. Timothy J., a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, opening statement ........................................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES

Weller, Jason, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. .............................................................. 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Larson, John, Chief Executive Officer, National Association of Conservation 

Districts, Washington, D.C. ................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Phillips, Shanon, Director, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma Conservation 

Commission, Oklahoma City, OK ....................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Harbach, James, Farm Manager, Schrack Farms, Loganton, PA ....................... 44 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Sackett, Jill L., Extension Educator, Agriculture Production Systems, University of Minnesota Extension Regional Office, Mankato, MN ............................ 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Jahn, Chris, President, The Fertilizer Institute, submitted letter ...................... 63 

Sands, Jeff M., Director of Public Policy, Agricultural Retailers Association, 

submitted letter .................................................................................................... 67 

(1) 

THE BENEFITS OF PROMOTING SOIL HEALTH 

IN AGRICULTURE AND RURAL AMERICA 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., in Room 

1300 of the Longsworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Thompson, Gibbs, Crawford, 

Lucas (ex officio), Walz, Nolan, DelBene, and Peterson (ex officio). 

Staff present: Brent Blevins, Josh Maxwell, Nicole Scott, Tamara 

Hinton, John Konya, Liz Friedlander, Robert L. Larew, Matthew 

McKenzie, Mike Stranz, Evan Jurkovich, and Riley Pagett. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, entitled, The Benefits of Promoting Soil 

Health in Agriculture and Rural America, will come to order. I 

would like to welcome everyone today. Good morning. I really do 

want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Conservation, Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee on the topic of soil health, or 

healthy soils, which is critically important to American agriculture 

and strong farming communities. 

Congress has long recognized the importance of promoting soil 

health across the country, starting with the establishment of the 

Soil Conservation Service in 1935 as a permanent part of USDA. 

The need for this agency came in response to a persistent problem 

of soil erosion across the country, particularly in the Dust Bowl region. 

Now, the Soil Conservation Service, which eventually became the 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, that we know today, plays 

an important role in preserving soil health across the country by 

providing producers with voluntary assistance in monitoring and 

assessing soil conditions on their land. As our predecessors did for 

us in the past, we owe it to future generations to do what we can 

today, and understand and recognize the importance of healthy 

soil. 

The Earth’s population is projected to grow to roughly nine billion people by the year 2050. Given the growing demands on farmland everywhere, we must invest in the necessary resources, and 

best practices, to be certain that producers have the capacity to 

2 

meet this growing need. To that end, I am particularly proud of 

this Committee’s work on conservation programs during the deliberation of the newly enacted farm bill. We came together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and strengthen our title II programs, even in the face of significant budget cuts. 

It is heartening to see how farmers, ranchers, and foresters 

across the country have made promoting the health and sustainability of soil a fundamental priority. For example, I see this all the 

time across the 5th District of Pennsylvania, where farmers are engaging in innovative practices, including no-till practices, cover 

cropping, and adhering to other best practices in order to preserve 

the nutrients in the soil. Additionally, it is important for us to remember that soil health is closely linked with water quality. 

In addition to the great work being done at the state and county 

levels, I am proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in 

Pennsylvania have taken voluntary steps to promote soil health in 

order to do their part to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake 

Bay. Our farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land. 

They continually adapt to protect our natural resources, despite the 

overly burdensome regulatory environment imposed upon them. 

And whether it is protecting our drinkable water supply, keeping 

nutrients for the next crop year, or maintaining a supply of forage 

for livestock, there is no shortage of reasons why we must continue 

to innovate when it comes to promoting soil health. 

We have a great set of witnesses to testify today, and I want to 

thank them for sharing their expertise with the Subcommittee. It 

is good to see Chief Weller before us today. He has the task of implementing all the work that we did in the farm bill, and I look 

forward to hearing the agency’s perspective on this topic. 

I am also pleased to welcome a constituent of mine, a friend, Mr. 

Jim Harbach. I have said—long said that farmers are the original 

environmentalists, and that belief has been re-affirmed after having the opportunity to tour his farm, among so many others in the 

region. And I want to thank him for taking time to make the drive 

down from Clinton County this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM PENNSYLVANIA

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Conservation, 

Energy, and Forestry Subcommittee to review the benefits of promoting soil health 

in agriculture and rural America. 

Congress has long recognized the importance of promoting soil health across the 

country, starting with the establishment of the Soil Conservation Service in 1935 

as a permanent part of USDA. 

The need for this agency came in response to a persistent problem of soil erosion 

across the country, particularly in the Dust Bowl region. 

The SCS eventually became the Natural Resources Conservation Service we know 

today, and plays an important role in preserving soil health across the country by 

providing producers with assistance in monitoring and assessing soil conditions on 

their land. 

As our predecessors did for us in the past, we owe it to future generations to do 

what we can today to understand and recognize the importance of healthy soil. 

The Earth’s population is projected to grow to roughly nine billion people by the 

year 2050. Given the strains on farmland everywhere, we must invest the necessary 

resources to be certain that producers have the capacity to meet this growing need. 

To that end, I am particularly proud of this Committee’s work on conservation 

programs during the deliberation of the farm bill. 

3 

We came together in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize and strengthen our title 

II programs, even in the face of significant budget cuts. 

It is heartening to see how farmers, ranchers, and foresters across the country 

have taken the lead on promoting the health and sustainability of soil. 

For example, I see this all the time across the 5th district of Pennsylvania, where 

farmers are engaging in no-till practices and adhering to other best management 

practices in order to preserve the nutrients in the soil. 

Additionally, it is important for us to remember that soil health is closely linked 

with water quality. 

I am proud that so many of the farmers and foresters in Pennsylvania have taken 

voluntary steps to promote soil health in order to do their part to assist in the recovery of the Chesapeake Bay. 

Our farmers and ranchers are the best stewards of the land and continually adapt 

to protect our natural resources despite the overly burdensome regulatory environment imposed on them. 

Whether it’s protecting our drinkable water supply, keeping nutrients for the next 

crop year, or maintaining a supply of forage for livestock, there is no shortage of 

reasons why soil health is important to rural America. 

We have a great set of witnesses set to testify today, and I want to thank them 

for sharing their expertise with the Subcommittee. 

It’s good to see Chief Weller before us today. He has the task of implementing 

all the good work we did in the farm bill. I look forward to hearing the agency’s 

perspective on this topic. 

I’m also pleased to welcome a constituent of mine, Mr. Jim Harbarch. 

I’ve long said that farmers are the original environmentalists, and I believe that 

after having the opportunity to tour his farm. 

I want to thank him for taking time to make the drive down from Clinton County 

this morning. 

I now want to recognize the Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I want to now recognize my good friend and 

Ranking Member for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thank you 

again for holding this bipartisan and important hearing. Chief 

Weller, thank you for being here. Thank you for the work you do. 

Also a thank you to the full Committee Chairman. Mr. Lucas is 

here. He is passionate about this subject, and has made that 

known for a very long time, since I have known him, and so I 

thank you for continuing to make the importance of soil health a 

priority. 

Members have expressed a deep interest in this. Whether it is 

flooding that happened early in the spring in my district, or 

wildfires, or other things that impact soils, Members want to know 

what the research is showing. They want to know what happened. 

And we know, and we have the data to prove it. For example, in 

2012, average corn yield was 126.2 bushels where cover crops were 

employed, 115 bushels without it. So we know—understand that it 

works. It is an economic issue. It impacts everything from water 

quality to the farmers’ bottom lines, so we need to make sure that 

we get that right. 

One of the things I know that is somewhat of a challenge, and 

we see it happen when we have flooding incidents and things, is 

how do we employ cover crops and work through RMA, FSA, and 

some of those issues that may preclude it, where a farmer has to 

determine between crop insurance and cover crops when those 

issues come up? It is not because they don’t want to get it right, 

and it is not because they don’t understand the importance of it. 

4 

We just have to make sure that, as we put regulations in place, 

they mesh with what are the best practices. 

I would also like to welcome and introduce one of my constituents, Ms. Jill Sackett, who is a University of Minnesota extension 

educator. With her passion, she will need to talk to the Chairman 

afterwards. You two could talk for hours on soil health and cover 

crops. But she comes to us from Mankato, Minnesota, in Blue 

Earth County, where the soil is literally so black it is blue, and 

some of the most productive farmland in the country. I welcome 

you, and, as an educator, I welcome you as the teacher’s teacher. 

You are here today to explain to us, and help us make decisions 

based on science and best practices, to ensure, as the Chairman so 

clearly pointed out, that we can continue feeding the world, while 

continuing to figure out a way that we can feed an ever hungrier, 

ever expanding world with fewer producers on less landmass, so 

that land and that soil are becoming more important. 

So thank you all for being here today, thank you for this work, 

and with that, I yield back my time to the Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ranking Member. Now it is a privilege and honor to recognize the Chairman of the full Agriculture 

Committee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK D. LUCAS, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity to offer a few thoughts. First and foremost, thank you to 

you and the Ranking Member, and all the Members of the Subcommittee. All the hearings that you have held, all the work that 

you did, laid the groundwork for an even stronger conservation title 

in this year’s farm bill. Had you not gone through all those witnesses, handled all those questions, done your work to enable the 

full Committee to do its work, we wouldn’t have the title and provisions that are indeed there, so I very much appreciate that. 

And I am particularly pleased, I will agree, that we have this 

particular subject as something to look at today, the soil. Any farmer will tell you that, right along with their children and their 

grandchildren, they have no greater asset than the soil on their 

farm. And that, like their children and grandchildren, it is a living 

entity too. It has to be addressed and nurtured, has to be taken 

care of, grown, and improved. So thank you in that regard. 

And, of course, to the Chief and to the Service, very—how can 

you describe the history of what was the Soil Conservation Service, 

the NRCS now? A group that, in many challenging times, dealing 

with many diverse issues in many diverse parts of the country, has 

consistently worked with farmers and ranchers to make sure that 

our most valuable resources are preserved. Soil, water, air quality, 

all of those sort of things. Just a huge success story. 

I look forward to the comments from the Chief about the issues 

that he is addressing these days, and how he intends to implement 

those provisions that affect soil health in the Agricultural Act of 

2014, as well as the second panel of witnesses, who clearly are very 

knowledgeable people from diverse backgrounds across the country, 

with this common perspective of our soil. But ultimately, once 

again, gentlemen, ladies, all of you, thank you for a very productive 

5 

session, and a very productive farm bill, and let us continue our 

work here today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now it really is a 

privilege and honor to welcome our first witness to the table, Mr. 

Jason Weller, Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

with the United States Department of Agriculture. Chief Weller, 

please take as much time as you might consume, and please begin 

when you are ready. 

STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL 

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. WELLER. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Thompson, 

Ranking Member Walz, Chairman Lucas, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Jason Weller, and I appreciate the flexibility and forbearance here of the Committee to allow me a little 

extra time here. I have the presentation down to about 48 minutes. 

Hopefully that is okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Motion for Reconsideration? 

Mr. WELLER. I will try and keep it brief. But I thought it would 

be good just to start at the outset and provide a little bit—hopefully I exhibit some of the passion we have for this topic. I will 

have to say, in my view, our renewed focus, is a return to the past 

in some respects. Mr. Lucas referred to our almost 80 year history 

as an organization, coming back to our roots, literally, on soil. The 

palpable excitement and energy it is creating not only within 

NRCS, but also with our brothers and sisters in the Soil and Water 

Conservation districts across the United States, and with farmers 

and ranchers themselves. This approach to managing our soils as 

a living ecosystem, as well as the physical and chemical properties 

of the soil, is something that we are really excited about. 

But before I begin, also, I just want to be really clear at the outset too that this is not about any one agency. This is not about 

NRCS. Overall we play a small role in this movement. What this 

is is a broad coalition, a broad, exciting group of folks, from—beginning with farmers and ranchers themselves, to the land-grant universities, extension services, ag retailers, foundations, private individuals, nonprofit groups, you name it. There is a huge constellation of groups who are working on this topic of soil health. They 

are bringing tremendous innovation, new ideas, excitement, resources. 

And this is something where—and, as an example, where we are 

actually having to run to keep pace with producers. Producers have 

been at this for a long time, in many cases decades. They have 

been the true pioneers in these approaches for soil health. We are 

learning from them. And this is an example where we are having 

to run to keep pace with producers. It is very exciting to be part 

of this movement. So with that, let me begin here with the presentation. 

So first let me just begin with the overall definition of what is 

soil health? Soil health is the capacity of soil to function as a vital, 

living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans. So 

what we are doing when we focus on soil health is we are trying 

to protect that ecosystem, the soil ecosystem, to support the life 

6 

within the ecosystem, as well as the other properties of the soils, 

ultimately to benefit life above the soil, the plants that grow the 

food and fiber we depend upon. And soil is really important because it provides some key functions that we rely on. 

So, for example, it regulates the flow of water. When it rains or 

snows, or when the irrigation water is applied, what happens to 

that water? Does it leave the fields in runoff? Does it infiltrate in 

with the soil structure? As it gets into the soil structure, do the 

soils help to buffer and filter that water? So it provides an important crucial component for helping to clean the waters. Soils also 

then help cycle the nutrients, nutrients that are applied to farm 

fields through fertilizers, manures, and other sources, as well as 

the nutrients that are available from the environment itself, decomposition of the plant matter, and actually deposition from the 

atmosphere itself. 

It provides structures, supplies a medium for plants to grow in, 

but also provides support for human structures. Some of the most 

critical information, when you are an engineer, you are designing 

a road, a highway, a railway, a runway, a building, a stadium, you 

worry about what you are building on. It is the soil structure itself 

we depend upon to help support human economic activity. 

And the fifth really critical component of soil is it sustains life. 

At the end of the day, all life on Earth depends upon soil, and the 

function soils provides to grow the feed—the food, the fuel, the 

fiber we really need. It helps the plants transform the energy from 

the sun itself. It depends upon the soil medium for that conversion 

of the sun’s energy into energy that we then can use as life. 

Talking about life—speaking about life, so, for many years, our 

organization, many in our culture, have been focused on the physical and chemical properties of soil. Some have never lost sight, as 

Mr. Lucas pointed out. Many farmers and ranchers know that the 

soil is alive. But we are increasingly becoming aware of what is actually happening in that ecosystem below the surface of the Earth, 

what is happening in the soils. And what we are learning is that 

the life in the soils is among the most verdant—abundant source 

of life—diversity of life on Earth. 

So in the soils, there are millions of species of microorganisms, 

and billions of organisms in the soil itself that are all interrelated 

in an ecosystem, a web. They interrelate with each other, they feed 

each other, they transfer nutrients and energy between themselves. 

Just—one fact, for example. Just in 1 teaspoon of soil, there are 

more microorganisms in that 1 teaspoon of soil than there are people on Earth. Billions of microorganisms in that soil. 

The bacteria that lived in the rhizosphere, around the root structure, that help feed nutrients into the plants, and in return the 

plants feed carbohydrates, literally the sugar, to those bacteria, you 

could fit 40 million of those bacterium on the head of a pin. An incredible array of life. That life includes bacteria, fungi, algae, arthropods and other insects, protozoa, larger vertebrate animals, 

and they all are there working together to bring energy, and life, 

and food throughout this whole structure. And, at the end, having 

a robust life force within the soil itself helps support the production 

of cropland whether it is for food, whether it is just for vegetation 

for wildlife. 

7 

And the role of those life forms are really critical. They help 

shred—the surface of the Earth. They help shred the biomass that 

resides in the soils. They help decompose that biomass, turn it into 

humus. Turn it into the really rich organic structure of the soils 

themselves. They create micro-pores and macro-pores for water to 

infiltrate into the soil structure. They create actual room for the 

microbes and little organisms to live. They help cycle nutrients out 

of the atmosphere, in the soil itself, and fertilizers that are applied 

to the soils. They help make the soil more efficient in the processing, the cycling of those nutrients. And, ultimately, they also 

help clean the water, as the water moves through the soil structure. So the organisms are crucial overall not just to help the soils, 

but, really, to the health and quality of our environment. 

Mr. Chairman, you referenced a challenge that we are looking at 

in the coming years. What this is is a chart from the United Nations estimating world population growth. And, as you talked 

about, within the next 40 years, we estimate there are going to be 

nine billion people, an additional two billion people on Earth. This 

is both an incredible challenge, but also an incredible opportunity 

for American agriculture. 

So, in order to feed these additional two billion people over the 

next 40 years—okay, one fact that is just continually—kind of 

blows me away is that we are going to have to grow as much food 

in the next 40 years as we have, as a world civilization, over the 

last 500 years. So if you think back to before Magellan was even 

thinking about the Earth being round, before he even 

circumnavigated the globe, you think about all lifetimes and the 

food that was grown over that time period, we are going to have 

to grow in half a lifetime the same amount of food to feed that 

surging world population, and we are having to do that on a smaller land base. 

Just here in the United States, in the last 30 years, upwards of 

43 million acres of land have been converted from agricultural 

lands to non-ag lands, economically developed, which is part of economic development. That is great. But out of those 43 million 

acres, a land area the size of the State of Washington, 14 million 

acres are the prime soils, the most productive soils on Earth. That 

is land area the size of the State of West Virginia which has been 

paved over and converted to other uses. 

So we have a massive challenge to grow food, we have less land 

to do it on, how are we going to do it? And here is the opportunity. 

This is a call to action to help support farmers and ranchers to 

begin investments today in improving and protecting the vibrancy 

and the health of their soils so they can be sustainable and grow 

that food and fiber, not just maintain yield, but boost yield, for decades to come. 

So I talked a little bit about some of the benefits of soil health, 

touched upon this. Healthy soil helps improve the water infiltration. So, when it rains, the water actually doesn’t run off the field, 

it gets into the soil itself. It improves the water holding capacity 

of the soil. So by increasing the organic matter and the porosity of 

the soil, you get more water in the root zone, where the crops can 

get at that water. 

8 

It helps improve water quality, protects our streams and rivers, 

and also our aquifers. It increases the nutrient availability of fertilizers, and manure, and poultry litter, but also just the decomposing biomass. It helps cycle those nutrients, makes them available again for what we need those nutrients for, which is to grow 

food. It helps save energy. Producers can be more efficient with 

their use of their farm equipment, the irrigation pumps. It helps 

save wear and tear on their equipment, which is, at the end of the 

day, saving them money, putting more cash in their pockets. And 

it helps improve the health of the plants, the crops themselves. It 

makes those crops more drought resistant, also more tolerant of 

high water events. It helps—makes those fields and those crops 

more resistant to pests and disease. So all the way around we believe there are a tremendous number of benefits you can garner 

from healthy soils. 

We view soil as a living factory, and when that factory is optimized, when you have all those critters working together, helping 

to feed the—cycle of the nutrients, feed the crops, you can then optimize the yield coming off those crops, off the farm fields. As a producer put it, succinctly, and probably most articulately, anything 

can have quality, but only living things can have health. And that 

is what we are focused on, the health, and how do you nurture the 

health of the microorganisms, the ecosystem below the surface of 

the soil. 

We have four basic principles when we talk about soil health 

from a macro perspective. What are the four basic principles that, 

when we work with a farmer or rancher, that we can then help 

apply on the land? Number one is minimize disturbance. So there 

is the physical, the biological and chemical disturbance of the soil, 

so you can minimize the disturbance. 

Number two is you want to maximize the diversity of the plants 

living and having their roots in the soil. So, as we have learned 

from ecologists, ecosystems that are diverse in their populations 

are more resilient to stress, to drought, to pests, to disease. So the 

more diversity you have in your crops in the soil, the more diversity of the microorganism you are going to have below, in the surface of the soil itself. 

The third is you want to keep your soils covered for as much as 

possible to protect them from the erosive effects of wind and water. 

And also, fourth, you want to have living roots in the soil for as 

long as possible. So when, traditionally, folks would fallow their 

fields, if you can instead, have living roots there to capture the 

solar radiation, the energy from the sun to actually feed the organisms in the soil for as long as possible, again, you are maximizing 

the energy that is going to be stored in banking that soil, making 

it again available for crop production. 

So one of the key principle—one of key practices, Chairman, you 

have already referenced is no-till. This addresses two of those key 

principles, in terms of minimizing disturbance of the soil, but also 

maintaining a residue on the soil. So it is actually an interesting 

fact recently learned that today we estimate across the U.S. there 

are about 67 million acres of cropland that is in continuous no-till. 

That is roughly 23 percent, 24 percent of the U.S. crop—overall 

crop size. 

9 

In—just in terms of avoiding lost carbon to the atmosphere, so 

keeping the carbon in the soils, where it is helping protect the 

vibrance of the soils to grow crops, that is about 8.8 million metric 

tons of CO2 equivalent emissions that are avoided, that we are actually keeping in the soils. That is equivalent to burning 990 million gallons of gas, or powering 1.9 million passenger vehicles per 

year that are now being kept in the soils to help protect crops, and 

help with the organic content—maintain the organic content in the 

soils. So we view no-till practices as one of the greatest approaches 

to improving the health of the soils. 

Here is a close-up of what a no-till operation looks like in the 

field. I know you are very familiar with this. Today’s farming implements can penetrate through that plant residue, drill the seeds 

in to the soil structure. And that mulch you see there on the surface, then, it has a number of benefits. Number one, it protects 

those soils from the erosive power of wind, and from water. It helps 

shade out weeds, so you have less pressure from weeds coming in 

and crowding out the valuable cash crop. It keeps that soil cool. 

Actually, when you have bare soil, on the hot summer months, 

you can actually cook the microbes in the soil itself. You can actually kill the microbes. It also increases the drying out of the soils 

and the plants, creating plant stress. The mulch itself can actually 

serve, then, as the biomass, as the fungi, and the mites, and other 

critters decompose that biomass into organic matter. So that also 

serves as a feedstock to help boost the organic matter in your soils. 

And why does organic matter matter? So here is a chart that 

shows what happens when you increase the organic matter. 

So across the bottom there you see the percent of organic matter 

in your soils. And as you increase that organic matter over time, 

you can actually boost the water holding capacity of your soils. 

More organic matter means more water. You create a reservoir in 

your fields to hold water when it rains or snows, or when you irrigate. So a rough rule of thumb, for every one percent increase in 

organic matter, you increase the water holding capacity of an acre 

by 25,000 gallons of water. So soil health is a great way to help 

capture—when you irrigate, or when it rains, it helps create more 

drought resiliency for your crop fields. 

Here is a side by side comparison of two fields of different tillage 

practices. This comes from Brookings County, South Dakota. On 

the left you see a no-till operation. On the right you see a conventional till operation. This is—this photo, I understand, was taken 

a couple hours after 1′′ rain. So on the left you could see the water 

has infiltrated. There is no evidence of water on that field, and you 

see no evidence of soil transport, no movement of the soils. On the 

right you could still see—even several hours after, you still see 

ponding of water. You see it is slick. You see the actual—there— 

in this photo you can eyeball, there is—literally tons of soil have 

moved in that field, in some cases probably off that field. That 

water isn’t getting into the root zone. It is not being stored in that 

soil for future growing seasons in the warmer summer months. It 

has probably been moved off—down off the field, where that water, 

and the nutrients, and very expensive inputs the farmer has invested in are now lost. 

10 

Another key practice that we use is cover crops. A lot of folks 

have been talking about cover crops. What you see here is a shot 

of a field of rye. In this case, it has actually been rolled down. It 

has been crimped, so the crop has been terminated. But instead of 

harvesting that biomass, what this farmer is doing is keeping that 

biomass in place to serve as a mulch. So cover crops serve, again, 

the core principles. In this case, you are having—you are maximizing—you are leaving the roots. You are bringing root diversity 

to the soil, and you are helping, again, to keep that soil covered. 

So when you have the shot of that rye grass that has been rolled 

down, it again, serves as that mulch to moderate temperatures, 

protect the soils, serve as the feedstock for organic matter. Cover 

crops are a really valuable tool. 

So we are trying to get to what happens? What does this do— 

so what? What does this mean for actual production of food? So if 

you remember, back in 2012, we had one of the worst droughts in 

half a century, impacted almost the entire Union, in terms of the 

drought. And so some partners at the Sustainable Ag Research and 

Education Program at USDA, as well as the Conservation Technology Information Center, they did a survey from producers in the 

Central Midwest, here in these seven states, and they reached out 

to 759 producers, and they asked, what was your use of cover 

crops, and if you used cover crops. What happened to your yield? 

Well, we actually learned it was positive. 

So what you see here is a comparison from those who responded 

to the survey, producers that used cover crops as part of their rotation, they had about 11 percent higher yield off their droughtstricken fields than folks that did not use cover crops as part of the 

rotation. Again, it is about improving the health of the soils 

through all the benefits of cover crops, mulching, the biomass, that 

they get an 11 bushel—11 percent increase in yield. And for soybeans, it was even higher. It was over 14 percent increase in yield 

for soybeans for folks that use cover crops. 

So, again, here is an example of how cover crops can help. At the 

end of the day, in my view, it is one of the best risk management 

tools we can offer a farmer or rancher from our quiver of conservation practices, but this is a great risk management tool. It helps 

not only maintain yield, but also protects farmers in periods of 

stress. 

Another core practice is nutrient management. So, part of an 

overall effective soil health management system is how you manage 

the nutrients of your soils. So there are the nutrients you apply 

through fertilizer, manure, poultry litter. It is the available nutrients that are left over from last year’s application of fertilizers. It 

is the biomass, the residue that is left over from the crops. It is 

the actual deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere, and how the 

microbes attenuate and incorporate those nutrients. 

So a nutrient management plan, using the 4R’s of the right 

source, at the right time, the right rate, the right amount, using 

the 4R approach is part and parcel of an effective soil health management system. And this is something that NRCS is working very 

closely with foundations, research community, certified crop advisors, institutes, you name it. There is a broad array of folks who 

11 

are working with producers to incorporate effective nutrient management into the soil health systems. 

Beyond row crop, though, I have talked a lot about row crops, we 

also are very interested and excited about—how do you improve 

soil health on range and pasture? So we have talked about how tillage is a disturbance to the soil. Well, overgrazing also is a disturbance of the soil. It is a biological disturbance. When you overgraze, 

you are stressing the plants. You actually have smaller root mass 

below the soils. You get more opportunity, then, to heat the soils, 

to cook those microbes, create drought stress in the plants—you 

provide more opportunity for weed penetration, invasive penetration. 

So what you see here, again, is out of South Dakota, a side by 

side comparison. On the left you have a pasture/range area that is 

in continuous grazing, and on the right you see a shot of a pasture 

that is in rotational grazing. So you are still getting the biomass 

and the necessary feed for livestock off rotational grazing, it just 

requires more intensive management of the livestock so they don’t 

overgraze. 

Well, what does grazing have to do with it? How does it impact 

soils? What this shot is is a side by side of similar soil, same soil 

type out of South Dakota. On the left is a continuous grazing, and 

on the right is a rotational grazing. Same soil type. And you can 

see on the right the color—the hue of that soil is richer and deeper. 

That is reflective of more organic matter that is in that soil. And 

it is kind of hard to see there, but you can actually see the roots 

from the grasses that penetrated not inches, but feet deep into that 

rotational grazed soils. 

That is important, because those roots then create pores for 

water to infiltrate in, and for the nutrients, better access deeper 

into the soil profile. More habitat, again, for those microbes. So at 

the end of the day, the soils on the right are going to be more 

drought resistant, more resistant to invasives and weeds. And so, 

overall, you are going to have a more sustainable yield of forage off 

those lands than you would off a continuously grazed system. 

At NRCS, because of our focus on soil health, I just wanted to 

share something—very excited about, and it is kind of a big deal. 

For the first time, as I am aware, anywhere on Earth, we actually 

have mapped out the soil carbon stock for a continent. So what we 

completed over the last couple years is a survey across the United 

States. And we then, using our knowledge of soils, we have mapped 

out here what is the current stock, our banking of organic matter 

across the United States. These different colors here, those hues, 

the darker the blue, the more organic soils. 

You can see down, for example, in Florida, in the Everglades, or 

in northern Minnesota, in the forests of Northern Minnesota, high 

organic soils, so there is going to be a lot of organic matter there. 

In the desert, Southwest, obviously not much organic matter in the 

desert environment. As you can see, then, the gradiation of the organic content. 

Why is this important? So, for a conservation planter, or an 

agronomist, a farmer, you want to understand, what is my organic 

matter? What is my organic content? So now that we have that 

base underlying understanding of the soil pattern—or content—orVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:24 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 I:\DOCS\113-23\89881.TXT BRIAN
12 

ganic content, we also know the carbon carrying capacity for those 

soils. So then we can prescribe the most effective soil health management system to help not only protect the organic matter, but 

also boost organic matter in your soils. 

What this is, this reflects what you all have accomplished. This 

reflects the investment that this Committee has made through its 

vision, its support for conservation, and how conservation is critical 

to the success of soil health, and the implementation, that it is not 

just in corners of the country, but in literally all 50 states. 

What you see here are plots of EQIP contracts, Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program contracts, and conservation stewardship program contracts over the period of 2009 through 2013, and 

was basically called out the soil health beneficial practices. So conservation crop rotation, cover crops, rotational grazing, mulch, notill. So we looked at what are the core soil health practices, and 

the geo-plot of them, and this is what it looks like. Turns out we 

entered into over 74,000 contracts on over 44 million acres across 

the United States. This is what your investments in working land 

programs looks like when you look at it from the lens of soil health. 

Beyond dollars, and tons, and acres, what it really, though, 

amounts to is us working with farmers and ranchers, with people, 

with producers. And so we are working very hard with partners, 

like with the National Association of Conservation Districts, with 

other organizations, to identify leaders in soil health across the 

country. So when we have been profiling producers, one of the best 

ways to actually share this information is to get other producers up 

to speed, excited about—engaged in soil health is they hear it from 

another farmer or rancher themselves. So we have examples of— 

profiles of these pioneers in soil health from across the country. 

Now, I wanted to highlight one of these pioneers. It is a farming 

operation. This is Ricky and Russell Wiggins out of Alabama. They 

are cotton and peanut farmers. They farm about 2,700 acres in Alabama. And when they started in the soil health journey, their soil 

organic matter was around .75 percent, less than one percent soil 

organic matter in their soils. Well, they decided, well, we wanted 

to try out some new soil health practices, so they converted to conservation tillage systems. They use high residue cover crops. You 

can see from the field there, they leave the rye grass in the fields 

to provide high residue to protect their soils, and provide better organic matter. And over time, over several years of using the soil 

practices, they have now increased their soil organic matter to over 

three percent. 

Well, what does that mean? It means their soils are, first, number one, easier to work with. They are more pliable. So then, when 

they have peanuts, they want to plow the fields, it is easier to pull 

those plows. They have to burn less fuel. They have to replace their 

implements, their tips and their plows, less often. Their terraces 

need less working, less maintenance cost in the terraces. When it 

does rain, the terraces flow clean. That means there is less maintenance in their ditches, in their water conveyance canals. So overall 

it is saving them money, saving them wear and tear, saving them 

fuel. And, in periods of drought like they experienced a couple 

years ago, when other producers in their area were not able to 

plant because the soils were dry, they could plant. They got a crop 

13 

in the ground, they are able to get a harvest, because of their approach for soil health. 

And I would just like to conclude with just a real focus on why 

you—this Committee funds our agency. As the Chairman and Mr. 

Lucas pointed out, we work with America’s farmers and ranchers. 

The programs that you fund help us work one on one with families. 

These are investments in businesses, in communities, in the economic success of these folks. And you are making investments in 

infrastructure, in the infrastructure of America’s capacity to feed 

not only itself, but feed the world for generations to come. 

And, upon reflection, to me, something that is simple, but so easily overlooked as soil, it turns out it is fundamental, it is intrinsic 

to our ability to feed ourselves, to ensure the quality of our environment, and to ensure, ultimately, our economic well-being as a 

nation. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you have. Thank you for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON WELLER, CHIEF, NATURAL RESOURCES

CONSERVATION SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the importance of soil health for our nation’s agriculture, our environment, and our future. 

Introduction 

For almost 80 years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service has been a pioneer in voluntary conservation, working with agricultural producers; forest managers; local, state, and Federal agencies; local communities; and innumerable partners to maintain healthy and productive working landscapes. 

Largely in response to the devastating effects of the Dust Bowl, 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 USDA. As President Franklin 

Roosevelt expressed in a letter to all state governors in 1937, ‘‘The nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself.’’ 

In 1994, Congress changed SCS’s name to the Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS) to better reflect the broadened scope of the agency’s focus. However, 

NRCS 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. 

Today, our focus on soils goes beyond erosion to include the overall health of our 

nation’s soils. When we speak of improving soil health, we are talking about actually enhancing the soil’s capacity to function as a vital, living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans. 

Previously, we were mostly concerned with the chemical and physical qualities of 

soil, so focusing on soil health reflects a fundamental shift in the way we view and 

manage soils. As one farmer recently observed, ‘‘Anything can have quality, but only 

living things can have health.’’ 

Improving soil health simultaneously addresses many of our nation’s most pressing natural resource needs. A healthy soil has better water holding capacity and 

therefore resilience to extreme weather like drought and heavy precipitation. Because improving soil health promotes water infiltration, this helps recharge the subsoil with water so more is available in time of need, and this greater infiltration 

means less nutrient and sediment runoff to our streams, lakes, and oceans. Conservation systems that enhance soil health also help increase carbon sequestration 

and organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, provide pollinator habitat, reduce energy use, and produce the food, fiber, and bioenergy needs of our rapidly growing 

population. Farmers tell us that enhancing soil health also increases their profitability, thereby strengthening rural economies. 

14 

NRCS Role 

NRCS has developed and launched an integrated campaign that emphasizes conservation planning that focuses on soil health and builds the information, tools, and 

knowledge needed to help producers enhance the health of their soils. There are 

many components of this effort that build upon one another. To date, we have focused on: 

• Ensuring that the scientific basis for improving soil health is reflected in agency 

conservation practice standards. 

• Reviewing scientific literature and case studies to provide information needed 

by farmers on the benefits of soil health management systems to their ‘‘bottom 

line’’. 

• Modeling efforts at the national scale to help inform estimates of environmental 

benefits that may be achieved through accelerated soil health management 

adoption. 

• Aligning funding priorities of our Conservation Innovation Grant Program to 

support soil health adoption needs. 

• Leveraging NRCS’s network of Plant Materials Centers to conduct coordinated 

evaluations of cover crop mixes and their impacts on soil health across different 

regions, and to use these Centers as soil health training sites. 

• Ensuring that all field staffs across the U.S. are trained in the basics of soil 

health. In just 6 months, we trained over 2,000 NRCS staff and partners on the 

fundamental principles for improving soil health. 

• Establishing an on-line training library that currently holds 28 soil health 

webinars conducted by university and government scientists, farmers, and other 

partners. The training library is available to agency staff as well as the general 

public. Since January 2013, over 11,500 people have participated in or viewed 

these soil health training webinars. 

In addition, NRCS has established a Soil Health Division responsible for acquiring, transferring, and implementing the latest technologies for increasing soil 

health. Soil Health Specialists across the country will work directly with producers, 

NRCS field staff, and a wide array of partners to assist in soil health management 

system implementation. Our Plant Materials Centers and partner field sites will be 

used as a national network of training and demonstration areas to promote adoption. While our initial focus is on cropland, we are already making plans for enhancing soil health on range and forest lands. 

Partnerships in Soil Health 

Partnerships are key to the success of improving the health of our nation’s soils. 

The soil health movement is exciting to be part of due to the speed of innovation 

and adoption by farmers and ranchers, as well as because of the huge array of partners—including agricultural production associations, universities, Soil and Water 

Conservation Districts, Federal agencies, and nonprofit conservation organizations— 

that are leveraging each other’s expertise and resources. Collectively, we are bringing forward new ideas, solutions, and practical on-the-ground know-how to support 

producers. 

For NRCS, the core of our partnership is with individual farmers and ranchers 

with whom we work daily to plan and implement soil conservation measures that 

help them achieve their economic and conservation objectives. These producers are 

making positive soil health decisions field by field that together are generating benefits for not only their operations, but also at larger geographic scales such as in 

river or lake basins. 

The conservation programs supported by the 2014 Farm Bill are making a crucial 

difference in helping producers start soil health management systems on their operations. Soil health management is a systems approach that brings together suites 

of conservation practices that minimize soil disturbance, diversify soil biota, and 

maintain living roots and soil cover year round. Since 2009, significant numbers of 

producers have implemented soil health management practices through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship 

Program (CSP) as shown in the chart below. 

15 

Occurrences of Select Soil Health-Related Practices Applied in EQIP Contracts Fiscal 

Years 2009 to 2013 

Practice Code Practice Name Number of 

Contracts 

Amount 

(Acres) 

328 Conservation Crop Rotation 3,468 707,256 

329 Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/Direct 

Seed 4,514 3,040,608 

340 Cover Crop 9,541 2,294,294 

484 Mulching 3,000 114,015 

512 Forage and Biomass Planting 13,062 939,807 

528 Prescribed Grazing 6,575 10,072,933 

590 Nutrient Management 13,742 5,212,792 

Grand Total 53,902 22,381,705 

Occurrences of Select Soil Health-Related Practices in CSP Contracts Fiscal Years 

2010 to 2013 

Practice/ 

Enhancement 

Code 

Practice Name Number of 

Contracts 

Amount 

(Acres) 

328 Conservation Crop Rotation 497 290,333 

329 Residue and Tillage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/Direct 

Seed 389 192,765 

340 Cover Crop 313 85,522 

CCR99 Resource-Conserving Crop Rotation 1,484 577,622 

PLT02 Monitor key grazing areas to improve grazing management 6,904 13,364,174 

SOE05 Intensive no-till (Organic or Non-organic systems) 217 104,463 

SQL04 Use of Cover Crop Mixes 2,848 916,493 

WQL10 Plant an annual grass-type cover crop that will scavenge residual nitrogen 1,959 667,171 

WQL13 High level Integrated Pest Management to reduce pesticide 

environmental risk 5,567 5,640,044 

WQL21 Integrated Pest Management for Organic Farming 115 61,417 

Grand Total 20,293 21,900,003 

NRCS is also partnering with diverse organizations, such as USDA’s Risk Management Agency and Farm Service Agency, the National Soybean Association, Midwest Cover Crops Council, National Wildlife Federation, Univ. of Missouri, National 

Crop Insurance Services, Inc., and others to develop national guidelines for cover 

crops to ensure their beneficial use in crop production. 

NRCS is also working with the National Association of Conservation Districts to 

leverage the expertise and local delivery capacity of Conservation Districts to develop an inventory of demonstration sites to promote adoption of soil health management systems across the nation. 

To accelerate the knowledge of and exposure to soil health practices on farming 

and ranching operations, we partnered earlier this year with USDA Sustainable Agriculture, Research, and Education (SARE), the Howard G. Buffett Foundation, and 

the Soil and Water Conservation Society to hold a National Cover Crop and Soil 

Health Conference that reached over 6,000 producers in a single day on the benefits 

of cover crops and soil health management systems. 

We are partnering with the National Corn Growers Association, Monsanto, The 

Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, USDA’s Agricultural Research 

Service, and numerous universities in establishing and evaluating soil health demonstration field sites to encourage adoption of soil health promoting practices. 

Finally, NRCS is partnering with the Farm Foundation and the Samuel Roberts 

Noble Foundation to encourage adoption and elevate awareness of the economic, environmental, and production benefits of soil health management systems. And we 

are partnering with the National Grazing Lands Coalition to begin efforts to increase soil health knowledge and adoption on rangelands and pastures. 

Benefits for Agriculture and the Environment 

The benefits of healthy soils are tangible for the producer, the environment, and 

ultimately the public. Farmers and ranchers in nearly all parts of the country, 

across a wide range of climate zones and cropping systems, are reporting that they 

see connections between improved soil health and more consistent (and often higher) 

yields, higher profit margins, and more weather-resilient operations. 

16 

Weather resilience in soils has always been important and will continue to be 

even more so as we work to improve our natural defenses against climate change 

and extreme weather, such as extended droughts and severe storms, as well as indirect effects such as changing threats from pest populations and plant diseases. 

Healthy soils will be a key component for agricultural producers to successfully 

adapt to these challenges and will help ensure that we can continue to meet the 

food demands of a growing population. We are already seeing specific examples of 

how healthy soils are making a difference. 

Following the historic drought in 2012, USDA–SARE and the Conservation Technology Information Center surveyed over 750 farmers about their use of cover crops. 

Cover crops, which are grown during the off-season to reduce erosion, conserve moisture, and build organic matter, are an important tool for enhancing soil health. In 

the seven states hit hardest by drought in 2012, farmers using cover crops in their 

production mix had corn and soybean yields that were 11–14 percent higher than 

those without a cover crop. 

In addition to survey information from producers, NRCS has learned of positive 

soil health results directly from individual producers. For example, Steve Groff 

farms 225 acres in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, where he grows corn, soybeans 

and small grains, as well as pumpkins. Through more than 30 years of using notill and multi-species cover crops, Mr. Groff reports that he has increased his soil 

organic matter from two percent to almost five percent, and has obtained yields that 

exceed local averages by ten percent. 

Gabe Brown, who farms about 2,000 acres near Bismarck, North Dakota, keeps 

soil covered with dense, diverse plants and cover crops, while also integrating livestock into his soil health management system. Mr. Brown reports that he has more 

than doubled his soil’s organic matter content, and these healthy soils have resulted 

in higher than county-average yields. 

In Carroll, Ohio, Dave Brandt farms a corn-soybean-wheat rotation on 1,500 

acres. For more than 35 years, he has used a soil health management system with 

no-till, diverse cover crop mixes, and crop rotations; and has increased his soil’s organic matter from two percent to over five percent. Even during the drought of 

2012, Mr. Brandt reported that he averaged 170 bushels of corn per acre, which was 

nearly twice the yield of his conventional farming neighbors. 

Ray Styer, who grows corn silage and multi-species cover crops on 80 acres in 

Rockingham County, North Carolina, reports that he has more than tripled his soil 

organic matter and obtained yields that are 4 tons per acre above the county average. 

While these examples show that soil health is making a difference in the lives 

of individual farmers, their families, and their profitability, the broader public value 

of the conservation investment should also be recognized. The value of soil health 

for resilient food production systems is seen in the marketplace every day. Benefits 

to the environment are also demonstrable. 

Our Conservation Effects Assessment Project, which has now evaluated conservation impacts covering over 300 million acres of cropland, has estimated that the 

same practices we use to enhance soil health—such as no-till, cover crops, and crop 

rotation—have reduced edge-of-field sediment loss by 47–73 percent, phosphorus 

loss by 33–59 percent, and nitrogen loss in runoff by 35–58 percent. 

Yet, there is more to be done. Events like drought in Texas and California and 

algal blooms in Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, coupled with the need to meet the 

demand for food, fiber, and fuel for a growing population, tell us the time is now 

to enhance the health of our nation’s soils. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that I believe improving the health of 

our nation’s soils is one of the most important things that we can do for this and 

for future generations. That is because improving soil health not only supports 

growing the food, fiber, and fuel needed by a rapidly expanding world population, 

but it also allows us to simultaneously address some of our nation’s most pressing 

natural resource needs. It allows us to increase resiliency to extreme weather 

events, improve water quality, increase carbon sequestration, enhance habitat for 

pollinators and other wildlife, increase farm profitability, and we believe also reduce 

economic risk associated with crop production. 

I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

17 

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION


11323001.eps 11323002.eps
18 


11323003.eps 11323004.eps
19 


11323005.eps 11323006.eps
20 


11323007.eps 11323008.eps
21 


11323009.eps 11323010.eps
22 


11323011.eps 11323012.eps
23 


11323013.eps 11323014.eps
24 


11323015.eps 11323016.eps
25 


11323017.eps 11323018.eps
26 


11323019.eps 11323020.eps
27 


11323021.eps 11323022.eps
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chief, I very much appreciate your 

testimony. The chair would like to remind Members that they will 

be recognized for questioning in order of seniority from Members 

who were present at the start of the hearing. After that, Members 

will be recognized in order of arrival, I appreciate the Members’ understanding. And I am—after saying all that, I am going to defer 

to last. I will recognize the Chairman of the full Agriculture Committee for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, tell us, from your 

perspective, your vantage point, kind of on the front line of all 

these issues, how you see the resources that you have at the Service, how you see the needs evolving out there, how you see the 

science coming together. Tell us, and I am asking you a general 

purpose question for a general purpose answer, how you see the response out in the community. And we will hear more from that 

from the second panel. Just give us a feel where you believe we are 

in this endeavor to bring a greater focus to the living soil. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you. I think where I began my testimony, 

in part the excitement and the energy, is really—you can feel it. 

And the passion that we have focused within NRCS that really believe with all their fiber this is the right thing to do, and they are 

very excited about it. And in part these folks, like Mr. Ray 

Archuleta may be some of you may have met, he has been working—he is a conservation agronomist with NRCS, and he has been 

talking about soil health for decades. And the fact this is all now 

coming to fruition has helped energize NRCS employees. 

But because we are now taking, the last several years, a real 

focus on now—beyond just talking about it, but actually providing 

training for folks, that it is really energized our field folks, who 

have been very busy and very focused on delivering program assistance and planning assistance. But it has helped a lot of folks reorient back to the creation of our agency, and it is there—farmers 

and ranchers, and to help them improve and manage their soils. I 

think that return that—literally getting our hands dirty in the soil 

has really been energizing and enervating for NRCS. 

But from the producer side, this is an example where, instead of 

having to push a wet rope uphill, try this out, we are actually getting pulled up the hill. We are trying to hold on to the rope as hard 

we can because the producers are very motivated, very excited. 

They are innovating. They are the ones that are coming up with 

a lot of these different practices. They are doing strip trials in their 

fields. They are using different cocktails of cover crop mixes. They 

are willing to subject their fields to different experiments, and all 

this, and they are coming back with great information that then 

they are sharing with their neighbors, and other producers in their 

communities, and within their own agricultural associations. 

The level of excitement and the momentum is only building, and 

that has been very rewarding to be part of, and to help NRCS play 

that role. The resources this Committee provides, and Congress 

provides our agency, are, in my view, critical, and very much part 

and parcel of helping to get soil health practices implemented. It 

is that one on one technical assistance planning which is so crucial 

to help impart that knowledge. 

29 

But then, in some cases, it is folks who want to give it a try, but 

they are leery of the cost, or it may be encumbering risk. It is a 

transition to a different cropping system. We can help offload some 

of that risk, and allow them to experiment with different nutrient 

management approaches, and cover crops, and tillage practices to 

help them get up to speed. I think we are well equipped for it. We 

have a ways to go, but we have had a great start, and there is a 

lot of opportunity. 

Mr. LUCAS. In my home area, Chief, the advance in technology, 

the private industry, the people who produce our seeds, and build 

our equipment, the general phrase is precision agriculture. It just 

goes hand in hand with this, wouldn’t you agree? The technology 

that has been developed out there by industry that enables us to 

literally do, foot by foot, acre by acre, what is appropriate for the 

soil. 

Mr. WELLER. And precision agriculture is a definite example 

where—this is where our agency really has got to pick up pace, 

where I think the degree of innovation that is coming out of the 

research community, but particularly from the agricultural implement dealers, and the researchers, it is incredible. In precision agriculture, it absolutely is part and parcel, and can definitely—even 

make soil health even more effective. You can optimize your use of 

nutrients, and manage your soils most effectively. So, yes, precision 

agriculture is a great tool for improving the health of your soils. 

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I would simply note that, from the 

founding of—from the first arrival of Europeans, perhaps the way 

to describe it, until a century ago, the concept of mining the soil 

existed. It was a resource that you utilized, then you moved on. 

Starting in the 1930s, perhaps, with a particular focus in my region 

and the southern, the Great Plains, and the east side of the Rockies, and the evolvement of the Soil Conservation Service, the predecessor to the NRCS, the focus began to shift that this was something that was not to be used and thrown away, but it was to be 

truly nurtured. And now we are apparently taking the next step, 

so progress is a positive thing, and we are in that direction. With 

that, I yield back to the Chairman my remaining time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chairman for yielding back. I now 

recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chief, for being 

here. You need to ratchet up that passion a little bit more. It is 

great, because obviously it is—but I have been doing no-till probably for 20 years, so you are not—don’t have to tell me. It has been 

great—back in the 1990s, and—Soil and Water Conservation 

Board. And the partnership with NRCS, and the county conservation districts is the way to really go, and the EQIP program, when 

it all comes together, it works really good. And in my area, it is 

almost all no-till. I live in eastern central Ohio. Probably pretty 

hard to see an old—plow anymore. 

But in your written testimony you talk about events like drought 

in Texas, and California, and the algae blooms in Lake Erie, and 

I want to talk about that a little bit, because, as you know, we have 

algae bloom problems, especially on the western part of the lake, 

but a couple years ago it was throughout the lake, because Lake 

Erie is the most sensitive lake because it is so shallow. And here, 

30 

not—just several weeks ago, City of Toledo had to shut down the 

drinking water to half a million people for 3 days. 

And I want to give kudos to the—Howe Farm Bureau. They are 

putting in a million dollars to try to address the problem, because 

farmers want to find a solution. They want to be part of the solution, and—and I think there are other causes. And one thing that 

frustrated me, we don’t know what all the causes might be. We are 

speculating. We have the sewage treatment plants, and combined 

sewer overflows, and you have runoff, and all that. 

But for my first question, I know Robert E. Latta, my colleague 

from Ohio, has a bill out there to try to address causes. I am looking at it, as my Chairman of the Committee I—trying to look at— 

causes and solutions. What—obviously no-till helps mitigate the 

spread, or the erosion, but we are starting to see, and I want to 

see if you concur with this, during heavy rain events, I mean talking, like, getting 4′′ or 5′′ in an hour’s time—I am sure Chairman 

Lucas would like to have some of that water. We get it once or 

twice a year. 

You know, that does a couple of things. If our sewage treatment 

plants end up over capacity—they have direct discharges. And— 

even all the practice we do in agriculture, those kind of events, it 

is a challenge. Would you agree that that is where a lot of the— 

we have—I guess—the conservation we are putting in to address 

normal weather activities. It is those extremes is where the problem is, or am I just—— 

Mr. WELLER. My understanding is, yes, at the end of the day, if 

it rains so much, there is only so much that a field can attenuate, 

and so the basic conservation systems, like no-till, is an effective 

way for normal precipitation. When you have extreme weather 

events, yes, you are going to have—no matter what, you are going 

to have water—but it is also, then, looking at a systems approach 

for conservation, so it is looking about how you buffer your fields. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. WELLER. To the extent you have till lines, you are draining 

the fields through—water management practices, you could, again, 

help attenuate what comes out of the till lines. It is looking at 

cover crops as part of the overall no-till operation. It is the nutrient 

management I talked a little bit about earlier. 

Mr. GIBBS. Let me just follow up: and I don’t know the answer 

to this. I am not certain. In my area, like I said, we do all no-till. 

We don’t have heavy soil. I have HAL ground, highly arable land. 

Now, out in northwestern Ohio, I guess the soils are heavier. I 

know in some parts it is really heavy. What is—is no-till hard to 

adapt in those heavy soil, or does it work as well, or—— 

Mr. WELLER. I—my understanding is it is effective, that folks are 

using no-till, even in those heavier soils. It is perhaps a different 

management approach, and it takes some adjustment, but it is 

something that can be adapted, even through a heavier soil environment. 

Mr. GIBBS. Okay. Because that would be helpful to address this 

issue, especially in northwestern Ohio, in that—in the Maumee 

Watershed up there—so that is—Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to 

bring that up because it is a huge challenge, and it is—of course, 

it is not just in Lake Erie. We—you mentioned here, and I know 

31 

in the Chesapeake Watershed, and there are some other areas that 

we have that. There are other factors, such as weather. 

And, like I said a moment ago, it is good to see that organizations like Ohio Farm Bureau putting up a million dollars to partner with Ohio State University and others, EPA and all the others, 

to try to address this and find solutions. But agriculture wants to 

find a solution, to be part of the solution, so I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman for your—I also thank the 

gentleman for—as someone who now—certainly within my Congressional district shares Lake Erie with the good Members in 

Ohio, and I appreciate you bringing up the impact, and how this 

could help mitigate the most recent situation there. 

Chief, thanks so much for your testimony, and, as Mr. Gibbs 

said, your passion. It was very evident, and I thank you for that. 

Chief, can you discuss—you had made reference to the work that 

we did with the 2014 Farm Bill. You know, what impact do you expect from those provisions that we have provided you, those tools 

we provided you? What do you expect the new law to have on soil 

health? 

Mr. WELLER. So starting with just—thank you very much. Title 

II is an incredibly strong title. Starting with the streamlining of 

the programs, and consolidating basically into the financial assistance program, into a stewardship program, and then into an easement program, that streamlining is going to help our folks in the 

field, reduce some confusion for producers. And we want to focus 

on soil health. We then sort of have the financial assistance program that helps get the practices in place, the stewardship, which 

will then help take—allow producers to take their nutrient management, and their tillage, and their cover crop use to the next 

level, in terms of overall stewardship. 

And then you included the Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program, which is this overarching smo ̈rga ̊ sbord of opportunity, 

and that, then, allows for innovation. And—so we held an original 

sign-up earlier this summer. We are having a two-step approach 

here to the first RCPP sign-up. We have received close to 600 applications to the new Regional Conservation Partnership Program, 

and many of those applications include a focus on soil health. 

And what is exciting here is because this program then turns the 

keys over to the partners, they devise where they want to work, 

how they want to work, what programs they want to use, who is 

enrolling in the program. They can then devise new, innovative 

ways to practice soil health, to get it on the landscape, to get it into 

a river basin. 

What title II has provided us is to give the agency a lot of flexibility to go out and do the good work, in this case, of helping producers apply soil health, but then it also has energized and provided a lot of impetus to the conservation community, through the 

regional program, to get their resources, ideas, excitement, energy, 

partnership to the table, and they can then also push out, and 

move out, and demonstrate what can be done in soil health as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excellent. And how about—can you give us an 

update of—sounds like we have provided you some pretty effective 

tools. Was there—it is good to hear. That is very affirming. Just 

kind of an update, in terms of implementation, we know that— 

32 

when there are changes made it takes time in order to align the 

resources with the implementation. They—any kind of insight, in 

terms of implementation of those provisions? 

Mr. WELLER. Well, hopefully you are hearing good implementation. I would like to think, our agency, one of the hallmarks is we 

are no drama mamas at NRCS. We have actually gotten title II implemented. So we haven’t yet gotten the regs implemented, but because in title II you included language there that allowed us to use 

our underlying regulation, as long as we updated our programs to 

fit with the new law, the new statute. 

We have enrolled EQIP. We have done—we are about to complete enrollment with CSP. We are going to get close to 10 million 

acres in CSP. We have pushed out all $300+ million of ACEP 

money across the United States, enrolling 129,000 acres in ACEP. 

We have the voluntary public access money out the door. We have 

the Watershed Rehab Program. We are going to get almost all of 

the $250 million invested into hundreds of projects across the 

United States. So we have implemented. 

What we are now, then, moving into is the actual following up 

with the regulations. And so those regulations will be out early this 

fall. We already have one out of the chute, which is sort of a catchall regulation that sort of covers some of the miscellaneous issues, 

and we have three more, then, regulations that are coming, the 

Conservation Stewardship Program rule, EQIP program rule, and 

the new easement program, ACEP, rule. Those will be out this fall. 

The CHAIRMAN. Excellent. Well, I personally believe, and I think 

the Members here would agree that the environment has benefitted 

so much by the voluntary effort and work of our farmers and 

ranchers, in collaboration with—from USDA, the professional— 

USDA, which we are very appreciative of. I think it is a much more 

productive approach, using a spirit of collaboration, as USDA is 

known for, than perhaps maybe a sister agency, such as the EPA, 

which seems to take a more punitive approach. 

But that said, what do you see as the—we are not 100 percent 

onboard with some of these practices. They haven’t really been embraced. Why do you think they are—is there resistance out there 

to some of this—it is not new science. It is kind of old science that 

has kind of resurfaced. What do you see as the barriers to enlisting 

more—with your collaboration, more farmers and ranchers to engage? 

Mr. WELLER. At the end, when you were asking a farmer to 

change how they work their land, and in some cases it is—this is 

what their dads did, and their granddads, and their greatgranddads, it works. And the old adage, don’t fix what is not broken, if they can get a crop, they are making a living, they are doing 

okay, why introduce what could potentially be a risk to trying 

something different? 

And that is where we at NRCS, and the broader coalition of folks 

who are looking at this, need to really get our arms around the 

science and economics of soil health. First, beyond just anecdotally, 

we really have to have robust peer reviewed science that talks 

about the actual risk management. Second, we have really got to 

get down to dollars and cents. At the end of the day, the most effective conservation is conservation that helps save money, or actually 

33 

makes money. That’s because you are talking to businesspeople. 

They have to make a living. They have to pay a mortgage. They 

want to send their kids to school. So if you are asking them to invest a lot of money out of their own pocket, it has to make sense, 

and work on their operation. 

And getting our arms around the economics, and demonstrating 

again that soil health practices not only manage risk, but can also 

help make money, or at least save money, at the end of the day, 

you have a net gain in the profit of that business, and those are 

the two critical things that we are really focused on getting answers to. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. Thanks, Chief. At this point we are willing to yield any additional time to my colleagues for additional follow-ups. 

Mr. LUCAS. Just simply, Mr. Chairman, that I would note that 

the Chief is doing an outstanding job, and the agency is working 

through a lot of things that we have thrown at them, but clearly 

they are on the right track, and incentive-based voluntary conservation is still what life is all about. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is working. Thank you, Mr. Gibbs. Chief, 

thank you very much for your—— 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN.—leadership, your passion on this. And we look 

forward, as a Subcommittee, to continue to work with you in a 

strong partnership, as well as the full Committee. 

Mr. WELLER. Thank you, sir. We very much appreciate that partnership. 

The CHAIRMAN. My pleasure. The—I now—would like now to 

welcome to the table our second panel of witnesses, Mr. John 

Larson, CEO, National Association of Conservation Districts, Ms. 

Shanon Phillips, Director of Water Quality, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Mr. Jim Harbach, 

Farm Manager, Schrack Farms, Loganton, Pennsylvania, Sugar 

Valley, Ms. Jill Sackett, Extension Educator, Ag Production Systems, University of Minnesota Regional Office, Mankato, Minnesota. 

I want to thank the witnesses for making the time and the investment to come here to share your perspectives on this very important issue. And I now recognize Mr. Larson for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN LARSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Thompson, 

Chairman Lucas, and Members of the Committee. I am John 

Larson. I welcome the opportunity to be here, and to talk about 

this important topic of soil health. I am the Chief Executive Officer 

of the National Association of Conservation Districts, and I have 

worked directly with conservation districts for more than 18 years, 

prior to which I worked full time as an agricultural producer, running my family’s irrigated farm in Royal City, Washington. 

NACD is a nonprofit organization that represents America’s 

3,000 conservation districts, their state and territory associations, 

and the 17,000 men and women who serve on their governing 

34 

boards. Districts are the local government part of the conservation 

delivery system, and work with millions of cooperating land owners 

and operators to help them manage and protect land and water resources on all private lands, and many public lands, in the United 

States, utilizing that voluntary, incentive-based approach. I like to 

think of the conservation districts as the original pioneers of soil 

health. Soil health is, and has been, one of the top priorities of conservation districts across the nation since their creation in the 

1930s. In fact, soil health is the very reason that districts were created. 

Long term nationwide conservation and production practices 

have resulted in better protection of our precious soil and water resource base, the foundation of our nation’s food supply. Conservation districts play a key role in this process by working with local 

producers and land owners to implement critical conservation practices on the ground. In Indiana, districts are key members of the 

multi-partner Conservation Cropping System Initiative that has 

vaulted that state to a leading position in the soil health movement. In North Dakota, the Burleigh County Conservation District 

adopted soil health as its major focus 20 years ago, and today national and international visitors have come to the district for soil 

health tours and workshops. Other districts are renting no-till 

drills, supplying cover crop seed, facilitating farmer-led soil health 

advocates, providing no-till test plots, and much, much more. 

Through these, and other efforts, conservation districts across 

the nation are helping producers and land owners get the tools that 

they need to continue caring for the land and provide food, feed, 

fiber, and fuel for the world. We firmly believe that it is better to 

invest in long term conservation practices today than to be forced 

to pay the escalated cost of repair in the future. 

The benefits of improving soil health reach far beyond the farm. 

Health soils lead to higher water quality, by allowing for better nutrient cycling, and reducing sediment runoff, a better ability to 

manage water, reduce flood damage, an increase in the amount of 

soil carbon sequestration that the soil does itself. The benefits of 

nutrient management on soil fertility within a productive and 

healthy cropping system utilize soil health practices that are assisting producers. As the Chief mentioned, the 4R’s nutrient stewardship approach, in which producers apply the right source of nutrients at the right rate, at the right time, and in the right place, fits 

perfectly into soil health. 

In the past several years NACD and its member conservation 

districts and associations have been working hard to put a renewed 

focus on soil health. These efforts include partnering with NRCS on 

an integrated campaign to increase the adoption of soil health management practices by America’s farmers and private land owners. 

By increasing the health of our soils, the campaign ultimately 

seeks to produce systematic, continental-scale improvements in 

soil, water, air, wildlife, all while enhancing the long term agricultural productivity, and providing the best return on the nation’s 

conservation investment over the long term. 

However, while we are seeing improvements nationwide in both 

the recognition and the need for the adoption of best management 

practices for soil health, there is still work to be done. Specifically, 

35 

we see five main areas that need—that are needed in the future: 

(1) developing specific soil health conservation practice criteria; (2) 

increasing soil health research, both the scientific and economic; (3) 

training NRCS conservation district and other partners and employees; (4) ensuring farm bill programs facilitate farm bill 

health—healthy soils adoption; and (5) communicating the benefits 

of soil health to both the agriculture and urban audiences. 

In summary, to make measurable improvement in soil health at 

the national level, will require a locally led voluntary coordinated 

effort. Because of their strong relationships with local land owners, 

as well as with their strong reputation as a trusted source of conservation planning and implementation at the local level, conservation districts are well poised to continue to play a leading role in 

these efforts in the partnership with local, state, and Federal partners. 

Mr. Chairman, as you stated, the population is expected to hit 

nine billion by 2050. We believe that the widespread adoption of 

soil health practices is what will make us successful in meeting 

that need. If we act now, we have the chance to make a difference 

on the land that will last for generations. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and for holding this hearing to help shine 

a spotlight on the important issue of soil health. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN LARSON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important topic of 

soil health. I am John Larson, Chief Executive Officer of the National Association 

of Conservation Districts (NACD). I have worked directly with conservation districts 

for more than 18 years, prior to which I worked full-time as an agriculture producer, 

running my family’s irrigated farm in Royal City, Washington. 

NACD is the nonprofit organization that represents America’s 3,000 conservation 

districts, their state and territory associations, and the 17,000 men and women who 

serve on their governing boards. Conservation districts are local units of government 

established under state law to carry out natural resource management programs at 

the local level. Districts are the local government part of the conservation delivery 

system and work with millions of cooperating landowners and operators to help 

them manage and protect land and water resources on all private lands and many 

public lands in the United States. 

The association was founded on the philosophy that conservation decisions should 

be made at the local level with technical and funding assistance from Federal, state 

and local governments and the private sector. As the national voice for conservation 

districts, NACD supports voluntary, incentive-based natural resource conservation 

programs that benefit all citizens. 

I like to think of conservation districts as the original pioneers of soil health. Soil 

health is, and has been, one of the top priorities of conservation districts across the 

nation since their creation in the 1930s. In fact, soil health is the very reason why 

districts came into being. 

In the early 1930s, along with the greatest depression this nation ever experienced, came an equally unparalleled ecological disaster known as the Dust Bowl. 

Following a severe and sustained drought in the Great Plains, the region’s soil 

began to erode and blow away, creating huge black dust storms that blotted out the 

sun and swallowed the countryside. Thousands of ‘‘dust refugees’’ left the black fog 

to seek better lives. 

But the storms stretched across the nation as soil blown from the Great Plains 

reached east to New York. Dust even sifted into the White House and onto the desk 

of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

On Capitol Hill, while testifying about the erosion problem, soil scientist Hugh 

Hammond Bennett threw back the curtains to reveal a sky blackened by dust. ConVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:24 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-23\89881.TXT BRIAN
36 

gress unanimously passed legislation declaring soil and water conservation a national policy and priority and creating the Soil Conservation Service to fight it. Because nearly 3⁄4 of the continental United States is privately owned, Congress realized that only active, voluntary support from landowners would guarantee the success of conservation work on private land. 

In 1937, President Roosevelt wrote the governors of all the states recommending 

legislation that would allow local landowners to form soil conservation districts. 

Today, nearly every county in the U.S. and several territories, are served by a conservation district. 

As many of you will remember, 2 years ago, our nation experienced a drought of 

proportions we haven’t seen since the 1930s and 1950s. However, despite this extreme drought, we didn’t enter into a modern-day Dust Bowl situation. There’s a 

good reason for that—and it’s something that all of us in the conservation community can be proud of: careful, long-term nationwide conservation and production 

practices that started mainly in response to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. The implementation of these practices has resulted in better protection of our precious soil 

and water resource base—the foundation of our nation’s food supply. 

While we can’t control weather conditions, strong, locally-led conservation planning can help alleviate the impacts of extreme weather events in the future. Conservation districts play a key role in this process by working with local producers 

and landowners to implement critical conservation practices on the ground. 

For example, in Indiana, districts are key members of the multi-partner Conservation Cropping System Initiative that has vaulted the state to a leading position in 

the soil health movement. In North Dakota, the Burleigh County Soil Conservation 

District adopted soil health as its major focus 20 years ago; today, national and 

international visitors have come to the district for soil health tours and workshops. 

Other districts are renting no-till drills, supplying cover-crop seed, helping to organize aerial seeding of cover crops, facilitating farmer-led soil health cadres, providing no-till test plots, and much more. 

Through these and other efforts, conservation districts across the nation are helping producers and landowners get the tools they need to continue caring for the land 

and providing food, feed, and fiber for the world. We firmly believe that it’s better 

to invest in long-term conservation measures today, than to be forced to pay for the 

escalated costs of repair in the future. Without question, we believe that soil health 

is the key to the future productivity of agriculture and the protection of our natural 

resources. ‘‘Soil health’’ is defined as ‘‘the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital 

living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans.’’ Healthy soil ecosystems allow for increased water infiltration, improved water-holding capacity, enhanced nutrient cycling and sequestration, and increased biodiversity. 

Historically, soil management activities focused on the physical and chemical 

functions of the soil. Today’s emphasis on soil health recognizes the critical importance of biological function in the soil. ‘‘Soil Ecology’’ emphasizes that soil is a living 

ecosystem. This ecosystem is impacted by chemical (i.e., fungicides), biological 

(monocultures) and physical disturbance (tillage) that diminish soil function. 

There are four key management principles to improve soil ecosystem function: (1) 

minimize the chemical, biological, and physical disturbance in the soil; (2) keep the 

soil covered as much as possible throughout the year; (3) maintain a living root, 

growing for as long as possible, to feed the soil microbes and transfer more solar 

energy into the soil; and (4) increase crop diversity above ground to add biological 

diversity to the soil. These basic management activities are central to improving soil 

health. 

The benefits of improved soil health reach far beyond the farm. Healthy soils lead 

to higher water quality, by allowing for better nutrient cycling and reducing sediment runoff; a better ability to manage water and reduce flood damage; and an increase in the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil itself. 

Due to its increased water-holding capacity, healthy soil is more resilient against 

drought; it is also naturally less prone to disease and pest problems, thereby allowing farmers to optimize their use of crop protectants. And because healthy soil requires fewer petroleum-based products for tillage it also saves on energy use and 

costs. 

In the past several years, NACD, and its member conservation districts and associations, have been working hard to put a renewed national focus on soil health. 

These efforts include partnering with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service on an integrated campaign to increase the adoption of soil health management practices by America’s farmers and private landowners. We anticipate conservation districts providing guidance to determine their local soil health needs and 

finding ways to best implement a suite of practices aimed at improving soil health. 

37 

It is important that districts remain the boots on the ground to help solve local natural resource issues. By increasing the health of our soils, the campaign ultimately 

seeks to produce systemic, continental-scale improvements in water, air, and wildlife—all while enhancing long-term agricultural productivity and providing the best 

return on the nation’s conservation investment over the long term. 

NRCS and conservation districts are not alone in this effort—we’re seeing an increasing interest from a wide range of stakeholder groups, organizations and businesses that recognize the potential benefits of healthy soil to production improvements, sustainability, profitability and resource protection—all of which are advantageous to their stakeholders. Many of these organizations are poised to help spread 

the word about the basics and benefits of soil health and to encourage their adoption. 

NACD also recently was awarded, a $750,000 Conservation Innovation Grant to 

promote soil health over a 3 year period. Through this project, we seek to significantly scale up the number of farmed acres nationwide that are managed for soil 

health. The project addresses two main barriers: a shortage of economic and costbenefit information on soil health management; and insufficient transfer of knowledge to farmers of available, innovative practices and technologies for local conditions. 

Through the formation of a national ‘‘farmer advocate’’ network-organized by 

NACD and facilitated by its local districts, and state and territory associations—this 

project will raise awareness of and increase the adoption by farmers and landowners 

of soil health practices. This includes farmer-to-farmer information on the use of 

new soil testing procedures, timing of cover cropping practices, considerations on 

what practices to use for wet and cool soils, on-farm demonstrations, and the development of strategies to broaden and accelerate action. The project will also provide 

a series of economic case studies to serve as the basis for an expert-reviewed economic analysis on the value of soil-health practice implementation. 

Through these and other efforts, conservation districts are proud to be leading the 

way in soil health. 

However, while we are seeing improvements nationwide in both the recognition 

of the need for, and the adoption of, best management practices for soil health, there 

is still work to be done. Specifically, we see five main areas of need for the future: 

(1) developing specific soil health conservation practice criteria; (2) increasing soil 

health research—both scientific and economic; (3) training NRCS, district and partner employees; (4) ensuring farm bill programs facilitate soil-health adoption; and 

(5) communicating the benefits of soil health to both agriculture and urban audiences. 

In summary, to make measurable improvements in soil health at the national 

level will require a locally-led, voluntary, coordinated effort. Because of their strong 

relationships with local landowners, as well as their strong reputation as a trusted 

source of conservation planning and implementation at the local level, conservation 

districts are well poised to continue to play a leading role in these efforts, in close 

partnership with local, state and Federal partners. 

Mr. Chairman, if population growth projections are correct, in a few short decades 

our population will hit nine billion. To feed this many people will require a significant increase in food production, and we will have to do it while coping with erratic 

weather conditions and while still conserving our natural resources. We believe that 

the widespread adoption of soil health practices is what will make us successful. If 

we act now, we have a chance to make a difference on the land that will last for 

generations. 

A recent resolution, H. Con. Res. 95, underscores this very point—expressing the 

sense of Congress that voluntary, incentive-based, private land conservation, provided in partnership with local soil and water conservation districts, is necessary 

to sustain natural resources, meet the needs of a growing population, and ensure 

safe, abundant, and adequate resources for current and future generations. We are 

extremely pleased to see our Representatives in Washington expressing support for 

locally-led, natural resource conservation and its critical value to our nation’s economic and food security. The cause of conservation crosses geographic, political and 

economic boundaries; it is truly something that everyone can support. Caring for our 

soil and other natural resources is one of the greatest legacies we can leave for our 

future generations. We urge all of you to support this commonsense, bipartisan resolution. 

Thank for you the opportunity to be here today and for holding this hearing to 

help shine a spotlight on the important issue of soil health. I look forward to your 

questions. 

38 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Larson. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Phillips, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHANON PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR, WATER 

QUALITY DIVISION, OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. 

My name is Shanon Phillips. I am with Oklahoma Conservation 

Commission, and I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak 

with you this morning about soil health, and its relationship to 

water quality. I think many of us appreciate how critical soil 

health is towards a strong agricultural industry, but, unfortunately, fewer people seem to appreciate how critical it also is towards supporting and protecting the nation’s water supplies. 

And we have already talked about how soil health can reduce 

water pollution, because healthier soils have greater infiltration 

rates, which means there is less runoff of pollutants that then 

enter our nation’s waterways. Healthier soils require less supplemental fertilization, which also means lower opportunities for pollution of nutrients to our nation’s waterways. And, finally, healthy 

soils are living soils, which promote a multitude and variety of microbial communities, which also break down some pollutants into 

compounds that are less problematic when they enter our waterways. And we know, from data that has been provided by states 

to the U.S. EPA, that at least 60 percent, shown here by the colored wedges on the pie chart, of the pollutants which cause impairments to water bodies and our nation’s waters are related to pollutants that come from soils. 

Now, water bodies are recognized as being impaired when they 

are not meeting the Clean Water Act goals, which means that they 

are not fishable, they are not safe for swimming, or they are not— 

they don’t provide safe drinking water. And we have already talked 

this morning about some of the more significant consequences related to the situation in Toledo this summer, when they were— 

when they had to turn off the taps. But those types of toxic bloom 

and algae blooms are happening all over the nation, from New 

York State, to Wisconsin, to Oregon, down to Texas, Kansas, and 

Oklahoma. 

And those—but the good news about those types of water quality 

problems is we do know how to solve these water quality problems, 

and we can do so through voluntarily conservation programs, such 

as those that are provided for in the farm bill. And we know that 

through our partnership with the U.S. EPA that in over 500 

streams all across this nation we have solved those types of water 

quality impairments through these types of voluntary programs. 

And I am very happy to report that in Oklahoma, in fact, we are 

one of the most successful states in the nation at demonstrating 

this type of success. There is only one state in the nation, in fact, 

that has more success than Oklahoma does at showing how these 

voluntary conservation programs that bring a partnership of local 

landowners, conservation districts, USDA, NRCS, and FSA, and 

the State Conservation Agency together to implement these conservation practices and solve water quality problems. 

39 

One of the reasons that we have been so successful in Oklahoma 

is because we have also made EPA a part of that partnership. And 

I recognize that that makes a lot of people very nervous, but what 

we are doing with EPA is we are utilizing their funds from the Section 319 Clean Water Act program to provide technical support to 

support water quality monitoring. We are using their technical support to design that water quality monitoring, and we are using that 

data to prove to EPA and others that these conservation programs 

not only assist farmers in maintaining their operations, but they 

also solve water quality problems without additional regulation. 

So, with that, I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Phillips follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHANON PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR, WATER QUALITY DIVISION, 

OKLAHOMA CONSERVATION COMMISSION, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the relationship between soil 

health and water quality. I’m certain you’re aware of the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) campaign to raise awareness about the importance of 

soil health and to provide private landowners the knowledge, skills and tools to protect this resource. The impetus behind this campaign lies with the increasing demands on our soil resources and the agricultural community to cost-effectively feed 

the world. We can thank progressive farmers and agricultural experts all around 

the globe who have developed methods, knowledge, and skill sets to help address 

this problem and we can thank the NRCS for bringing these tools to the U.S. agricultural community. 

The importance of protecting our national soil resources, which were built over 

geologic time and heavily impacted through settlement and development of our continent, is relatively obvious as it relates to the promotion of a strong agricultural 

industry, which, in turn, is critical for a healthy national economy. Scientists estimate that as much as 60% of carbon has been lost from agricultural soils since the 

1800s. This loss in organic matter affects a soil’s capacity to absorb and hold nutrients and water, which are critical for production of crops and livestock forage. However, protection of our soil resources is also mandatory for protection of the nation’s 

water resources. 

Erosion of soil particles, washing of compounds from the soil, and changes in soil 

structure which affect water infiltration are some of the most significant sources of 

water quality problems in the U.S. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, approximately 777,759 or 67 percent of impaired miles of U.S. streams and 

rivers and 9,794,360 or 40 percent of impairments to acres of lakes, reservoirs and 

ponds are caused by pollutants related to soil erosion or leaching of pollutants from 

soils such as excess nutrients, sedimentation, turbidity (suspended particles), pathogens, and pesticides. 

In August of this year, the City of Toledo, Ohio was in the news related to toxins 

from bluegreen algae blooms which made the city water supply from Lake Erie unusable. Bluegreen algae blooms, which sometimes produce deadly toxins, happen all 

over the U.S., from New York to Oregon and from Wisconsin to Texas. A July fourth 

holiday bloom in 2011 in Grand Lake, Oklahoma dramatically impacted the local 

community and made the news for sickening one of our Senators. At least 38 

waterbodies in New York had suspected or confirmed bluegreen algae blooms this 

summer, and toxin production above safe levels was confirmed in at least seven of 

those systems. 

Algae blooms occur and persist when a waterbody receives more nutrients than 

it can naturally assimilate. These excessive nutrients are often related to soil erosion and the washing of pollutants from land surfaces. Agriculture, although certainly not the only source, is one of the most significant sources of nutrients in the 

U.S. 

The good news is that we know and have demonstrated how to reduce these nutrient and sediment-related impacts from agriculture. These successes have been demonstrated all over the nation and many of them are chronicled on the EPA Nonpoint 

Source Success Story Website at: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/. 

This website highlights at least 508 waterbodies across the nation where water pollution problems have been solved. Most of these programs relied on voluntary conservation programs to help states and local partners clean up waterbodies affected 

40 

by pollution which resulted from soil erosion or the washing of pollutants from the 

soil. 

I’m especially proud of the Oklahoma record of demonstrating success at addressing these water quality problems. Oklahoma is a national leader at building partnerships among private landowners, conservation districts, NRCS, the state conservation agency (Oklahoma Conservation Commission), and the EPA to solve 

nonpoint-driven water quality problems. 

Nonpoint source pollution results when rainfall or snowmelt washes pollutants off 

or out of the land and into streams. It is much more difficult to measure or control 

than point source pollution, which is generally thought of as pollution from a defined source, such as a pipe at a waste-water treatment plant. In states like Oklahoma where the majority of land is privately held and used for agricultural production, conservation programs to protect and reduce the impacts from agriculture have 

been very successful. In fact, only one other state in the nation has more success 

at addressing water quality programs through voluntary, nonpoint source programs. 

The EPA Nonpoint Source Success Story webpage currently lists 39 different Oklahoma watersheds where voluntary, agriculturally-based conservation programs have 

solved water quality problems and another six are pending in the coming months. 

These successes have been possible through the partnership formed as a response 

to solve the economic and natural resource devastation associated with the Dust 

Bowl. This partnership among the local landowners, local conservation districts, 

NRCS, and the state conservation agency has a long history of effectively working 

to address soil erosion. However, by including EPA in this partnership, we’re able 

to definitively document that this partnership is also successful at addressing water 

quality impacts that are, at least in part, associated with agricultural production. 

States are provided funding through the EPA Clean Water Act Section 319 Program which can be used to monitor waters for nonpoint source pollution-related impacts and to document water quality improvements from conservation programs. 

These funds can also be used to support boots on the ground personnel who can help 

the ever-shrinking NRCS staff work with landowners to implement conservation 

practices. Finally, the 319 funds can be used to supplement cost-share dollars available to landowners to help them install and maintain these effective conservation 

practices. 

Without the EPA partnership, there would not be a Nonpoint Source Program in 

Oklahoma, nor would there be any documented Nonpoint Source Success Stories. 

We would not be able to prove that voluntary programs can successfully address 

water quality problems on our agricultural lands because our limited state and Federal funds from other programs are focused on other purposes. Finally, the EPA 

oversight and technical support for the 319 program is both beneficial for the overall 

program and critical toward legitimizing program results. 

Thank you for your attention today and for your support for voluntary-based conservation programs such as those provided for in the farm bill. Meaningful, measurable progress towards protecting our nation’s economic and natural resources health 

is possible due to this support. Please also recognize EPA as a critical, beneficial 

partner in this effort as well. I am pleased to answer any questions that you might 

have. 

41 

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION


11323023.eps 11323024.eps
42 


11323025.eps 11323026.eps
43 


11323027.eps 11323028.eps
44 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Ms. Phillips, for your testimony. 

Mr. Harbach, once again, welcome to Washington, and go ahead 

and proceed with your testimony for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES HARBACH, FARM MANAGER, SCHRACK 

FARMS, LOGANTON, PA 

Mr. HARBACH. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Lucas, 

Chairman Thompson, and Members of the Committee. I would like 

to thank everyone here today for the honor of sharing some of my 

life experiences, and especially Congressman G.T. for his confidence in me. I am very fortunate to have been part of agriculture 

for more than 40 years. On our operation, I have witnessed the 

transition from conventionally plowed ground to no-till. Some of 

our fields have been—not been plowed for 40 years. We have seen 

firsthand the transformation of our soils, and the positive results 

when you farm in nature’s image. 

In the last decade, with the addition of cover crops, and the belief 

that plants feed the soil, instead of soil feeding the plants, we have 

seen incredible results. Some examples include organic matter increases of one percent in 3 years, and steady state infiltration rates 

that average 41⁄2′′ per hour. 

I have no fancy degrees, no financial incentives to be here today, 

and I don’t enjoy public speaking, but I have a passion for our soils, 

and the land around the world. I am not an organic farmer, although we no longer use insecticide or fungicides, and only a fraction of the herbicides and fertilizers that we once applied. I used 

to be part of the group of traditional thinking farmers, but by attending national conferences, field days, and visiting open-minded 

farmers around the country, I now have an understanding of the 

important symbiotic relationships that are achieved when you farm 

in nature’s image. Our farm is part of a like-minded nationwide 

soil health community that believes that soil health holds the answers to all of our problems. 

Agriculture today is farming a degraded resource, and has accepted this as normal. Despite our best efforts, our soil has lost the 

ability to effectively absorb rainwater, are void of biological life, 

and are depleted of nutrients. Our soils are so degraded that we 

must rely on industrial inputs to keep our farmlands productive. 

We now have a broken water cycle as a result of a broken carbon 

cycle. The loss of soil organic matter has contributed to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere because we have robbed the soils of 

its carbon. Soil organic matter has many, many functions, water infiltration, water holding capacity, groundwater recharge, and its 

ability to cycle and store nitrogen, along with other nutrients. 

On this slide, our soils have infiltration rates of over 41⁄2′′ per 

hour. And I would like you to notice this slide here, notice the 

rapid infiltration into soil, instead of creating—erosion, this field— 

above the road this field has drains—in the shop area, so the water 

is a little bit muddy coming off of a shield area. There is 18′′ pipe 

there bailing water out into this field, and it dissipates within 100 

yards. And this is some of the things that we have been seeing. On 

our farms we no longer have water leaving our fields. Even with 

4′′–41⁄2′′ of rain events, we don’t see any erosion. 

45 

Conservation programs have historically reacted to resource concerns, instead of being proactive to address the source of the problem. We need to start promoting proactive conservation, instead of 

reactive conservation. NRCS has embraced soil health as one of 

their core programs. It is a good start, but what we need is a mammoth soil health education program to teach farmers, Federal and 

state agencies, regulators, universities, children, and the general 

public. Farmers need to understand how the soil functions before 

they will value it as a resource, but government programs need to 

motivate farms to adopt soil health principles. Many do the opposite. They enable poor stewardship. 

As we look to the future direction of government crop insurance 

programs that guarantee price and yield, we need to have a premium structure that promotes soil building techniques, and, conversely, provides a disincentive for soil degrading practices. Taxpayers should not be on the hook for supporting production agriculture that exports more topsoil nutrients and soil carbon than actual crop products. 

The benefits of healthy soil need to be acknowledged in the regulatory process. We need regulatory agencies to recognize that well 

managed farms with healthy soils are the key to reducing agricultural problems. 

In this slide, you can see the—a distinct line there where manure 

was applied. The following day we had a 3′′ rain event. You can see 

where the—none of the nutrients moved along that line, which tells 

us that, in order to keep the nutrients on the land, we need to keep 

the water on the land. This field also has excellent water infiltration capacity. 

Thank you for this opportunity. I will be looking forward to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harbach follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES HARBACH, FARM MANAGER, SCHRACK FARMS, 

LOGANTON, PA 

I would like to thank everyone here today for the honor of sharing some of my 

life experiences and especially Congressman G.T. for his confidence in me. I am very 

fortunate to have been part of agriculture for more than 40 years. On our operation, 

I have witnessed the transition from conventionally plowed ground to no-till. Some 

of our fields have not been plowed in 40 years. We have seen firsthand the transformation of our soils and the positive results when you farm in nature’s image. In 

the last decade, with the addition of cover crops and the belief that plants feed the 

soil instead of the soil feeding the plants, we have seen incredible results. Some examples include, organic matter increases of one percent in 3 years and infiltration 

rates that average 41⁄2′′ an hour. 

46 

I have no fancy degrees, no financial incentives to be here today, and I don’t enjoy 

public speaking, but I have a passion for our soils and the land around the world. 

I am not an organic farmer, although we no longer use insecticides and fungicides 

and only a fraction of the herbicides and fertilizer that we once applied. I used to 

be part of the group of traditional thinking farmers, but by attending national conferences, field days, and visiting open minded farmers around the country, I now 

have an understanding of the important symbiotic relationships that are achieved 

when you farm in nature’s image. Our farm is part of a like-minded nationwide soil 

health community which believes that soil health holds the answer to so many problems. 


11323029.eps
47 

Agriculture today is farming a degraded resource and has accepted this as normal. Despite our best efforts, our soils have lost the ability to effectively absorb 

rainwater, are void of biological life, and are depleted of nutrients. Our soils are so 

degraded that we must rely on industrial inputs to keep our farmlands productive. 

We now have a broken water cycle as a result of a broken carbon cycle. The loss 

of soil organic matter has contributed to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere beVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:24 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-23\89881.TXT BRIAN

11323030.eps 11323031.eps
48 

cause we have robbed the soils of its carbon. Soil organic matter has many ,many 

functions: water infiltration, water holding capacity, ground water recharge, and its 

ability to cycle and store nitrogen along with other nutrients. 

Conservation programs have historically reacted to the resource concerns, instead 

of being proactive to address the source of the problem. We need to start promoting 

proactive conservation instead of reactive conservation. NRCS has embraced soil 

health as one of their core programs. It is a good start but what we need is a mammoth soil health education campaign to teach farmers, Federal and state agencies, 

regulators, universities, children and the general public. Farmers need to understand how the soil functions before they will value it as a resource. Our government 

programs need to motivate farmers to adopt soil health principals. Many do the opposite, they enable poor stewardship. As we look to the future direction of government crop insurance programs that guarantee price and yield, we need to have a 

premium structure that promotes soil building techniques and conversely provides 

a disincentive for soil degrading practices. Tax payers should not be on the hook 

for supporting production agriculture that exports more topsoil, nutrients, and soil 

carbon than actual crop products. 


11323032.eps
49 

The benefits of healthy soils need to be acknowledged in the regulatory process. 

We need regulatory agencies to recognize that well managed farms with healthy 

soils are the key to reducing agricultural pollution. 

Food for Thought 

More independent, government funded studies need to be conducted on the effects 

of fertilizer, herbicides, GMO’s and pesticides on the soil community and human 

health. We cannot rely on industry to fund these studies and produce unbiased results. 

Each state needs to have long term, no-till farms that exhibit improvements in 

soil health. These farms need to be central in soil health research and education 

programs. Soil health farms need to monitor improvements in profitability, water 

infiltration and retention, soil organic matter increases and soil generation. 

Can agriculture sequester enough soil carbon to make a measureable difference 

in atmospheric CO2 concentrations? In the book Cows Save the Planet and Other 

Improbably Ways of Restoring Soil to Heal the Earth, Dr. Christine Jones states 

that every 1 tonne increase in soil organic carbon represents 3.67 tonnes of CO2 sequestered from the atmosphere. 

Can healthy soils significantly reduce rain water runoff? 

Do healthy soils leak nutrients or does this only occur in poorly structured and 

poorly managed soils? 

Changing weather patterns are linked to soil management. Bare, exposed, dry 

soils put more heat into air and change flow patterns above the fields. Bare soils 

do not cycle the water, lowering the ability for the plants to contribute to local moisture. 

New soil testing technologies like the Haney Soil Health Tool and Solvita CO2

Burst that measure biological life and nutrient availability need to be promoted and 

incorporated into crop nutrient recommendations. 

What will motivate farms to achieve good soil health and increase the soil organic 

matter—regulations or education and gaining a better understanding? 

If you promote soil health principles, be prepared for a huge push back from the 

agriculture industries that sell products to farmers. Once a farm restores healthy 

soils, few of these products are needed and it will reduce industry sales. 

Farmers that contract with NRCS and are given incentive payments for installing 

practices (EQIP, CREP, CRP, WRP) should be required to attend soil health 

trainings and education programs. 


11323033.eps
50 

We need to develop Soil Health Management Plans that take into account the soil 

infiltration rates, soil organic matter, and soil enhancing practices on the farm. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Harbach, very much. Your testimony is appreciated. 

Ms. Sackett, welcome, and whenever you are ready, go ahead and 

proceed with your 5 minutes of testimony. 

STATEMENT OF JILL L. SACKETT, EXTENSION EDUCATOR, 

AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY OF 

MINNESOTA EXTENSION REGIONAL OFFICE, MANKATO, MN 

Ms. SACKETT. I would like to start by thanking the Chairman, 

and all Committee Members, for inviting me here today to testify, 

and to be able to share a Minnesota cover crop story with each of 

you. 

I started my professional career with cover crops basically the 

minute I started my professional career with Extension. I did my 

best to hit the ground running, and, thankfully enough, I had some 

really good resources out there on a national level, like SARE, on 

a regional level, like the Midwest Cover Crop Council, and then 

probably about 20 years off and on of cover crop research from the 

state, some great soil and water conservation districts, and some 

wonderful farmers. At that time, adoption rates of cover crops were 

very low. But we all forged ahead, and we were hosting education 

events. We were doing demonstration plots, and we were working 

with some amazing farmers that had innovative ideas. 

We quickly figured out that there are two main focuses for why 

Minnesota farmers are interested in cover crops, the first of which 

is soil health, which is why we are here today. Now, when you ask 

a farmer, why are you interested in trying cover crops, the phrase 

soil health may not actually be what comes out of his or her mouth, 

but what they do describe definitely makes up quality, healthy, 

productive soils. They share with us that they would like to see a 

decrease in soil erosion, an increase in soil organic matter, an increase in natural nutrient cycling. They want to see more water infiltration. During drought, they want to be able to have higher 

water holding capacity in that soil, all of which are part of what 

makes a soil healthy. 

The second point, and not surprising for the Land of 10,000 

Lakes, is water quality. What we noticed in Minnesota the last few 

years, unfortunately, is that we tend to have far too much water 

in the spring, and far too little water in the summer and fall. Cover 

crops are one of the few practices that actually allow us to deal 

with both of those issues. 

The use of cover crops allows us to take up excess water, to take 

up excess nutrients, and the roots help hold our soil in place, all 

of those things we want in our fields, where we need them most. 

On the flipside, when it comes to drought, a living plant can actually shade the soil, a dead cover crop can mulch the soil, both of 

which help decrease soil evaporation. 

This brings us to an excellent story that shows the interrelationship of cover crops, soil health, and water quality. In 2013 it 

wouldn’t stop snowing and raining, and a lot of our farmers in 

southeast Minnesota weren’t even able to plant their cash crops. 

Some of them decided to plant cover crops, many for the first time 

51 

ever, in order to keep their soil in place, and to keep any nutrient 

that they had put on that soil in that field. The farmer in question 

here decided to use oilseed radish, and in September he called and 

said, I don’t know what to do. It is really dry, and yet these plants 

are growing robustly. The roots are 3′′ in diameter, the leaves are 

bushy and about 21⁄2′ tall. What do I do? My neighbors are telling 

me that I need to just plow it under and get rid of it. My NRCS 

person is telling me, no, leave it be, you need to protect that soil. 

He had gotten my phone number from his soil and water conservation district, and he gave me a call because he knew I had 

had some experience with oil seed radish. And, in my experience, 

the chemical makeup of this particular plant allows it to decompose 

quickly in the spring, so I encouraged him to not listen to his 

neighbors, and listen to his NRCS agent instead, and leave it be. 

And that is where we left our conversation. This June I was pleasantly surprised to find an e-mail from him, where he told me that 

the oil seed radish had basically dissolved by planting time, and 

that the soil conditions were some of the best he had ever seen in 

his 41 years of planting. But my favorite line from the e-mail was, 

‘‘We showed them.’’ 

I would like to end today with just a few thoughts. The efforts 

of a few have become the efforts of many in the last few years. 

NRCS, with the EQIP program, the ag media, soil and water conservation districts, extension, nonprofits, we are all working together, and we are doing our best to give a unified message out 

there about cover crops and soil health. We know this is only a 

small part of the conservation puzzle, but we also know that, for 

high quality soils, for good quality water, cover crops can be one 

of the ways we can reach those two goals. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sackett follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JILL L. SACKETT, EXTENSION EDUCATOR, AGRICULTURE

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION REGIONAL OFFICE, 

MANKATO, MN 

A Minnesota Cover Crop Story 

Ms. Jill L. Sackett 

Extension Educator, Agriculture Production Systems—University of Minnesota 

Extension 

State Co-coordinator, Minnesota—USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and 

Education 

I began my career with University of Minnesota Extension thanks, in part, to a 

USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grant that focused on cover 

crop demonstration and education. Cover crop use at that time was very low, but 

research and farmer experiences from around the Midwest were making a valid argument for why farmers should be using them. I had some personal experience with 

cover crops due to my location in south central Minnesota; numerous vegetable canning facilities are located there and some farmers choose to plant cover crops after 

these early harvested cash crops. Even more importantly, however, I had the expertise of the Midwest Cover Crop Council; local research from University of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and USDA Agricultural Research 

Service; and a few experienced Soil and Water Conservation District personnel and 

farmers to guide me in my efforts. Some of these resources already had 15 or more 

years of cover crop experience. In the beginning there was some polite skepticism, 

some eye-rolling and, in some cases, actual sleeping in the back row. But, I can honestly say there was also genuine interest in the message I was sharing. 

Minnesota’s interest in cover crops is driven by two things: soil health and water 

quality. Those of us who work with cover crops have learned that each situation is 

unique and the first question we need to ask an individual farmer is, ‘‘why are you 

52 

interested in using cover crops?’’ The phrase ‘‘soil health’’ is rarely what comes out 

of a farmer’s mouth, but what he or she does say definitely points towards a desire 

for healthy, quality soil. Many of these farmers will mention being concerned about 

soil erosion from wind and rain, wanting to increase soil organic matter percentage, 

or a desire to increase their soil nutrient levels. Cover crops can help with these, 

and many more, issues. I distinctly remember a Carver County farmer telling me 

that his soil just wasn’t what it used to be. It was no longer a dark, rich color; it 

was difficult to work up; and his yields were no longer what he felt they should be. 

He had very real concerns over the health of his soil and it’s the reason he started 

looking into adding cover crops to his farm operation. 

Minnesota is known as the ‘‘Land of 10,000 Lakes.’’ We actually have 11,842. And, 

we’re home to 6,594 rivers and streams. All told, we have just over 13 million acres 

of surface water. ‘‘Water, water, everywhere,’’ and yet we also have had to deal with 

our fair share of drought conditions. Too often lately, there are places in Minnesota 

that deal with flooding in the spring and then drought in the summer and fall. 

Needless to say, Minnesota knows water, and we’re well aware of how important 

it is to our 26 million acres of agricultural land as well as to our drinking needs 

and recreational activities. Research and common sense show that having growing 

plants on the land as long as possible helps to use excess water and nutrients and 

also helps keep the soil in place. During dry periods, the shading action of a green 

plant or the mulching action of a dead plant can help decrease soil water evaporation. With their potential to assist in water quality and quantity, cover crops are 

definitely starting to draw attention. 

One particular example comes to mind. During the spring of 2013, the snow and 

rain were so heavy and constant that much of southeastern Minnesota was unable 

to plant their cash crops. Some farmers made the decision to plant a cover crop for 

the first time ever so that their fields wouldn’t be bare. One particular farmer had 

come to me that September, after having dealt with an incredibly wet spring and 

a summer drought that had hit quite hard, concerned over how to manage his cover 

crop of oil seed radish. The radishes were growing robustly and he was concerned 

about how they would affect soil moisture levels and spring planting. His neighbors 

were encouraging him to till them under. His local NRCS person was encouraging 

him to leave them. I shared my experiences with oil seed radish and encouraged 

him to leave the radishes and forego any fall tillage. In most years, the radish would 

easily winterkill with the advent of Minnesota’s cold winter temperatures and the 

spring thaw would trigger a quick decomposition of the dead plants. I suggested 

that if he didn’t feel comfortable with that decision, he could till some of the radishes under while leaving some alone. He could then compare the two management 

options in the spring. That was how we left our conversation and then this June 

I received an unexpected e-mail from him. Against the opinions of a few of his 

neighbors, he decided to leave those radishes alone last fall. He said that the dead 

radishes ‘‘dissolved by planting time.’’ He went on to share that he was surprised 

to find that he only needed one light pass with a field cultivator before planting his 

2014 cash crop and that the field’s soil tilth was ‘‘about as good as I’ve seen in 41 

years of planting.’’ My favorite quote of the message, however, was ‘‘we showed ‘em.’’ 

Cover crop adoption in Minnesota is still low, but the last 2 years have seen a 

marked increase in interest. The original groundbreakers have continued their work 

with cover crops, but others have also joined the efforts. The number of groups 

working with cover crop research and education has drastically increased and efforts 

are being made to work together as much as possible to ensure a uniform message. 

More workshops and field days than ever before are being held and the number of 

interested farmers attending these events is also increasing. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has increased cover crop funding via their Environmental Quality Incentives Program. The agriculture news media is inundating print 

and Internet news sources with cover crop stories. The efforts of a few have now 

become the efforts of many. Continued effort, however, depends on funding. To increase interest in cover crops, more education is needed. To better answer farmers’ 

questions, more demonstration and research projects are needed. 

Cover crops are only a piece of the puzzle, however. We also need to see an increase in conservation tillage practices like strip till or no-till; additional crops in 

our rotation instead of only one or two; and an increased use of best management 

practices. Minnesota wants soils that are healthy and productive and water resources that are managed for high quality and appropriate quantity. Cover crops 

can help reach these goals. 

53 

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION


11323034.eps 11323035.eps
54 


11323036.eps 11323037.eps
55 


11323038.eps 11323039.eps
56 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Sackett, thank you very much for your testimony. We will now proceed with questioning, and once again I will 

recognize the Chairman of the full Agriculture Committee, Mr. 

Lucas, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LUCAS. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. I would ask 

this question of the panel. In the challenges you face out there, 

what are the greatest challenges? Is it lack of cooperation between 

entities back home? Is it persuading the very traditional farmers 

to try something new? Just what are your chief challenges in moving your message forward? And whoever wants to go, whoever 

wants—I have 41⁄2 minutes. I am listening. 

Mr. HARBACH. I will take that one. We are very active in Pennsylvania with the PA No-Till Alliance, and we spend a lot of our 

time—given a lot of our time to education, and seminars, and field 

days. And the biggest problem we have is just getting people to understand. There is a lack of understanding. I live in a valley with 

a lot of Amish community, and they are not ones to come out to 

this kind of stuff, so to penetrate them is difficult. But, basically, 

it is just the lack of understanding from the farmers’ perspective. 

It took me several years, and I am probably a slow learner, but 

it took me several years to get where I am today, and it is really 

hard to expect a farmer to get there overnight. It is going to take 

a long time to get that level of understanding. 

Mr. LUCAS. I will admit to you I still remember my freshman 

Agronomy class at Oklahoma State, this is a third of a century ago, 

and going home, and having a long discussion with my maternal 

grandfather, who I farmed with, about just what was going on in 

that soil. I still remember that discussion, so I appreciate what you 

are saying. 

Mr. LARSON. Chairman Lucas, one of the things that we have to 

be cognizant of is that, when we are talking about agricultural production, we are talking about a business, and so this is a business 

decision. And with that, we can’t just go off of anecdotal information. We need to have good, sound research. We need to have case 

studies. We need to have the ability to demonstrate not just from 

the perspective of many that have done it, but from the perspective 

of how it fits into that business decision that is going to impact, 

potentially, their economic viability. 

Because the value of the practices we are talking about can be 

demonstrated to be a sound economic decision. We just need to 

come up with a more consistent way to partner together. And I am 

very proud of the work that conservation districts do to be that collaboration point around the country to give that information to 

folks that has the science behind it, that has the research behind 

it. And that is a part of every aspect of what we can do in a partnership. I am very proud to work with SARE, and with Rob Myers, 

on the national work group for cover crop and soil health. 

And it is conservation districts, it is extension, it is soil societies, 

it is agronomists. It is the entire spectrum of ag retailers and others working together to come up with this information that we can 

share on a consistent level, and in a consistent way, that gives confidence, and that producers can put trust in. And if we can get 

there, and we are getting there, then we are really going to see improvement. 

57 

Mr. LUCAS. Ms. Phillips, do you think that part of the reason we 

have such a coordinated effort in Oklahoma, a willingness in both 

public and private to work on these issues, is still a legacy of the 

miserable Dust Bowl, and what our predecessors went through, 

and the suffering that they encountered? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Yes, I do agree that the Dust Bowl showed us how 

we could come together and work cooperatively on a problem. I 

mean, we have been working that same way, and applying those 

same principles, ever since. It is something that we can’t forget. 

Mr. LUCAS. In my hometown, we had 14,000 people on the Census roll in 1930, after the Dust Bowl of the Depression, of the 

1930s, the droughts of the 1950s all left, we are not quite back to 

4,000 people yet, so the quality of soil will impact the ability of 

your citizens, your fellow neighbors, to be able to create a livelihood. The ulcerations you can still see if you fly over much of my 

part of western Oklahoma, in spite of all of the decades of efforts, 

so—anyway, I thank you all for being here. I appreciate your observations, and it is good that we do learn from our past, and move 

forward in a more positive fashion. With that, Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Chairman for yielding back. Now recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GIBBS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I have to start and 

ask Mr. Larson a question. I think you might know one of my constituents. He was President of your organization a few years ago, 

Gary Mass? 

Mr. LARSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. GIBBS. Now you know why we have such good conservation 

practices in my area, right? Hey, I wanted to ask—well, first I 

wanted to say to Mr. Harbach, in your slide, you said you had 4.7′′ 

of rainfall in an hour, and you were able to prevent runoff in the 

field. Could you just expound on that a little bit? 

Mr. HARBACH. We have done some extensive water infiltration 

tests, and we have the ability—that is our average water infiltration capability. That is a steady state, until we can absorb that 

water. But we have had rainfall events that have been over 3′′ and 

4′′ in an hour, and not had issues—not having water leaving the 

fields. And that photo is one of the—is a good way to explain what 

is happening. 

We have not seen that up and until the last couple years. Even 

though we have been no-tilling for 40 years, it wasn’t until we 

started cover cropping that we saw those real advantages. And 

Chief Weller had mentioned that it is a systems approach, and—— 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. 

Mr. LARSON.—we need to understand that it takes all of those to 

make it work. 

Mr. GIBBS. What we are going to find out—in my questions to 

the Chief—we have the algae bloom problem, especially in Lake 

Erie, it is from these big event—rainfall events. You know, it is the 

sewage treatment plants overflowing. I think it is probably the agricultural—there are preliminary testing results. I think we are 

starting to see that. I think that is going to be a finding, so this 

is really key, Mr. Chairman, to address that. When I heard you say 

58 

that, I thought that is pretty remarkable, and you have something 

going good there, and we can—we need to learn more about that. 

I wanted to ask Ms. Phillips particularly, the proposed waters of 

the United States rule that has come up with the U.S. EPA and 

the Army Corps, how does that—how do you see that—is that affecting conservation programs? 

Ms. PHILLIPS. Well, I am probably not the best person to speak 

on that because I work entirely in a voluntary program, and so we 

don’t implement any regulation. 

Mr. GIBBS. Well, the reason that I am asking you that is because 

I understand you run a voluntary program, but the proposed rule 

is—they had to do this interpretive rule, then, to exempt your—the 

programs, and I just question whether you have that, because everything—supposed to be general farming practice is supposed to 

be exempt. 

I guess my words of wisdom to you would be I think it will have 

an impact on conservation programs in a negative way, and could 

open the door for farmers not wanting to be more amenable to 

working with NRCS and others, and that concerns me just— 

maybe—— 

Ms. PHILLIPS. I think certainly, as you have stated, that there 

are a lot of people who are very concerned about the proposed rule, 

and they are concerned about the way that it was formulated, and 

that states weren’t brought into the process. And so it would seem 

that many people—and I would agree with this recommendation, 

that EPA needs to step back and pull partners back into the process, and take a new—take—start over. 

I think that they should have—we have learned—they should 

have learned from many of their other approaches toward rules of 

this type is that you are most successful when you bring your partners to the table from the beginning, and work together. 

Mr. GIBBS. Yes. And, of course, the House, I guess it was last 

week, passed a bill that said time out to—and go back to the 

states. And in my subcommittee hearing here a few weeks ago, as 

far as we could tell, not one state EPA or counterpart supports the 

proposals—excuse me, the proposed rule, so that is a red flag to 

me. 

Mr. Larson, on the—working with farmers, and doing conservation practices, how do you—do you see different things going on in 

different areas of the country? You know, different challenges, but 

different—maybe different practices might work in Oklahoma, 

might not work in Ohio? How do you address that? Are there any 

problems, challenges, in Washington that make it more difficult? 

Mr. LARSON. Well, the part that I look at is that the true value 

of conservation districts is that they are part of that local community. And of those boards, those are volunteer members. They are 

elected or appointed members that serve on those conservation district boards, and they have perspective of their local community. So 

they help to come up with a suite of practices that is based on 

working with our Federal and state partners of what works there. 

And the Burleigh County example is a very good one, because 

they have been, for 20 years, highlighting, and demonstrating, and 

refining the guidance that they give to the rest of the community. 

And that is critically important, because it is a site specific issue. 

59 

The 4.7 infiltration rate is great, but we know that there are other 

soils not very far away that would never reach that potential unless under very careful management, utilizing soil health practices 

that potentially aren’t the same, or implemented. So that is one of 

the pieces that—at that local level. 

Mr. GIBBS. Right. Yes. Just a comment—quick comment, Mr. 

Chairman. I agree with you 150 percent, because when I was in my 

local conservation soil and water board, they instituted a nutrient 

training program, in conjunction with Ohio State University, and 

the Ohio EPA, and the NRCS, and it is working. We are actually 

decreasing the TMDL loads in the watershed, and we are able to 

keep—in—the jobs in place, and actually grow that business, and 

actually decrease the load. So you are absolutely right. Like I said 

earlier, this structure we have is the right structure to work for, 

and we need to make sure we protect that. So I yield back, thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman. I will take the liberty of 

my 5 minutes now. 

Ms. Sackett, as the product of another great land-grant university, who is currently 3–0 in the Big Ten, I just want to say, the— 

I wanted to check with you—obviously you have a very—a passion 

for this. You have done your preparation, you are an asset and a 

resource. You are part of the boots on the ground with our NRCS 

partners. You know, the importance of ensuring that our ag extension staff are trained in the basics of healthy soils, any idea—can 

you give us some idea, how are we doing with that task, with our 

ag extension? What is the bigger picture with our ag extension 

staff across the nation? 

Ms. SACKETT. Well, I can only speak for Minnesota, because that 

is obviously what I know best, but, in Minnesota, we have local extension educators, regional extension educators, and then our state 

specialists, and we are encouraged to focus on certain areas. So, for 

instance, my focus is conservation sustainable ag. A colleague of 

mine, it is soils. So you can kind of see how, even though we are 

all focusing on these different bits and pieces, we most definitely 

see where we are coming together. 

And just because one of us is focused on cover crops, for instance, 

doesn’t mean that we are not sharing with each other. We regularly have staff development meetings. Each of us have funds to attend professional development. I go to regional cover crop and soil 

health events. Some of my other colleagues are also attending those 

things. 

We are doing our best to educate ourselves about these efforts on 

a national, regional, and state level, and then we are doing our 

best to talk to each other. And you can’t leave out the farmers, and 

the other partners in the whole puzzle. It definitely comes down to 

working together and having that communication, so that we are 

all on the same page. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Larson, how can conservation districts better leverage Federal programs to get the maximum success of dollars to make the 

biggest impact? For example, using both the 319 funds from the 

EPA and the NRCS funding. 

60 

Mr. LARSON. Well, I think that Shanon has an excellent example 

from Oklahoma, in the way that they have taken the different Federal programs, and then matched it up with state programs to get 

right to the heart of the matter. And having, again, the conservation districts engaged that have that local knowledge, and ability 

to identify issues. 

And with these conservation practices, part of it is, and I think 

that Jim would agree, that it is potentially an increase in management responsibility by the producer, and so one of the things is to 

have willing participants. And so working with those that are willing, that want to do this, it is going to help to then show the value 

of soil health. The voluntary incentive-based approach is going to 

work when you have willing participants, that—then we are going 

to see that escalation of stewardship. 

The challenging part in the scenario, and one that I am very— 

and I thank the Chairman and the Members of the Committee for 

the work on the 2014 Farm Bill, is that the conservation title was 

escalated, and it was given more importance. When you look at it 

in relationship to title I, it is the first time in history where we 

have more funding in title II than we had in title I. And we certainly see that as a movement in the right way for not only those 

wishing to do conservation, and the incentive-based approach, but 

also for the justification and defense of what we are trying to do 

with this program, to the value of the American public. 

Here is a program that is providing clean water, that is providing clean air, that is providing wildlife habitat, that is providing 

those natural resources that we need. And so whatever we can do 

to help to get others within the halls to understand the value of 

that, that certainly is something that is a goal that we should try 

and achieve. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Harbach, Jim, you have been 

using this practice for some time. Did you—I mean, using these 

practices, do you deplete or do you enrich the nutrition and quality 

of your soil through the practices that you are using, and specifically related to some of the really basic parts of soil nutrition, like 

nitrogen? 

Mr. HARBACH. Well, we have learned, just in the last year, is 

that, through healthy soils, and the organic matter levels that is 

in there, there is a system through the—root system, and through 

the photosynthesis that allows for nitrogen to be taken out of the 

atmosphere, and we have lost that ability to do that through tillage, and through the fact that we don’t keep crops growing 365 

days a year. That can’t—without that crop growing, we can’t support that system that gets the free nitrogen from the air. So that 

is why we are more—that is why we are so reliant on inorganic fertilizers. 

And when you hear people talk about—you hear the soil health 

enthusiasts that say that—well, I am using less fertilizer now. 

That is why. And I am not sure if that answered your question, 

but, no, those—the soil health only adds in every aspect. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. And you were kind enough to invite me to 

your farm not too long ago, about a month ago or so, and if I recall 

right, I believe it was—was it nitrogen that you have increased by 

one percent over time? 

61 

Mr. HARBACH. Well, that would be the soil organic matter levels 

that we have been able to increase in our soils. And the old school 

thought is that that is not possible. But what we have found is 

that—and people talk about the advantages of cover crops, but the 

cover crop, from—the advantage that we see is that we are able to 

harvest sunlight 365 days a year to grow that—to allow that process to happen. And it is the plants feeding the soils that is accomplishing those soil organic matter gains. 

And that is critical, and that is the systems approach things that 

we are talking about, when we are talking about people not being 

willing to do that for economical reasons. But once they understand 

how the soil functions, then they start asking the questions, how 

do I do that? Because they can’t afford not to do that. It is the understanding that we need to get people to get to. 

The CHAIRMAN. You mentioned that you no longer use insecticides and fungicides, and only a fraction of the herbicides and fertilizer that you once used. What are the direct benefits or challenges you see with using so much less fertilizer and herbicides? 

Mr. HARBACH. It is not really a challenge. Initially it is, to make 

that first big step, but there is so much research done. And I have 

to say, from ARS, and I know you guys support ARS, there are a 

lot of good things coming out of there, because that is research that 

is done that is not industry funded, and we we need to increase 

that. 

By not using the insecticides or as many chemicals, it is all that 

systems approach thing, that once you achieve soil health, you 

have the beneficial bugs, you have the ones that take out the critters that you are applying an insecticide for, or maybe a fungicide, 

the fungicide is very hard on soils, and we need to get people to 

understand that once you have achieved that certain level of soil 

health, that some of these other input costs can go away. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I want to thank all the witnesses for 

great testimony on an important topic. And, before we adjourn, I 

want to invite—the Chairman yields—I do want to say that this is 

a bipartisan issue. I know that both the Ranking Member of the 

full Committee was hoping to be able to—he was here for a time, 

and didn’t have, really, the window to offer his support in kind of 

an opening statement. And my Ranking Member on the Subcommittee, this is very important to him as well. They just had 

conflicts that occur here, unfortunately, and they very much appreciate all the witnesses’ testimony today. 

I have heard healthy soils described as harvesting sunlight, and 

using the natural processes of photosynthesis, where, in the past, 

when we thought of agriculture, we thought it depleted the soil. 

Now it is very apparent that with certain agricultural practices, we 

can actually grow soil, for the benefit of everyone. So thank you so 

much for all the witnesses. 

Under the rules of the Committee, the record of today’s hearing 

will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive additional materials and supplementary written responses from witnesses to any 

questions posed by a Member. This hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Conservation, Energy, and Forestry is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned]. 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

63 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY CHRIS JAHN, PRESIDENT, THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE

September 18, 2014 

Hon. GLENN THOMPSON, 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.; 

Hon. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, 

Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry, 

House Committee on Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

Re: Hearing entitled: ‘‘The benefits of promoting soil health in agriculture and rural 

America’’ 

Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Walz: 

The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) is the leading voice of the fertilizer industry, representing the public policy, communication and statistical needs of producers, manufacturers, retailers and transporters of fertilizer. The Institute’s members play a key 

role in producing and distributing vital crop nutrients, such as nitrogen, phosphorus 

and potassium, which are used to replenish soils throughout the United States that 

in turn produce healthy and abundant supplies of food, fiber and fuel. TFI, on behalf 

of its members, appreciates the opportunity that today’s hearing presents for our industry to talk about the important role that fertilizer plays in improving and maintaining soil health. 

The World’s population is predicted to reach 9.4 billion people by 2050. Industry 

experts agree that increased food production will be achieved by intensified crop 

production and not by an expanded arable land base. As a result, commercial fertilizers have a critical role to play in boosting crop production to the levels necessary 

to meet the demands of this rapidly growing world population. Crop nutrients such 

as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and secondary and micronutrients such as calcium, zinc and iron are responsible for between 40 and 60 percent of today’s total 

food production and will be a necessary component in producing nutritious food in 

the most environmentally sensitive manner possible. 

Fertilizer is a Key Contributor to Soil Health 

Fertilizers play an important role in soil health. Research indicates that larger 

crops resulting from balanced crop nutrition significantly benefit soil organic carbon. 

In short, larger crops return a greater amount of carbon to the soil system than 

those limited by poor fertility. Halverson, et al. (1999) noted that increasing soil organic carbon with increasing nitrogen fertilization contributed to improved soil quality and productivity, as well as improved carbon sequestration. Additionally, Chu, 

et al. (2007) evaluated balanced versus nutrient-deficiency fertilization on soil microbial biomass, activity, and bacterial community structure in a long-term (16 years) 

field experiment. Long-term fertilization greatly increased soil microbial biomass 

and dehydrogenase activity. Soil organic matter contributes significantly to soil 

health. Relative to crop nutrition, soil organic matter enhances nutrient cycling by 

acting as a reservoir of nutrients that can be released to the soil under optimum 

conditions. For a high yielding corn production system (250 bu/acre), a soil with 2.5 

percent organic matter could provide 20 percent of the annual recommended nitrogen. The average estimate of available nitrogen, used by agronomist, is 20 pounds 

of available nitrogen for every 1% of organic matter. 

* Halvorson, A.D., C.A. Reule, and R.F. Follett. 1999. Nitrogen fertilization effects 

on soil carbon and nitrogen in a dryland cropping system. SOIL SCI. SOC. AM. 

J. 63:912–917. 

* Chu et al. 2007. Soil microbial biomass, dehydrogenase activity, bacterial community structure in response to long-term fertilizer management. SOIL BIOL. 

BIOCHEM. 39(11): 2971–2976 

4R Nutrient Stewardship 

Meeting global food demand is not enough and the fertilizer industry today is also 

committed to promoting science-based, sustainable fertilizer best management practices that boost crop production while minimizing impacts to the environment. At 

the heart of that commitment is what is known as 4R nutrient stewardship, a 

framework to achieve cropping system goals, such as increased production, inVerDate Mar 15 2010 16:24 Nov 24, 2014 Jkt 041481 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6621 Sfmt 6621 I:\DOCS\113-23\89881.TXT BRIAN
64 

creased farmer profitability, enhanced environmental protection and improved sustainability. 

The 4R nutrient stewardship principles are the same globally, but how they are 

used locally varies depending on field and site specific characteristics such as soil, 

cropping system, management techniques and climate. The scientific principles of 

the 4R framework include: 

Right Source—Ensure a balanced supply of essential nutrients, considering both 

naturally available sources and the characteristics of specific products, in plant 

available forms. 

Right Rate—Assess and make decisions based on soil nutrient supply and plant 

demand. 

Right Time—Assess and make decisions based on the dynamics of crop uptake, 

soil supply, nutrient loss risks, and field operation logistics. 

Right Place—Address root-soil dynamics and nutrient movement, and manage 

spatial variability within the field to meet site-specific crop needs and limit potential losses from the field. 

It is important to stress that all four ‘‘Rs’’ must be used together because there 

is no single practice or ‘‘silver bullet’’ that will prevent nutrients from being lost to 

the environment. 

In 2011, the USDA revised their standard for managing farm nutrients with a 

goal toward employing new technologies to reduce runoff and improve water quality. 

The 4Rs are a component of the Natural Resources Conservation Service Conservation Practice Standard Code 590. For more information on 4R nutrient stewardship, 

I invite you to visit http://www.nutrientstewardship.com. 

4R Research Fund: Demonstrating the Impacts of 4R Nutrient Stewardship 

In addition the 4R nutrient stewardship program, the fertilizer industry has established the 4R Research Fund with the goal of establishing sustainability indicators and environmental impact data for implementation of 4R nutrient stewardship 

across North America. It provides needed resource support with a focus on measuring and documenting the economic, social and environmental impacts of 4R nutrient stewardship. 

Having just completed its first year in existence, to date the fund has granted 

nearly $2.4 million in support of science-based research aimed at addressing cropping system productivity and concerns regarding nutrient losses into the environment. USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), for example, has been awarded 

funds for a project in partnership with Heidelberg University, Ohio State University, The Nature Conservancy and the International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) 

to evaluate the impacts of adopting practices associated with 4R Nutrient Stewardship, as well as the impact of the Western Lake Erie Basin (WLEB) 4R Certification 

program on crop productivity and profitability, water quality, and perceptions of 

growers, nutrient service providers and residents. For additional information on the 

4R Research fund and the list of current projects, I invite you to visit http:// 

www.nutrientstewardship.com/funding. 

Fertilizer Use Efficiency 

Data released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in May 2011, shows that between 1980 and 2010, U.S. farmers increased corn production 87.5 percent while 

using four percent fewer fertilizer nutrients. Although the factors that contribute to 

increasing food prices and food scarcity are complex, one thing is for sure—the use 

of fertilizer is a necessary component in the solution to further increase efficient and 

environmentally sensitive production of food for the world. 

TFI would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit these 

comments for the record. We look forward to continuing to work with you on this 

and other important agriculture issues. If you or your staff would like to discuss 

this letter or the enclosed materials, please contact Clark Mica via e-mail at [Redacted] or telephone at [Redacted]. 

Sincerely, 

CHRIS JAHN, 

President. 


11323040.eps
65 

ATTACHMENT 1 


11323041.eps 11323042.eps
66 

ATTACHMENT 2 


11323043.eps 11323044.eps
67 

SUBMITTED LETTER BY JEFF M. SANDS, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC POLICY, AGRICULTURAL

RETAILERS ASSOCIATION

9/25/2014 

Hon. GLENN THOMPSON, Hon. TIMOTHY J. WALZ, 

Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 

and Forestry, House Committee on Agriculture, 

Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, 

and Forestry, House Committee on 

Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C. 

Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Walz, and distinguished Subcommittee 

Members: 

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA), suppliers to America’s farmers, 

would like to commend the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry for holding the recent hearing entitled ‘‘The Benefits of Soil 

Health in Agriculture and Rural America.’’ The hearing was an appropriate demonstration of oversight on the recently passed Agricultural Act of 2014 and highlighted the importance of an agronomic concept that is rapidly being adopted by 

growers across the country. 

ARA membership is largely comprised of crop input suppliers that provide not 

only the products needed to grow a crop but also the trusted agronomic counseling 

that growers depend on to keep a profitable and sustainable farming operation. It 

would not be an overstatement to say that soil health is at the core of every transaction and interaction that takes place through an ARA member facility. The concepts that serve as the foundation for the soil health movement have been embedded within our agronomy services for some time and we are elated to see Congress 

discuss this important topic. 

An exciting area of opportunity in soil health arose as the hearing proceeded was 

partnerships. Between the recently passed farm bill and the amplified interest in 

improving soil quality, we have seen an incredible uptick in the amount of partnerships between the agriculture industry, government, and conservation-oriented 

groups. A testament to this trend is the recently formed National Working Group 

on Cover Crops and Soil Health that current ARA Chairman, Gary Farrell of Ag 

Enterprise Supply, serves on to promote those very important concepts. Gary also 

helped to create and serves as Co-Chair of the Washington Soil Health Working 

Group but while Gary is a leader, he is certainly not the only agricultural retailer 

to be interested in advancing soil health. 

Partnerships that bring stakeholders together and utilize core competencies of 

each group will be the key to helping the soil health campaign reach ultimate fruition. The membership of the Agricultural Retailers Association, with their depth 

and breadth of agronomic knowledge, experience, and technology, have a great deal 

to offer this cause and would hope to be a source of information to the House Agriculture Committee as you consider this topic further. This subcommittee’s great 

work in crafting the Conservation title of the 2014 Farm Bill has provided ARA 

membership with the opportunity to work closer with USDA and other partners to 

provide growers with the information they need to unlock their soils potential. As 

a result of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and other provisions, we 

are proud to say that our relationships with groups such as the National Association 

of Conservation Districts, Conservation Technology Information Center, and USDA– 

NRCS are the strongest that they have ever been and we are eager to see the work 

product that results from these alliances. 

At a time when agricultural production is crucial to our economy and environmental stewardship is essential to preserving our natural resources, soil health is 

perhaps more timely a topic now than ever before. The Agricultural Retailers Association thanks Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Walz for their dedication 

to this important cause and would encourage committee members and staff to look 

to ARA as an additional resource should you seek more information on soil health 

efforts taking place at the farm gate. 

Thank you for your consideration of our perspective. Should you have any questions, please contact ARA at [Redacted] or [Redacted]. 

68 

JEFF M. SANDS, 

Director of Public Policy, 

Agricultural Retailers Association. 

Æ 


11323045.eps